John J. McKay is a grumpy, aging liberal who lives in a small house with his wife, two cats, and a couple thousand books. To comment on anything in archy, send an e-mail.
Steady Leadership in a Time of Change Bush’s first two stunts of the campaign season, the State of the Union and the “Meet the Press” interview, have both been anticlimactic failures. Bush’s Party and supporters might be getting worried, but hey need not be, because he has a slogan!
What does “Steady Leadership in a Time of Change” mean? It really screams of a market test group, doesn’t it?
“Which do you prefer: steady leadership or non-traitorous leadership?”
“Okay. How about: steady leadership or bold leadership?”
“Okay. How about: steady leadership or keen stuff?”
“Okay….”
I hope they’re happy with their slogan. In fact, I hope they are content with their slogan. So content that they consider their work done and go home.
posted by John at 10:42 PM
New and improved conspiracy Since about the time of the French Revolution there has been one inescapable truth in conspiracy literature: if you let a conspiracy buff go long enough, eventually they will discover that it’s all the Freemason’s and the Jews' fault. Usually the Masons work for the Jews: occasionally the Jews work for the Masons. Sometimes the Masons and the Jews work for a far more sinister force (Satan or kitten-eating, extraterrestrial lizard people), but all conspiracies must pass through the narrows of the international Jewish/Masonic conspiracy. Until now.
Twenty-first century American conservatives, intent on proving that they are original thinkers, have discovered a new default source for all evil in the world: the insatiable ambition Hillary Rodham Clinton. Why did Clark run for the Democratic nomination? To make sure there were too many candidates for any one to win the nomination in the primaries, thus assuring a brokered convention, which would then nominate Hillary. Why did Gore endorse Dean? To assure that he would get the nomination, providing the Democrats with an unelectable candidate, thus clearing the way for an unopposed Hillary run in ’08. Why did Drudge’s Kerry sex scandal break at this precise moment? To throw the Democratic field into chaos, thus assuring a brokered convention, which would then nominate Hillary. See how it works?
Of course, it could be that Hillary is secretly a Jewish member of the Eastern Star.
Your tax dollars at work According to Jeralyn Merritt, our government spent twelve million dollars prosecuting Tommy Chong for selling one bong online. This was a paraphernalia bust; no actual drugs were involved. What conceivable justification could the party of fiscal responsibility have for this kind of crap?
Okay, I’m confused I’ve been getting conflicting information on the true foundation stone of American Greatness. Which one was it: The Ten Commandments or Heterosexual Marriage?
Moore says he displays the Ten Commandments in judicial buildings because they are the foundation for America's legal system.
"It is required that this nation acknowledge God's law as its foundation, because both the Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrine those principles," he says.
Rebecca Hagelin, the perky sweetheart of the Heritage Foundation, says it was the latter:
Four activist judges in Massachusetts may have just marked the beginning of the end for America.
How? By destroying the building block of society, and replacing it with nothing more than straw.
To redefine marriage – the very core of what we know as family – is to wreak havoc on every other institution that holds our country together. From the legal system, to interstate commerce, to health care, to your neighborhood, everything would eventually fall apart. Why? Because the nuclear family – starting with the marriage of one man and one woman – is the very foundation of the entire human race and every single civil society since the beginning of time.
Good thing she didn’t engage in hyperbole, because then her editorial might have sucked (I stole that line from Scott Adams).
Until someone clears up which one of these is the true foundation of this Great Nation, I’ll have to keep supporting my evil, liberal false idols of justice, fairness, tolerance, and inclusion (somewhat redundant too, but I didn’t want to leave any principles out for fear of hurting their feelings).
This still doesn’t make sense The U.S. Attorney’s office in Des Moines announced this afternoon that it was withdrawing the grand jury subpoenas issued to the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), Drake University and some peace activists. Because grand juries proceedings are secret, we still don’t know what they were trying to accomplish.
Last Wednesday the U.S. Attorney’s office in Des Moines issued subpoenas demanding a breathtaking amount of information relating to a November 15 antiwar conference at Drake University and a demonstration at the Iowa National Guard Headquarters in Johnston the next day. Twelve protestors were arrested and charged with misdemeanors. Four individual peace activists were summoned before the grand jury.
[Another] subpoena ask[ed] Drake University for all records relating to the November 15 conference, as well as information about leaders of the Drake University chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and the location of Guild offices and any annual reports since 2002 [including membership rolls]. In addition, it asks for "all records of Drake University campus security reflecting any observations made of the November 15, 2003 meeting, including any records of persons in charge or control of the meeting, and any records of attendees of the meeting."
Thursday they slapped a gag order on the University to prevent its employees from discussing the subpoenas.
