Month: February 2006

A funny initiative in Ohio: a bill designed to prevent Republicans from adopting kids. Children brought up in such households, according to "credible research," tend to exhibit

"emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

It’s absurd, of course. But no more absurd than the empirically baseless claims that kids brought up by gay parents are somehow at a disadvantage.

"Toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has ended his hunger strike on health grounds," – the Scotsman.

If you haven’t seen this video of an autistic kid creating complete and miraculous mayhem at a school basketball game, then watch it now. It will make your day.

It appears that Iraq’s elites may be pulling back from the brink. Zalmay Khalilzad has another mountain to climb – but, this time, the minds of his interlocutors might have been concentrated a little. We may be at the most critical juncture in the future of Iraq. The whole enterprise may now hang in the balance. Khalilzad suffers from a disadvantage, alas, that he can do nothing about. He is a Sunni. However agile and able he is, this identity in part hinders him. Could he in any way be helped broker a deal?

So here’s a thought: why not send Bill Clinton? For some reason that eludes my own judgment, Clinton has a great deal of cachet in the Middle East, and could defuse the anti-Bush and thereby anti-American obstacles to success. He was, by all accounts, superb at the Doha/Brookings/Saban summit in 2003. He would bring the Democratic party into a much more constructive role in trying to bring about a serious step forward for Iraq, and help unite the country at home. If Bush were to ask him, it would send a very powerful message of seriousness to the Middle East, put more of America’s prestige and effort behind the Iraq project, at exactly the time some in the country are doubting our fortitude.

And what else is the job at hand in Iraq if not some very tricky form of triangulation? And who comes to mind when you think of someone slick and charismatic enough to bring such a triangulation off? Yes, I know, I know. He failed at Taba and in the Oslo process (but that was largely Arafat’s fault). He has been a craven wuss on the Danish cartoon controversy. But that paradoxically gives him more cred with some of the forces we need to bring on board. Whatever you think about him – and I am no fan – Clinton is nonetheless an immense talent and national resource; and this is a time of immense danger and opportunity for the country. Moreover, one of President Bush’s main failures in this war has been in uniting the country around his Middle East policy. Picking Clinton would be magnanimous and paradigm-changing – at home and in Iraq. It’s time for a dramatic gesture – and one that would also bring Europe muchy more fully on board. Why not? Be bold, Mr President.

The pundit adds star power to a political fundraiser. It’s important to realize that Sean Hannity isn’t just a conservative; he’s part of the Republican party apparatus. I hope guests on his show will properly identify him in future.

Why did the movie do better in the heartland than expected? My take here. I guess, after a few pedantic emails, I should address my description of Whitman as a man of the heartland. I am well aware that he spent much of his life on Long Island and in Brooklyn. But he also traveled widely, spent time in New Orleans, visited the Civil War battlefields, journeyed through St Louis and Chicago. His poetry is redolent with the wildernesses of the American frontier; and Long Island in the mid nineteenth century was not exactly what we would now think of as "blue state." That’s my point.

Ramesh Ponnuru accuses me of doing a "lousy job of presenting [my] opponents’ views accurately" and is worried that "that there are people who believe a word that Andrew Sullivan writes." This is a preposterous swipe. In the item he refers to, I stumbled across a quote from Robert P. George that seemed to make him indifferent to the murder of abortionists. I track down the source of the quote, provide the full context (which the original piece didn’t), acknowledge that George is being "funny" and "clever", link to George’s full article, and ensure that readers know that the author of the hit piece has a bias. I note how most of the other contributors to the colloquium unequivocally condemn the murder of abortionists, while George takes a different tack. How is that in any way a form of deception or inaccurate? Ponnuru links to two other statements by George, neither of which deal with his view of those who murder abortionists, except a prudential argument that charging them with first degree murder might be unnecessary. Ponnuru is unable to point to a single inaccuracy or example of unfairness in my post. But when you expose what some of these social conservatives actually believe – George, for example, thinks that the government has, in principle, an interest in legally preventing masturbation – they scream blue murder. Scream away.

I couldn’t put it better myself. The lefty at ThinkProgress asks:

"Another question: Mr. Kristol, if the administration‚Äôs policy in Iraq the last three years has not been a ‘serious effort’ why have you spent the last three years defending it?"

He obviously hasn’t read much of Bill over the last three years. Kristol’s distaste for the worst-of-all-worlds combination of neoconservative idealism being implemented by a pig-headed realist like Rumsfeld has been evident for a very long time. He’s just a lot more diplomatic than I am. But, then, most people are.

"One of the things that I firmly believe in life is that success is more dangerous than near failure. Because when you fear failure, you’re hungrier, you’re tougher, you’re smarter, you make more strategic decisions, and you never take a moment for granted," – Ken Mehlman, GOP chairman, referring to the Florida recount experience. Now if only this attitude could have prevailed in the management of post-invasion Iraq. Priorities, priorities…

The backlash is palpable, after the Samarra blasphemy. Below are some photos from a London rally yesterday that attracted over 5,000 people. I’m at a loss as to why it hasn’t received more coverage. Here’s one report. More photos here.