Month: September 2004

It gets worse. According to Kathryn-Jean Lopez of National Review, this morning on Good Morning America, John Kerry blamed his “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” gaffe on being tired at the end of a long day campaigning. But the record shows he said it at a noontime gathering. Trivial, I know. But if you’re a Democrat, this kind of stuff must drive you up the wall. I do think Kerry needs to pummel Bush Thursday night on Iraq; but I also fear that Kerry’s sheer awfulness as a candidate may do him in. I mean, Al Gore is more likable. Last time around, after just a few minutes of the first Bush-Gore debate, I turned to a friend and said that Bush had won. However well Kerry does on points, I have a feeling the same may be true Thursday night.

THE PRESS AS ENABLERS: Did NYT reporters tip off an Islamic “charity”? This story makes Mary Mapes seem positively above board. But the Times disputes it.

A GOP GAFFE: Here’s a story that reveals something. In the South Carolina Senate primary, a top aide to the Republican candidate, Jim Demint, sent out an email by mistake:

Lisa Hall, chairwoman of the Central Savannah River Area Rainbow Alliance, which works to raise awareness of gay and lesbian issues, in July invited both Senate campaigns to an Oct. 7 town hall meeting to discuss issues of interest to gay voters. Democratic nominee Inez Tenenbaum promptly promised to send a representative, but after receiving no reply from the DeMint campaign, Hall sent a follow-up e-mail Monday. Allen, apparently thinking she was forwarding the e-mail to someone inside the campaign, inadvertently replied to Hall. “Come on, fag, give this dike a reply,” Allen wrote.

Allen will merely be reprimanded. She wrote that email expecting this kind of joke to be understood and accepted within the campaign structure. Now ask yourself: if a top aide had written an email that contained the words “ni**er” or “k*ke” or “sp*c,” what would the consequences be?

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Blair was eloquent, yes. And Iraq is indeed a key front–now–mainly because it is where we happen to have our troops. But it is plain that the battle should not have been carried to that front when it was, and we will be less safe in the years to come as a result. Blair’s eloquence can’t hide the evidence that Bush was intent before 9/11 on hitting Iraq at the earliest opportunity, and it is this that fuels the suspicions of an unwise diversion from the task at hand. Please, let’s not boil the issue down to who can most impressively stick out his chest and issue the most persuasive histrionics about “resolve.” This position reminds me of where Hannah Arendt quotes Rene Char about what he missed from his days in the Resistance–“the clarity”–except that now we have people rushing for the soothing balm of clarity–and falling in behind a leader who is drunk on it–when it is unwarranted by the complicated situation in front of us.”

The NYT somewhat misrepresents Tony Blair’s speech to his party conference yesterday, arguing in a headline that the prime minister had offered a partial apology for deposing Saddam. He didn’t. He merely said that he took responsibility for the wrong information that led to the invasion. It was more eloquent and more candid than anything Bush has said. And precisely because it was so candid his defense of the war – now – is more persuasive. He sticks to his view that we are indeed in a global war against Jihadist fanatics who are intent on our obliteration:

If you take [this]view, you don’t believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it. They’re not protesting about the rights of women – what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan’s first ever democratic ballot, though four million have done so? They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence. They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be. They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents. They know that. That’s why they are there. That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done.

A-frigging-men. Yes, I’ve been alarmed at the gross mismanagement of the war; and I do not believe it helps our effort to minimize or ignore it. But Blair reminds us why this current struggle in Iraq is indeed a critical struggle in the war. The reason, I think, that George W. Bush is now ahead is simply because he reminded people in New York City that this is indeed the struggle; and because people don’t believe Kerry has the will and steadiness to win it. To put it bluntly, I don’t believe Iraq is a “diversion” from the war on terror; I believe it’s the central front. If you share this view, Blair’s view, it’s extremely hard to support Kerry.

