The Dish

Front Page Magazine has an interview with yours truly, if you’re interested.

Just check out both David Brooks’ and Paul Krugman’s columns in the NYT this morning. One actually tries to look at the opposing party empathetically, attempting to understand what’s going on, hoping for the best. The other is pure, demonizing, personal bile. One tries to give others’ motives the benefit of every doubt. The other refuses to do anything but impugn the other side’s motives. Revealing, I’d say.

The hard left has every reason to despise Tom Friedman. He can bring himself to praise the Bush administration from time to time; he’s pro-Israel; he’s an optimist about progress in the Middle East that can accommodate the Jewish state. But this diatribe from Cynthia Cotts at the Village Voice is particularly vicious. She’s offended that Friedman is … religious. A recent prize was donated to … a synagogue! The horror:

In Israel, religion and politics are inseparable. Orthodox Jews have considerable power, and Reform and Conservative groups fight for leverage. While Friedman does not usually identify his arguments as religious ones, he has exhorted moderate Jews to be as passionate as extremists, and he endorsed the war in Iraq, which he casts as a moral imperative… Friedman’s religious beliefs are relevant because they shed light on his political ideology, which he espouses with tremendous authority. In a New York Times column published shortly before Yom Kippur 1997, Friedman called on moderate U.S. Jews to give money to Israel “in a very targeted way,” so that it would not end up in the hands of “ultra-Orthodox elements.” In the same column, Friedman wrote that he had recently turned down an invitation to talk about Arab-Israeli affairs to an “American-Israeli educational institution,” because he was required to end his speech “on an uplifting note.” These days, Friedman routinely bills himself as an optimist. In a recent column addressed to Israeli moderates, he wrote, “We have nothing to lose but our pessimism.” In a speech he gave last fall, he declared, “I am an optimist by nature.” And upon accepting the award last week, he recalled how his editor at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz had praised him, saying, “You’re the only optimist we have.” Asked whether he had ever agreed to give a speech on the condition that he take an optimistic stance, Friedman declined to comment.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? All it amounts to is an attempt to dismiss or undermine Friedman’s views because he’s a religious Jew. Some on the left really are bigots, aren’t they?

If Howard Dean cannot win the anti-war vote, he’s a goner. It’s clear, however, that he has performed a great service for the Democrats. He was the vehicle for their rage; and he helped vent and dissipate it. That’s not to say Bush-hatred has died. The latest WaPo poll shows a higher number of strongly anti-Bush voters – 30 percent – than ever. But the Dems have obviously decided that it’s better to get even rather than mad. Dean’s implosion also strikes me as bad news for Wesley Clark. He was supposed to be the anti-Dean, but adopted Deanish rhetoric. Both positions are now somewhat redundant. The Iowa voters – not exactly centrists – picked Kerry and Edwards to be the anti-Dean candidate, and the shrillness of the Dean-Clark message (the shrillness that so appealed to Paul Krugman) was just as soundly rejected. Good news for the Dems – and the country.

HOW VIABLE IS KERRY? I’m still unpersuaded by John Kerry, although it seems his campaigning has improved markedly. For me, the big winner is Edwards. He’s always struck me as a Tony Blair figure – telegenic, personally appealing, centrist. His speech was the best of the bunch last night – and he exudes decency. That’s enormously important against Bush because the president’s most under-rated political virtue is his general likeability. If Edwards can pick off even a couple of Southern states, he has a critical advantage over his rivals. National security is obviously a huge problem. Maybe he can find a way to innoculate himself on the issue. How does a Kerry-Edwards or Edwards-Kerry ticket sound? In a word: Credible. The Dems don’t want to commit suicide after all. For the record, I’d back Edwards against any of the others currently running.

THAT NYT POLL: A seasoned Republican analyst emailed me this to explain the somewhat dismal polling for the president in Sunday’s NYT poll:

In the most recent Gallup poll, the party ID was 37 percent GOP and 37 percent Democratic. In the AP/Ipsos poll, the party ID was 42 percent GOP and 45 percent Democratic. And in the CBS/NYT poll on Sunday, the party ID was 34 percent GOP and 47 percent Democratic. Is it any wonder the numbers were what they were? This is more evidence, in my judgment, why you shouldn’t trust the NYT polls. (In their last poll, the NYT had a ten-point advantage for Democrats in the party ID.)

That strikes me as a pretty devastating indictment of the polling at the New York Times. Is the skewing deliberate? The Washington Post poll today shows some similar down-draft on domestic policies, but is far more favorable to Bush than the NYT’s analysis. Can we even trust the NYT polls any more? Over to you, Dan Okrent.

IN A PICTURE: Why he lost. Watching his concession speech last night was actually a little disturbing. His sore throat made his voice sound even more like a growl. And he was aggressive beyond belief. Compared to John Edwards’ moving tribute to Dick Gephardt, it was a disgrace.

ANOTHER FALSE ALARM: No blister gas bombs in Iraq. The absence of any WMDs in any usable form in Iraq is, to my mind, staggering. I’m still passionately pro-war, but you cannot sugar-coat this intelligence debacle. The pre-emption doctrine is practically speaking dead.

FIFTH COLUMN WATCH: An Anti-War.com writer pleaded guilty to federal weapons and explosives charges. He was planning to fight for “Muslim causes.”

NOT A DEAD PARROT: Churchill’s pet is still alive – and still using the f-word.

Another boo-boo.

