# Posted 11:14 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WISCONSIN SWINGS: Captain Ed reports on a new poll that puts Bush ahead in the Badger State. There are also indications that Bush is pulling ahead in Ohio. Finally, El Capitan had this to say about Russia:

In the end, it looks like Beslan will give Putin the excuse to push to his eventual destination just that much faster than before. Spain may have been the first terrorist victory, and the Phillipines the second, but Russia may be the first time their action resulted in the loss of liberty that they hate. Despite Putin's call to work closely with the US on counterterrorism -- assistance that will pay off very well in the years to come -- I can't help but think that Russia will wind up paying a much steeper and more permanent price than Beslan.

Hear, hear.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:16 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CLASSIC HEADLINES: On May 20, 1986, the NYT ran a story on its front page entitled "Pentagon Fears Major War if Latins Sign Peace Accord". It was the most memorable bit of Cold War satire since the immortal exchange from Dr. Strangelove in which the general yells, "There is no fighting in the War Room!"

[CORRECTION: OxBlog should fact check its memory. We are much obliged to NM for pointing out that it was the President in Dr. Strangelove who said "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."]

If you read the story (which I came across while working on my dissertation), the headline sort of made sense. The Pentagon was concerned that the Central American republics, including Nicaragua, would sign a peace treaty that lacked enforcement mechanisms. If so, the Pentagon expected Nicaragua to violate the treaty's disarmament provisions, ultimately provoking a major war in which the United States would have to participate.

While technically accurate, the NYT headline managed to mock the Pentagon's alleged paranoia. Given that Nicaragua was the most controversial foreign policy issue of the day and that a major vote on US policy was approaching in Congress, the White House didn't appreciate the NYT's humor.

In order to understand the Pentagon's thinking, take the Times' headline and substitute 'Churchill' for 'Pentagon' and 'Chamberlain' for 'Latins'. As any student of history knows, a bad treaty can pave the way for an even worse war. While Nicaragua may not have been a threat compared to Nazi Germany, the Pentagon's concerns were hardly unfounded.

This all may seem very distant now, since the Nicaraguan civil war ended in 1990 and Latin America has fallen off the United States' list of global priorities. But there's probably a lesson buried in there somewhere.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:10 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

REAGAN ON GAY MARRIAGE: This is from an interview with the New York Times in March 1986:

Q. Mr. President, can I ask you a New York question? New York City, after considerable debate and controversy, has just approved a bill banning discrimination in housing and jobs for homosexuals. What is your position on that?

The President. Well, I know that this is a very touchy question, and I am one who believes in the rights of the individual -- individual freedom. But I do have to question sometimes whether individual rights are being defended in this particular field, freedom of the individual, or whether they are demanding an acceptance of their particular lifestyle that others of us don't demand. For example, should a teacher in a classroom be invoking their personal habits and
advocating them to their students as a way of life?

Q. Yes.

The President. Teachers habitually don't do that. Their personal life -- --

Q. But this bill, I don't think really covers that. It basically guarantees
to homosexuals equal treatment in hiring policies and gaining housing, these sorts of things. Essentially applies the same antidiscriminatory measures as are applied to blacks, as to women, to other people. Do you think that's all right?

The President. Well, I've said -- but again, I haven't actually involved
myself in what this law contains up there, so I don't know what I'm speaking of. But what I'm saying is that how would we feel if a teacher, male or female, a heterosexual, insisted on the right in the classroom to discuss their sexual preferences and why and whether they believed in complete promiscuity or not? We would be quite offended and think that our children should not be exposed to that.

Reagan's struggle with his own commitment to individual freedom is emblematic of the struggle that is going on within the Republican Party today. Even though the question has changed from jobs to marriage, the logic is the same: If Republicans can't show that treating homosexuals the same as heterosexuals hurts somebody, they will have to tolerate it.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:57 AM by Patrick Belton  

ANNIVERSARY BLOGGING: I have just gotten back from three days of hiking with Rachel in England's Celtic-flavoured west country, to celebrate our second anniversary. Devon is lovely - it adjoins Cornwall, and is the landscape of the Baskervilles' Hound and the relics left behind by the pre-Roman Celts of the Dumnonii (whence Devon; Exeter for its part contracts Isca Dumnoniorum). I thought I might share some of what we came across.




