Category: The Dish

Michael Tomasky has a hit-piece in the American Prospect. Except it might actually endear Giuliani to the base. Money quote:

When Giuliani was mayor, did he really believe in abortion rights and gay rights and strict gun-control laws and very liberal immigration policy? "That’s a very, very tough question," says David Garth, the legendary New York political consultant who handled Giuliani’s 1993 and ’97 mayoral races. "My feeling was, the positions he took, he felt them. Whether he really felt them, if you know what I mean … I don’t know."

Mitchell Moss, the New York University professor and longtime municipal politics savant (and occasional adviser to Mayor Mike Bloomberg), paused when I asked him the question and delivered almost the exact same answer: "That’s a very interesting question." Moss sensed that of the four issues mentioned above, immigration was the one Giuliani believed in more than the others. Indeed, his position was one that many Democrats, let alone Republicans, would have trouble with: He prevented city employees from contacting the federal government when they turned up immigrants with no legal documentation, and he fought for his position in federal court.

That’s two veteran Rudy-watchers, neither of whom can say for sure that he meant it. I’m a third, and I can say it more bluntly: He did what he needed to do to attain and maintain power.

(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty.)

You can imagine the fury and scorn directed by Frank Rich at anyone associated with rampant anti-gay, anti-woman and racist commentary on the right. But his good old liberal friend, Don Imus? We have the following profile in courage:

"I’ll have to wait and see how it plays out," he said. What would affect that decision? "How (Imus) comports himself and how the show shakes (out) when he gets back." … "I’m not convinced he is a misogynist, racist guy," the columnist said…

Ultimately, Rich said he wanted reserve judgment until he had to make a decision about returning to the show: "I will decide when the question is asked." He stressed he was uneasy about dealing in a "hypothetical" situation.

Sounds like Newt Gingrich, right? Or one of the White House spokesmen Rich makes a living deriding for not being candid. Here’s the kicker:

"If this is the pattern of the show, no one will want to appear" on it again.

If? These moments are so revealing, aren’t they?

Some constructive advice:

Troops on the ground who see inaccurate reports about their operations should contact the media outlets in question and demand corrections—or take other steps to publicize the facts as they know them. In short: stop griping about the press in private and start doing something about it in public.

About time.

A glimpse:

A Pulitzer Prize-winning war photographer is seized by U.S. Forces and locked up for one year. The U.S. refuses to bring any charges. When American military spokesmen suggest their "suspicions" in interviews with the media, virtually all of them are exposed as false within a matter of weeks. No matter. He is still held.

And we know  Cheney’s official response to those of us who dissent. We can go fuck ourselves.

He’s in a tough spot, and I think he’s as good a columnist as there is out there. I’m more convinced than he is that Iraq is beyond salvage – or rather beyond the West’s salvage. Others are not so happy with his McCain column. In order of magnitude: Wrong. Still Wrong. And a money quote:

Does Brooks really believe that a candidate currently evaluating the war in Iraq without sufficiently considering the needs or desires of the Iraqi people is either mature or substantive on the Middle East? Moreover, can Brooks really believe that an individual capable of such serious myopia wouldn’t absolutely wreck the region? An inattention to Iraqi opinions and decisions, at this point in the war, should be disqualifying for participants in the debate.

A professional guide.

They drive! And they know better. But like many doctors, they think they know best.

A reader writes:

Your post reminded me of a joke which was ubiquitous in Russia when I started working with refuseniks in the early 1980’s.  It would usually be whispered after furtive glances to the left and right:

"So, comrades, we know that capitalism is the stage that follows mercantilism, that socialism is the stage that follows capitalism, and that communism is the stage that follows socialism.  But what is the stage that follows communism?"  "Answer: alcoholism."

It’s the truly conservative response to an emerging problem. It’s simple, involves as little government bureaucracy as possible, and will unleash the private sector to do its magic. Neither Democrats nor Republicans really want to go there, which is a sign of how broken the system is. But Steve Chapman is absolutely right: we need a simple, effective carbon tax. Now.