THE UN-KERRY: And Blair’s indirect rebuff to the senator from Massachusetts is clear enough. Here it is:

When I hear people say: “I want the old Tony Blair back, the one who cares”, I tell you something. I don’t think as a human being, as a family man, I’ve changed at all. But I have changed as a leader. I have come to realise that caring in politics isn’t really about “caring”. It’s about doing what you think is right and sticking to it. So I do not minimise whatever differences some of you have with me over Iraq and the only healing can come from understanding that the decision, whether agreed with or not, was taken because I believe, genuinely, Britain’s future security depends on it. There has been no third way, this time. Believe me, I’ve looked for it.

To all those on the left who seem to have forgotten that in this war against Islamo-fascism there is indeed no third way, take a look at Blair’s speech. Social justice means nothing if we are obliterated by a dirty bomb, nothing if we see our freedoms destroyed by an Islamic religious right with WMDs. And it is obscene for some people who claim to believe in progressive ideas to be finding indirect solace from the acts of Jihadist thugs. Hitch is dead-on in this respect. Bush deserves to be scolded for his arrogance, his divisiveness, and his incompetence. But not for his fundamental judgment about the world we live in. There, he’s right. And Kerry’s wrong. And that, in the end, may be all that matters.

Two differing versions – naturally – over at Volokh.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I have just read your piece on ‘outing’ in the TNR. As a gay man who recently ‘came out’ in his late fifties and who is well acquainted with the ‘psychological torments’ you speak of, I should like to say that I think you are wrong. I suspect that being outed might well – after the initial shock – come in the end to be a relief for people like Congressman Schrock. Honesty in one’s life is important for one’s own mental health.
And honesty in one’s life is also important where the welfare of others is concerned. If Mr Schrock had simply kept his conflicts to himself, then ‘outing’ would definitely be unjustified. But this was not the case: he was actively harming the lives of others, and the hatred he doubtless felt for himself does not justify this, whatever the sympathy one may feel for someone in his situation (and I do feel sympathy).
I share your dislike of ‘Gollum-like’ characters sidling up wanting to know whether one has the ‘goods’ on some unfortunate, but the unpleasantness of such people has little to do with the issue at stake.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

Hugh Hewitt takes a brief swipe at yours truly for calling him a partisan, as if partisanship is a bad thing:

Keep an eye out for the folks slinging around the word “partisan.” It is often a giveaway of hackery of the worst sort — shorthand for an admission of incompetence in the art of argument coupled with an arrogance that say’s the speaker doesn’t feel the need to persuade, just dictate.

Huh? That wasn’t my point. There’s a real case for partisanship in our political system, but it’s not always compatible with being intellectually honest. No one is going to agree with everything one party stands for; and if you’re a writer, it seems to me you should say where you agree and disagree with the party you broadly support. But Hewitt boasts that his website is designed to destroy the power of the Democratic party. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think he has criticized this president once in the past several months. His response might be that of course he hasn’t. The task for him is not thinking and writing what he believes, but writing and promoting anything that helps one party stay in power. He deserves credit for admitting this. But I don’t think he should be swinging the word “hackery” around too much. Do you?

THE MASTURNADERS! Kerry liberals start using flash animation against the overweening bore.

527 SLIME: Two ads – one against Marilyn Musgrave, and one against Kerry – both seem to me to be over the top. Taking minor votes and making them seem like someone’s entire philosophy is classic negative campaigning, but it’s often grotesquely unfair. I don’t think Musgrave opposes helping our troops. I just think she’s a crazed fundamentalist. Ditto Gary Bauer’s latest ad saying that John Kerry has not opposed marriage rights for gay couples. You’d think from the ad that Kerry has backed equal rights. No such luck. The lesson for Democrats is that the far right will slime you on gays whatever you do or say. People like Bauer have few scruples in this respect. So why not stand up for what’s right?

Great email here:

I grew up in the punk rock music scene of my town, putting on all ages shows, playing in a band, etc. I feel like more and more, I see parallels between the punk movement which moved from fringe to mainstream and the blogger movement which seems to have taken more of the main stage. Let me elaborate.

Early punk music (being from England, you may have even more perspective than me on this) seemed to be largely rooted in a real social movement by an underclass who were not so much interested in creating “traditional” pop music as they were interested in speaking back at those who were controlling ideas in society. And punk rock was a relatively unrespected genre that was cast as a group that was not to be taken seriously, despite the implications the scene was having on large numbers of followers.