Rumors flew all weekend. Many assumed that this was some kind of Patriot Act action aimed at intimidating legal dissent. Members of the Iowa congressional delegation expressed concern.
"I don't like the smell of it," said Sen. Tom Harkin, adding that he did not know details of the investigation. "It reminds me too much of Vietnam when war protesters were rounded up, when grand juries were convened to investigate people who were protesting the war." […] Rep. Leonard Boswell, a Des Moines Democrat and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he understands the need for secrecy when dealing with matters of national security.
"However, I am increasingly concerned about Attorney General John Ashcroft's disregard for explaining the actions of the Justice Department to the public,"
Federal officials Monday said a grand jury inquiry involving four peace activists and Drake University is not part of an anti-terrorism investigation.
U.S. Attorney Stephen Patrick O'Meara said late Monday that the investigation focuses on unlawful entry onto military property at Camp Dodge on Nov. 16, and whether plans were laid for that at a conference the day before at Drake.
Suggestions that the investigation is related to the Patriot Act "are not accurate," O'Meara said. ,"
The official story is that it was about a trespassing incident. They just wanted to know if there had been a conspiracy to trespass. For that they needed boxes of records, a half dozen people to appear in person, and a gag order over an entire university. For that they sent out a Sheriff’s Deputy who identified himself as a member of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force to deliver the subpoenas.
From the sound of things, the Iowa groups are not going to let this die down. They want to know what this was all about. So do I.
Food for thought at Gallup According to a new Gallup poll, in a head to head match up Kerry would beat Bush 53% to 46%. Since Kerry will probably be our candidate, this is encouraging news. Though this far out it’s a little early to declare victory. In fact, Gallup’s press release focuses on this:
A review of historical trial-heat data from past elections shows it is rare for an incumbent president to be trailing at this stage in a campaign. At the same time, in the eight elections analyzed here, there have been campaigns in which the incumbent led in February but was defeated for re-election in November. As such, it is hard to draw any inferences as to what Bush's current standing means for his re-election prospects.
…There are comparable data from as far back as 1948 for elections in which an incumbent president was pitted against his eventual challenger in January or February of the election year…. Gallup's historical polling shows it is rare for an incumbent to be trailing any named opponent at this early stage in the election year. The only other time an incumbent trailed his eventual challenger (or, for that matter, any other possible opponent tested) at this stage in the campaign was in 1976, when Democrat Jimmy Carter held a slight edge over incumbent Gerald Ford, 48% to 46%.
Gallup goes on to review all of the elections for which they have comparable data. I’m sure this will be of interest as trivia for history and strategy geeks (I count myself in both groups) to chew over, but I wonder if there is more of interest here.
Gallup says it’s an unusual enough occurrence that they don’t know what to make of it, except that Bush is probably in for a tough race. That in itself is new. We’ve been hearing for months that the popular wartime president is a shoo-in. Is this the beginning of a new “Bush is in trouble” meme? I hope so. Let’s encourage it.
I’m going to throw out a few other possibilities, just for fun. The only other president in the in Gallup’s polling whose incumbency couldn’t give him a lead in head to head match ups at this point in the year was Ford. What do Ford and Bush have in common. Four letter names, not known for their brightness, entered the office in questionable circumstances and faced questions about their legitimacy. Much as I like that idea, I don’t think it explains much; why would everyone suddenly notice his illegitimacy now? I think the explanation has more to do with the way this primary is playing out and the nature of the professional news media.
Gallup describes their comparison as one of match ups at “this early stage in the election year.” But how early is it. Rather than look at the calendar look at the milestones in the election cycle. As far as the process of picking a candidate, this time of year is more like April or so in other election years. The press has lavished attention on this front-loaded season, giving Kerry a tremendous amount of exposure. At the same time Bush has had negative exposure in the way the O’Neil, Kay, and Plame stories have been presented. I think Bush’s long free ride in the press has come to an end. I hope that, in their usual fickle way, the press will try to make up for their previous unbalanced coverage by dumping on Bush for a while. That might be naively optimistic of me, but it beats the alternative.
Noonan on Bush Glancing around the cyberworld, I see pretty much everyone agrees that Bush didn’t look very impressive on Meet the Press. On our side of the aisle Kevin Drum says his performance was "labored and uninteresting....like he was addressing a class of sixth graders." On their side even his most partisan defenders had to wince. Even John Derbyshire says bluntly, “I thought it was a pretty dismal performance.”
Of course that was the first impression. I was sure that the conservative pundits would regroup their forces and explain why Bush’s performance was actually a sign of his superiority. Sure enough, Peggy Noonan comes through for the team.
