Call It A Comeback
Conason allows Russert to respond to reader criticism (subscription friday). I think Conason has got it about right. Russert tries to nail everyone, and while he may slip up, but he pretty much gets under everyone’s skin.
Of course, he hates Hillary Clinton, but I’m not to fond of her myself. He could try to hide the visceral reaction though.
Sullivan writes a decent column on Bellafonte until this: “when liberals denigrate the president as a “boy” or as a “sissy,” to quote Maureen Dowd, homophobia doesn’t lurk far behind.”
It isn’t homophobia in relation to the President, it is his lack of seriousness.
The rest of the column makes a good point, and I don’t understand why anyone would denigrate Rice or Powell with such an epithet. Rice on her policies–yes, but not because she doesn’t think for herself. Secondly, thank God for Colin Powell in this administration. Moderates are a good thing in both parties.
(By the way, for those who don’t know it George Will used the phrase recently and I like it a lot)
Tapped addresses the growing cacophony of calling the sniper a terrorist. He may have been, but I think the question is still open. He held some Anti-American views, but it isn’t clear that is his motivation. Terrorism is violence directed at civilians to further political goals. Maybe he had some political goal he was trying to achieve here, but he certainly didn’t make it known. This should come out in the investigation, but it seems he was on some sort of psychotic trip with his statements about being God.
The danger of using terrorism to describe crimes that aren’t terrorism is it debases the language and the debate. If he wasn’t a terrorist we need to know how to respond to such threats given his motivations. If he was a terrorist–even a demented one with no ties, we need to know that too. Most of the garbage being spewed around the net on the subject uses inuendo instead of evidence and is quite Orwellian in how it uses the language to redefine what terrorism is. As TAPPED points out, Andrew Cunane may have terrorized people, but he wasn’t a terrorist.
The Matt Hale disciple who went on a rampage in Illinois and Indiana that included Ricky Byrdsong was a terrorist, if a demented one who also fits the category of spree killer. The Matt Hale disciple example is especially telling in this case. Hale considers himself a white Christian minister and spews hatred towards those of another race. That was clearly an isolated incident of terrorism by a fruitcake acting on his own tied to a small, cultlike religious group. Strangely enough, Matt Hale makes Farakhan seem kinda normal.
911 changed a lot of things. Foremost it changed our ability to reason and rationally evaluate potential risks. Instead of looking at the facts of a situation, many automatically search for a connection to Islamists no matter how tenuous. I fail to see any lesson to learn or behavior to change that is different than what we should have learned from the Matt Hale disciple case (I like keeping Hale’s name in the forefront so people remember who was behind the guy). Can anyone provide me a different lesson to learn?
More and more the form of argument from the one note wonders in blogland is that people who don’t follow their line of reasoning don’t get it. The problem is they can’t coherently argue what it is in this case. What changes if the sniper has a political point of view?
I’m balling like a baby after reading this,
While I often found (I had to correct find three times) myself to the right (not on the right) of Paul Wellstone, only Bill Bradley and Bob Kerrey matched him in integrity and honesty and guts.
There is going to be a rare public vote for the head of the new accounting oversight board. Oxley felt Biggs wasn’t a moderate. How would Jim Leach think? A hell of a lot different.
Actually the vote was taken and Webster won. I guess this is being a uniter and not a divider?
Madigan up 1. This race will probably go down to the last minute. I would argue the most likely outcome is low Republican turnout and a victory for Madigan. The problem is the Illinois State Rifle Association is starting to campaign actively for Birkett. A problem for Madigan? No, a problem for Birkett. The ISRA isn’t nearly as powerful in the state as it is in other states. Illinois is a strong gun control state and Birkett would be better off with the ISRA staying out of it. Birkett has avoided clearly answering how he feels about concealed carry legislation and that is one issue that can cut hard against him in the general.
Rich Miller is predicting a close race. I don’t necessarily disagree with his assessment of Blago or J-Ry, but I think there are a couple differences. Blago isn’t caught up in the same sort of scandal that G-Ry was. Additionally, the Da Mayor and Da Speaker are going all out–Da Speaker for other reasons. While I don’t predict a 20 point win, a 10-15 point win is likely. Predictions and endorsements this weekend.
As John Kass rightly asks, where is Paul Vallas? Unfortunately, here. Philly’s gain, Illinois’ loss.
The Capitol Fax has a story (changes often-no archive and I reprint too much stuff from Rich Miller already–damn that Gary Trudeau) on the House Republican Campaign Committee being essentially broke. Much of the money has been diverted to Hastert’s state PAC to avoid the stench of Daniels’ coming indictment. That being said, it doesn’t look pretty. The bigger problem for the ICFST is that in addition to depressed turnout because the candidates are poor, there is going to be very limited GOTV money. This could easily reach down to the Shimkus-Phelps race and the Treasurer’s race between Dart and Topinka.
Even more fun will be the Illinois Leader’s and other social conservatives piling on the moderates. While they sort of endorsed J-Ry, they are angry and ready to use any excuse to purge the Illinois Republican Party of moderates. The coming defeat is going to provide them an excuse to do just that. It is bad when either party loses its moderates. Even worse, the ICFST will no longer be routinely competitive if they follow the path they seem ready to embrace. Home Schooling, creationism and abortion does not make a successful party.
Keep Rauschenberger in the Senate. He is organizing (with Hastert) money to Tier II candidates and as a principled conservative has been a voice of fiscal responsibility. He is far too socially conservative for me, but he provides a responsible check on spending in a state addicted to it.
It is pretty simple actually, they refuse to try. Bullock just got the Chicago Tribune Endorsement over Stoger, but the ICFST hasn’t supported him. First step in wooing voters–ask for their support.
ArchPundit