Similarly, bloggers seem to have started off on the same foot, initially operating as a subculture intent on delivering what was not felt to be delivered in the mainstream (primarily by the Big Media), but collectively gathering steam as loyal followers caught on to the movement. As with punk, blogging seems to have now reaching a more critical point were, like punk music, it’s crossing the line of being accepted by large groups of people, yet the forces that be continue to do everything in their power to discredit blogging as viable.

Actually, all of this up until now is more background to what I am getting at. It seems now that the bigger blogs are really gaining momentum and making a profound influence on journalism and how people are getting information, they are also simultaneously inheriting many of the same bad habits of the Big Media that they purport to be fighting against. The Dan Rather story is a good example. It seems that after contributing greatly to bringing the truth of the story to light, that bloggers would look back and reflect upon the success of the blogger movement, note its implications on Big Journalism, and then move on.

However, continually reading the self-congratulatory slaps on the back that many bloggers are giving each other in a neverending blogger love-fest only makes me think about my local news affiliate that brags for months afterwards that it was the first local network to break the mayor’s sex scandal. In other words, the constant self-validation reminds me a lot of some of things I hate about bigger media. I can only wonder if this is a gateway to lead to even worse habits that bloggers will pick up as they make even more of an influence on the mainstream media and on information gathering in general.

Yep. Let’s cut some of the hubris here, shall we?

My case now posted at TNR.com.

The exit of Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran and the elevation of a pro-marriage rights rival suggest a real moment in the battle over marriage rights. What it means is that it’s unlikely now that the establishment of such rights will be overturned by a state constitutional convention or amendment. Money quote from the Globe:

“It is pretty much over,” said Senate minority leader Brian P. Lees, a Springfield Republican who cosponsored the amendment with Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini. The House and Senate, sitting in a constitutional convention, must vote a second time in the next session before it could go to the voters on the 2006 ballot.
“In fact, there will be a question as to whether the issue will come up at all,” Lees said. He said the issue has faded to the “back burners of Massachusetts politics,” because few problems have surfaced with the implementation of the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage.
“With the fact the law has been in effect for a number of months and with the change in the House leadership, it would appear any change in the constitution to ban marriage is quickly fading,” Lees said.

The real reason is that the change has become a non-event. The relatively small number of marriages for same-sex couples has barely made a dent in the social fabric and the upheaval of a constitutional amendment seems to many too big a deal for such a minor social change. Still, I hope the amendment moves forward. I would love to see a democratic majority back equality under the law, and I think that will happen in Massachusetts.

A new book says so. The key is the way in which these murderous theocrats are now killing more Muslims than infidels. Would any sane Muslim want to live in Falluja? Money quote:

“The principal goal of terrorism – to seize power in Muslim countries through mobilization of populations galvanized by jihad’s sheer audacity – has not been realized,” Kepel writes. In fact, bin Laden’s followers are losing ground: The Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been toppled; the fence-sitting semi-Islamist regime in Saudi Arabia has taken sides more strongly with the West; Islamists in Sudan and Libya are in retreat; and the plight of the Palestinians has never been more dire. And Baghdad, the traditional seat of the Muslim caliphs, is under foreign occupation. Not what you would call a successful jihad.

You can buy the book here.

“The whole art of war consists in a well-reasoned and extremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious attack.” – Napoleon, quoted by Karl Rove in a memo to a candidate in a campaign in 1986. “Compassionate conservatism,” meet the Swift Boat Vets.

