Category: Old Dish

“Simply put, Edwards is one of the most talented political speakers I’ve ever seen-on nights like last night, Clinton-level. He has a way of turning a hall into a courtroom, completely engaging with the audience as if they were members of a jury. He uses his hands to express himself so vividly that it looks like he’s doing his own simultaneous translation into American Sign Language. Edwards may not have the foreign policy background of a Kerry or a Clark (and his speech was notably thin on that subject), but he has something that may be much more valuable: a genuine affinity for ordinary people.” – Jake Weisberg, taking a short break from skiiing, in Slate.

CHURCHILL’S PARROT: It may be too good a story to be true. Damn.

THE REMARKABLE JACK STRAW: Don’t miss Jay Nordlinger’s wonderful vignette of the British foreign secretary at Davos.

The boyfriend urges me to listen to “Wing” singing ‘Close To You’ by the Carpenters. Oh my God.

The New Republic has its doubts.

LOG CABIN WON’T ENDORSE: The gay Republican group will not endorse president Bush after his pandering to the far right in his State of the Union. Charlie Francis of the Republican Unity Coalition suspends judgment – for now. Good for LCR. Their new leader, Patrick Guerrerio, is one of the most decent and skilled political leaders I know. He will take some flak for this, but it matters. The president must know that dressing up discrimination in “tolerant” language is still discrimination. CORRECTION: The NYT got it wrong. Imagine that! LCR has not yet decided whether to endorse the president or not.

Well, I’ve never tried to please everyone with this blog but the torrent of abuse and mockery yesterday because of my criticisms of the SOTU caused me a little grief. According to many Republicans, I’m selling out to the “hard left.” According to some Democrats, I’ve finally seen the light, ha, ha, ha. How about applying principles to changing events and circumstances? It says something about what has happened to the Republican party that supporting fiscal responsibility is now the position of the “hard left.” And it says something about some Democrats that you either have to hate this president or love him unconditionally. Why can’t a grown-up have a complicated position? I’m a fiscal conservative, social/cultural liberal and foreign policy hawk. Neither party provides a comfortable home for people like me. I supported Clinton in 1992, backed Dole on moral grounds in 96 and opposed impeachment. I backed Bush (narrowly) in 2000. The war made my support for Bush stronger than I ever expected. I still admire his courage during that terrible time and respect his tenacity against terror. This time, I’m leaning toward Bush for those reasons but appalled by his fiscal recklessness, worried by his coziness with the religious far right, and concerned that he has no forward strategy in the war. I’m equally concerned about the obvious irresponsibility of the Democrats on national security (and spending) at a time of great peril. But at least they’re not going to bait gays and nominate judges like Frank Pickering. So I’m stuck, and trying to figure things out as I go along. Hence my attempt to look at the Democratic candidates as possible presidents and subject my support for Bush to further scrutiny. Why is that such a crime? Isn’t part of what’s wrong with our politics that this kind of weighing of options has become so taboo? (CORRECTION: That should be Charles Pickering, not Frank. My bad.)

DON’T COUNT DEAN OUT: In money terms, he’s still far ahead of his rivals. Sure, his crazed non-concession speech surely hurt him. But there’s a long way to go. With Kerry surging, Clark fading and Edwards gearing up for South Carolina, it’s a three way race. Why not a Kerry-Edwards ticket? Makes a lot of sense to me.

I’M NOT ALONE: Among other weenie lefties attacking president Bush on spending are a large swathe of conservative Republicans. Here’s what Bush has achieved:

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this month found that Democrats had nearly caught up with Republicans on the question of which party does a better job of controlling government spending. The poll found that 33 percent of respondents said Republicans did a better job, with Democrats at 31 percent.

The voters aren’t dumb. Karl Rove, alas, didn’t even begin to see this coming. It’s hard to put the mess better than this sardonic sound-bite.

WHERE THE WIND IS BLOWING: Matt Welch pans the SOTU and hammers Taranto for calling opposition to the PATRIOT Act the “al Qaeda cheering section.” Glenn shares my feelings about Bush’s domestic drift right now, but is unenthusiastic about the Dems as well. (Personally, I think the best argument for a Democratic president is that divided government tends to do less harm than when the legislative and executive branches are controlled by the same party.) Is the blogosphere turning against Bush? A little, I’d say. The president is in a lot more trouble than he seems to think. His cocky partisanship Tuesday night was unnerving.

DEAN IN A KAFFIYEH: The irrepressible Allahpundit has the last word.

ISLAMIC ADULTERY: Yes, you can even get an ayatollah’s blessing for it, if you call it a “temporary” or “pleasure” marriage. Riverbend blog is worried about creeping Islamism in Iraq. She should be. Oh, and want to know what Ayatollah Sistani really thinks? He has his own webpage!

A new ABC poll shows clear public opposition to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The margin is 58 percent opposed to 38 percent in favor. Some of the responses depend on the question asked. But under no wording does support for an amendment go much above 55 percent – nowhere near the level of support needed to amend the founding document. Now we know why Bush is so cagy. As to equal marriage rights as a separate issue, the public opposes them – but by the lowest margin I can remember: 55 to 41 percent. Among the under-30s, there’s support in the region of 55 to 42 percent. Around a quarter of Republicans support equal marriage rights. When I look back on the last decade and a half of debating this (and, personally, I’ve always focused on public education, not legal suits), this is an enormous change. Ten years ago, around 70 percent opposed and 30 percent supported. In ten years of non-stop advocacy, we’ve gained ten points in favor and seen the opposition drop by around 15 points – a net gain of 25 percent. I predict that in ten years time, there will be clear majorities for what is a very minor and humane reform. When public opinion is moving this fast, does it make any sense to enshrine a single position in the Constitution itself?