THE DISCREPANCY: Dan Mitchell from the Heritage Foundation explains how the White House numbers for spending conflict with, er, reality:

The Bush Administration is measuring annual changes in budget authority (a form of hypothetical money that indicates how much a certain department or agency has in its hypothetical checkbook) while Heritage – and everyone else – measures annual changes in budget outlays (how much money actually is being spent).
Budget authority, I should mention, is not a fraudulent concept, but it does allow for fraudulent game-playing. You can shift budget authority between fiscal years. You can deliberately reduce budget authority in the short run even though you realize that your outlay trendline makes that untenable. etc, etc.
Outlays are where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. I will gladly defend the WH’s tax policy, but their spending policy is obscene.

Obscenity covered with obfuscation. Tax and spend is bad enough. Spend, borrow and spin is worse.

KERRY ON THE UPSWING: Now, the Concord Monitor is endorsing him.

“To be called an Uncle Tom is an honor. Like our foundational black thinkers, Uncle Tom is often invoked but rarely read. He is not who the Politburo says he is. He was a moral, religious man of dignity and duty who accepted his lot as a slave because he had no choice yet by his behavior transcended it. He was an ancestor of whom to be proud; how has it been overlooked that he chose torture and death rather than inform on two sexually abused female runaways? To follow the Politburo’s anti-intellectual, perverse construction to its logical conclusion, blacks should have cultivated no manners, created no art, pursued no knowledge, expended only the mimimum energy at their tasks, and avoided any kindness or heroism that could not have been confined to the black community. They should have actually been subhuman.” – Debra Dickerson, from her new, stimulating book, “The End of Blackness.”

What a hilarious period for punditry (and I include myself). I don’t know a soul who, only a couple weeks ago, predicted a four-way tie in Iowa. And yet the voters are making their minds up regardless of us media masturbators. What gall! What presumption! We talking heads already dismissed Edwards’ chances (even though, like many other conservatives, I’ve always liked him and his campaign). Mickey even had a contest for the best way for John Kerry to drop out a few weeks back – and now he’s the front-runner! Looking back, I think I made only one truly profound observation. The minute Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean, I instinctively opined that the Dean candidacy was finished. And, sure enough, as soon as Gore touched the Dean campaign, things began to go wrong. I should have trusted my instinct: Al Gore is always political death. Now all we need is to find out whom Johnny Apple thinks will win, and we’ll be all set. C’mon, Johnny. Put us out of our misery.

HOW BUSH COULD LOSE: I’m not sure what to make of the NYT poll yesterday. Obviously, I don’t trust NYT polls. But if this one is at all accurate, it’s grim news for Rove. The strategy of bankrupting the country to appease various interest groups hasn’t worked too well. Bush is still behind on prescription drugs for the elderly – despite a future cost of trillions directed to the wealthiest segment of the population. Despite booming growth and productivity rates, Bush still gets a net negative on the economy. It’s even stevens on Iraq. The president’s only real ace is national security – which, during the war on terror, is a big ace. (It’s certainly the sole reason I’m still giving the president the benefit of the doubt.) But here’s the thing: much of the national security advantage is retroactive. It refers to the admirable way in which Bush responded to 9/11. Looking forward, there’s a big opening for a Democrat who wants to say the following: “I want to do more to improve homeland security, put more emphasis on securing loose nukes in Russia and around the world, stay the course on Iraq – but also move to mend fences with old Europe and our other allies. Domestically, I’m going to improve our finances by raising taxes on the very rich, but cutting taxes on the middle class. And, above all, I’ll be a check on one-party government in the Congress, and prevent Bush from appointing extremists to the Supreme Court.” That’s a powerful message. My hunch is that the Democratic primary voters have begun to realize that they’ve sent their message of anger, but now realize they can win, if they find the right guy. For a cultural liberal, fiscal conservative like me, Bush’s only current advantage over a centrist Democrat is his conduct of the war on terror. What we’ll see in the next few weeks is if the Dems can see this. It’s grim news for Bush if they can.

THE IOWA MOMENT: My take on what the hell is going on.

Even their own political documentary department is saying the BBC went over the line during the post-war in Iraq. D-Day for Blair is January 28, when the Hutton report on his handling of the David Kelly affair will be released.

AXIS OF EVIL WATCH: What on earth is this? And why is it obviously French-driven?

WHY I CAN’T BACK CLARK: In a single picture.

The invaluable Mike Crowley is the first person to explain the surge with any persuasiveness.

THE SPENDING BINGE: Here’s the essential quandary for fiscal conservatives:

On Bush’s watch, the White House says non-military, non-homeland security discretionary spending has fallen from 15 percent to as low as 3 percent. But the conservative Heritage Foundation disputed those estimates calculating that discretionary outlays rose 13 percent in 2002, 12 percent in 2003 and will rise 10 percent in 2004.

That’s a massive discrepancy. If the Congress were in Democratic hands, it might be plausible. The White House could say that it has proposed tighter spending, but that the Congress over-ruled them. But the Republicans control both branches of government! Bush has vetoed not a single spending measure and keeps proposing even more spending. For me, the bottom line is that only divided government can control spending excess. If you’re a fiscal conservative, you’ve got to split the ticket if you want some restraint. The Republicans are no better and arguably worse than the Democrats at stiffing their own special interest groups. So in an era of Republican dominance in Congress, the case for a sane Democrat in the White House is getting stronger.

I’m immensely sorry this site experienced complete meltdown over the last day or so. I’m not a techie, but essentially our server exploded and our server company didn’t have a back-up available and needed to order a spare part, which took a day. 2004 has been jinxed. We’ve had sluggish, slow service for two weeks, then this. And the flu. We haven’t even had any reliable stats since before Christmas. It’s frustrating for you and infuriating for me. We’re working hard to make sure this won’t ever happen again. But there were no dirty tricks and no hacking – just horrible luck and miserable service. I’m sorry again. Stay tuned for what should be a memorable week – from Iowa nail-biting to another array of big spending special interest projects from the president on Tuesday.