HOW ROVE OPERATES: Josh Green’s new piece in the Atlantic is a must-read for anyone trying to understand this campaign. It’s a thorough investigation of Karl Rove’s record of smearing, sliming and demagoguing to win elections, as well as a respectful analysis of Rove’s indisputable political skills. I was struck by one anecdote about how Rove tried to destroy one of his opponents:

[Alabama Supreme Court Justice, Mark] Kennedy had spent years on the bench as a juvenile and family-court judge, during which time he had developed a strong interest in aiding abused children. In the early 1980s he had helped to start the Children’s Trust Fund of Alabama, and he later established the Corporate Foundation for Children, a private, nonprofit organization. At the time of the race he had just served a term as president of the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect. One of Rove’s signature tactics is to attack an opponent on the very front that seems unassailable. Kennedy was no exception.
Some of Kennedy’s campaign commercials touted his volunteer work, including one that showed him holding hands with children. “We were trying to counter the positives from that ad,” a former Rove staffer told me, explaining that some within the See camp initiated a whisper campaign that Kennedy was a pedophile. “It was our standard practice to use the University of Alabama Law School to disseminate whisper-campaign information,” the staffer went on. “That was a major device we used for the transmission of this stuff. The students at the law school are from all over the state, and that’s one of the ways that Karl got the information out – he knew the law students would take it back to their home towns and it would get out.” This would create the impression that the lie was in fact common knowledge across the state. “What Rove does,” says Joe Perkins, “is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship. Mark is not your typical Alabama macho, beer-drinkin’, tobacco-chewin’, pickup-drivin’ kind of guy. He is a small, well-groomed, well-educated family man, and what they tried to do was make him look like a homosexual pedophile. That was really, really hard to take.”

Mark Kennedy, despite having fended off Rove’s attacks, decided not to seek re-election to Alabama’s Supreme Court. Who can blame him?

POSEUR ALERT: “Pop musicians live in a world of symbology. You live and die by the symbol in many ways. You serve at the behest of the audiance’s imagination. It’s a complicated relationship. So you’re asking people to welcome the complexity in the interest of fuller and more honest communication.” – Bruce Springsteen, Rolling Stone.

Another account of nutty left-wing relativism – at Duke.

BUSH’S CONSERVATISM: The emergence of debt-ridden, big-government conservatism is perhaps the real innovation of the first Bush term. I used to be surprised. But, of course, much of his base is socially conservative and fiscally liberal: the red states have been draining the resources of the blue states for a very long time. A new study reveals just how welfarist much of Middle America is.

ANKLE-BITERS?? I thought it was a gay slur at first (hey, I can bite my own ankles!) but then I realized it was just another pissy MSM guy mad that more people read blogs than technology columns in Newsweek. But Levy’s point isn’t crazy. Yes, there are blogs that trade on invective and hysteria and gotchaism. And there are others that don’t. In other words, it’s time to drop the idea that the blogosphere is in any way homogeneous – in form, content, style or authorship. Right now, for example, this blog is one of very few that have openly swung from one candidate to indecision. I know I’ve lost some die-hard Bushite readers, but I’m not good at lying. Besides, I’ve always believed that losing readers is a good sign that you’re committing journalism. But I can already feel my incentives shifting. As you can see, I’ve signed up for Blogads – the wonderful collective ad machine that will soon provide a real revenue stream for this site. (Please advertize! See the ad strip on the left.) But suddenly I have a financial incentive to gain big reader bumps. Should I start outing people? Should I mainline the Swiftboat vets? Rathergate-all-the-time? Piss ’em off at Free Republic or Daily Kos? Endorse Bush? The temptations abound. So keep me honest, will you? Let me know if I’m delivering what you’re looking for, and I’ll do something to change it.

IRAQ AND BUSH: Here’s a disconcerting analysis of the disconnect between what just came out of the president’s mouth and something called reality.

ANOTHER ONE: Here’s yet another anti-gay crusader whose own daughter is gay: Sadie Fields, state chair of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, who pushed the constitutional ban on gay marriage through Georgia’s General Assembly earlier this year. So two chief campaigners against gay equality in two big states, California (Pete Knight) and Georgia, have gay offspring. My favorite example (apart from Phylis Schlafly) is Charles Socarides, the chief advocate of “reparative therapy” for gays, whose main contribution to the literature (see my book, “Love Undetectable”) was to argue that fathers are to “blame” for gays sons. Yep, his own son is gay. Actually, the son, Richard, was the Clinton administration’s liaison to the gay community!