A DIFFERENT CONSERVATIVE: Here’s a touching obit of a brilliant loner of an intellectual, David Levy, a man who resisted the blandishments of the new left and the easy bromides of conservative ideology. A right-winger who could send a bottle of champagne to Christopher Hitchens in prison (Hitch had been disrupting a speech by far rightist Enoch Powell) and who also spent energy constructing a tropical garden in south London is a man whose passing is worth lamenting.

“At some point, someone is going to have to write an article, or a book, about why the Bush’s have so much trouble winning a second term as President. I expect that W. is not going to win re-election if Kerry can convince enough people that he would responsibly conduct the war on terrorism. At that point, even I (I rooted for Reagan against Ford in 1976 when I was too young to vote) would consider voting for him. I suspect the cause of the Bush failures is that they are chasing votes that they’re never going to get. The resulting run up of spending turns off their conservative base, without gaining them new support elsewhere. Take the prescription drug program. How many senior citizens are going to vote Republican because of this program? None. Senior citizens know that Republicans will never willingly expand the program while Democrats can’t wait to expand it. Anyone who wants prescription drugs is going to vote Democrat in a big way. In the meantime, those who don’t want the government to be expanding welfare programs become dismayed, turned off, and stay home. Same with amnesty for illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants and their families know that their interests will be better served by Democrats who believe in immigration, and not by Republicans who are just pandering. Why would they vote Republican when the Democrats are more likely to follow through on the amnesty promises that Bush makes? In the meantime, those who are adamantly opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants lose interest in giving Bush another term.
The history of the Bush presidencies is full of this, where they actively alienate their natural allies while failing to convert their opponents. Despite the Handicapped Rights act, the Clean Air Act, and the Civil Rights acts that Bush Sr. signed, the Democrat voters couldn’t wait to throw him out and the Republican voters couldn’t see any reason to keep him. I expect the son will imitate the father.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

The source for the BBC’s claim that the case against Saddam’s WMDs had been “sexed up” turns out to have believed the opposite. Scientist David Kelly, who killed himself during the controversy, sided with most other experts in believing that the threat from Saddam was “immediate”:

In the interview Dr Kelly was asked whether there was an “immediate threat” from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. He replied: “Yes there is. Even if they’re not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. So yes, there is a threat.”

The BBC looks worse and worse – but it is to its credit that this revelation came from its own documentary department.

I’ve written a detailed critique at TNR. Here’s the link. But here are some other thoughts. It was the worst Bush SOTU yet. Maybe the occasion wasn’t up to the previous ones. But the speech lacked a real theme; it had only a few good lines (at the beginning, on the war); offered no new vision or any concrete future direction in foreign policy; and revealed complete insouciance toward the deficit and, more importantly, toward those who have not yet benefited from the economic recovery. A pretty bad political misjudgment in my view. To brag about a growing economy without some kind of passage of empathy for those still struggling reveals major political obtuseness. I was also struck by how hard right the president was on social policy. $23 million for drug-testing children in schools? A tirade against steroids? (I’m sure Tom Brady was thrilled by that camera shot.) More public money for religious groups? Abstinence only for prevention of STDs? Whatever else this president is, he is no believer in individuals’ running their own lives without government regulation, control or aid. If you’re a fiscal conservative or a social liberal, this was a speech that succeeded in making you take a second look at the Democrats. I sure am.

Who knows what to make of this passage? Let me fisk it:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization.

The premise here is that allowing gay people to marry is an idea that’s incompatible with valuing the institution of marriage. But that’s the crux of the debate! If this is such an important issue, shouldn’t the president explain why he believes that allowing more people to marry is such an insult to the institution? It’s not a given. And if it is a given, then the president is simply not “respecting individuals” who differ from him. He’s dismissing them as a threat to an institution they merely want to join.

Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under Federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

So does the Defense of Marriage Act stand or does it not? Who knows?

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process.

What constitutional process? A State constitutional amendment? A federal constitutional amendment? The constitutional attempt to remove or elect judges? Again, who knows? And what would the president’s position be if a state’s legislature passed equal marriage rights? There’s a majority in Massachusetts in the polls on such a matter. California has just passed a marriage-in-all-but-name civil union. Would he support a constitutional process to thwart the people’s will as well? Again: who knows?

Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

So why not tighten divorce laws? Or support a new covenant marriage? Or criticize high divorce rates? Nah. Might lose votes.

The outcome of this debate is important – and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God’s sight.

It’s a nice sentiment, and I’m sure the president means well. But if the president really meant it he could have said something else: “The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual – whether gay or straight – has dignity and value in God’s sight.” But the president wants the credit of being tolerant without talking the real talk, let alone walking the real walk. If gay people have dignity and value in God’s sight, why are we unmentionable? Why are we talked about as if we are some kind of untouchable? Why in three years has this president not even been able to say the word ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’? The reason: because Bush will not confront bigotry outright. He wants to benefit from it while finding a formula to distance himself from it. That’s not a moral stand. It’s moral avoidance. Still, the good and important news is that the president hasn’t endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Family Research Council is mad as hell.

AND THEN … : I watched Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle. Good grief. What whining weenies. Back to Bush.