She starts with a troubled admission: “I am one of those who feel his performance was not impressive.” She admits that it was a softball interview, then slips in a slap at the liberal media, “six million people saw it, and many millions more will see pieces of it, and they will not be the pieces in which Mr. Bush looks good.” This is an important thing to say. By accusing the liberal media of distorting the news to make Bush look bad, even before they get a chance to do it, she assures the faithful that she hasn’t gone over to the other side. Thus assured, they read on looking for the meat.
Before giving the meat to the faithful she digresses to demonstrate to the others who might have come across her column that she will be tough but fair. How better to do this than by expanding her criticism?
The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse. He did not seem prepared. He seemed in some way disconnected from the event.
With that out of the way she can build her real argument.
I never expect Mr. Bush, in interviews, to be Tony Blair: eloquent, in the moment, marshaling facts and arguments with seeming ease and reeling them out with conviction and passion. Mr. Bush is less facile with language, as we all know, less able to march out his facts to fight for him.
I don't think Mr. Bush's supporters expect that of him, or are disappointed when he doesn't give it to them….
Mr. Bush's supporters expect him to do well in speeches, and to inspire them in speeches….They put the bar high for Mr. Bush in speeches, and he clears the bar. But his supporters don't really expect to be inspired by his interviews.
Bush is not Blair. You see, though Tony Blair was Bush’s supporter on Iraq, he’s still a liberal, and a foreign liberal at that. In any comparison, the faithful know that, in all differences, Bush’s way is the better one. Bush is not a facile, fast-talking liberal with a bunch of suspect facts and arguments. He’s a genuine man who’s at his best when he can speak from his heart, with a script prepared by his staff, a teleprompter, and lots of practice.
She pauses here to remind the faithful that the liberal media are going to attack their man. Having been warned, they won’t be tempted not to stand by their man.
The Big Russ interview will not be a big political story in terms of Bush supporters suddenly turning away from their man. But it will be a big political story in terms of the punditocracy and of news producers, who in general don't like Mr. Bush anyway. Pundits will characterize this interview, and press their characterization on history. They will compare it to Teddy Kennedy floundering around with Roger Mudd in 1980 in the interview that helped do in his presidential campaign. News producers will pick Mr. Bush's sleepiest moments to repeat, and will feed their anchors questions for tomorrow morning: "Why did Bush do badly, do you think?"
But now to the meat of her argument, and the meat to the faithful.
But I am thinking there are two kinds of minds in politics. There are those who absorb and repeat their arguments and evidence--their talking points--with vigor, engagement and certainty. And there are those who cannot remember their talking points.
Those who cannot remember their talking points can still succeed as leaders if they give good speeches. Speeches are more important in politics than talking points, as a rule, and are better remembered.
Here it comes. She compares Bush to the sainted, almost-late Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Reagan had a ready wit and lovely humor, but he didn't as a rule give good interviews when he was president. He couldn't remember his talking points. He was a non-talking-point guy.
This is it! The meat! Bush is like Reagan. He’s not like the foreign liberal Blair; he’s like the sainted Reagan. His genius is not in giving mere interviews full of facts and stuff; he gives speeches that connect with real American people. Just like Reagan! And in a moment of stunning humility, she never even mentions that she wrote many of those brilliant Reagan speeches that connected with real American people.
Now she returns her attention to those readers who aren’t part of the faithful (the unfaithful?) and makes a stab at appearing fair and balanced: “John Kerry does good talking points.” Hillary does talking points and Dean screams. It’s not that she doesn’t like talking points. Some of her best friends are talking points. It’s just that talking points are political and not genuine.
Democrats have minds that do it through talking points, and Republicans have minds that do speeches…. And the reason--perhaps--is that Democratic candidates tend to love the game of politics, and Republican candidates often don't. Democrats, because they admire government and seek to be part of it, are inclined to think the truth of life is in policy. How could they not then be engaged by policy talk, and its talking points?
Now she wraps it up and pulls all of these threads together in one triumphant conclusion.
Republicans think politics is something you have to do and that policy is something you have to have to move things forward in line with a philosophy. They like philosophy. But they are bored by policy and hate having to memorize talking points.
Speeches are the vehicle for philosophy. Interviews are the vehicle of policy. Mr. Kerry does talking points and can't give an interesting speech. Mr. Bush can't do talking points and gives speeches full of thought and assertion.
There you have it. Republicans are deep-thinking, sincere, dullards. Democrats are slick, politics-playing, policy wonks. Republicans, speeches, and philosophy are good. And while she won’t say Democrats, interviews, and policy are exactly bad—it wouldn’t be professional for an objective journalist to make a judgment like that—her readers know they are less good (the faithful know they are evil).
archy