Personally, I feel that the most human attribute is the capacity to feel wonder. Monkeys laugh; pigeons use tools; but the capabilities to sense awe and wonder seem to strike close to the core of what is most uniquely human. It is inherent in the nature of language to shy away from such contact with reality, through imposing layers of words and meanings - thus 'wonder-ful' and 'awe-ful' have become but banalities for rather nice and bad.

There is a Celt appearing in the landscape in several of the pictures, who ought in general be disregarded.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:08 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THOSE SWINGIN' VOTERS: I've been hesitant to jump on the "What went wrong with the Kerry campaign" bandwagon because President Bush has been up in the polls for less than two weeks now.

A month ago, I expected John Kerry to become the 44th President. (Maybe that says more about my ignorance than anything else.) If Kerry pulls even again in the polls, we'll hear about what the Bush campaign did wrong.

This kind of analysis is really just the product of a false hindsight that tends to see the past through the lenses of the immediate present. That said, Kerry's dive in the polls has provoked some interesting analysts from his fellow Democrats.

Responding to Michael Tomasky's argument that Republicans win elections because they just play dirtier, Kevin Drum says that

It's a big mistake for us liberals to kid ourselves into thinking that
Republicans win elections solely because they fool people into voting for them. It's not just that this is a debilitating mental attitude — although it is — but it's also not true. Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is national defense, and on that issue — like it or not — the majority of Americans favor the Republican position.

I agree, but I would add three words to the end of Kevin's sentence: "for the moment". The issue isn't simply that Americans favor the Republican approach, but that Kerry has failed to outline a clear alternative.

But Josh Marshall disagrees. He thinks Kerry should avoid the temptation of trying to explain how he would deal with an impossible situation like Iraq. Rather, Kerry should hammer home one simple point: that George Bush is responsible for creating the impossible situation in Iraq. This is the right way to go because

the key to winning an election is often simply a matter of bringing to the surface of the public consciousness what voters already really know. They know Iraq is a disaster. They know it's President Bush's fault.

But do American voters really "know" that? Consider this headline from last Friday's WaPo:

Polls Suggest War Isn't Hurting Bush: Mounting Deaths in Iraq Have Not Resulted in Major Backlash in Public Opinion

As the Post points out, the current poll results don't reflect the fact that American fatalities have just passed the 1,000 milestone. But I think the analysis behind the article is solid. For quite some time now, I've been critical of journalists who read their own beliefs about the occupation into the results of opinion polls.

In spite of increasing violence, more Americans think the invasion of Iraq was worth it and more American think it has contributed to our national security. Perhaps most importantly, 53% think Bush will handle the situation better, as opposed to 37% for Kerry. In early July, the split was 47-47.

The most recent polls also show that OxBlog got something very wrong in its analysis of previous results. After the 9/11 Commission announced that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam and Al Qaeda, Bush's honesty ratings took a nose dive. OxBlog observed that

The big question now is whether the damage done to Bush's reputation for honesty is permanent... perhaps the impact of the intensive coverage of the Commission's finding will slowly fade during a long, hot summer.

Or perhaps not. My gut feeling says that American voters pay far more attention to a President' personal characteristics than they do to what's happening on the ground half a world away. Bush may recover some of his lost ground, but I suspect that a significant amount of the damage will be permanent.

Oh how wrong I was. Take a look at the answers to question 14a in the new WaPo-ABC poll. 48% say Bush is honest and trustworthy while only 35% say the same about Kerry. In late June, only 39% said Bush was honest while 52%said the same about Kerry.

What is going on here? You might say it's the Swift Vets, but I don't buy it. My best guess is that the Republicans' relentless hammering away at Kerry's flip-flop on the war has persuaded voters that he can't be trusted. As for Iraq, I don't think that the handover fooled anyone or that there has been insufficient coverage of the recent violence.

But maybe Josh Marshall really is right. Kerry hasn't focused on the failures of the occupation, even though he talks about bringing the troops home. In fact, Kerry's decision to rail against Bush for "opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America" suggests that the President really is doing his best to deal with the situation in Iraq.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:36 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OXBLOG FORGED THIS POST: I haven't followed this whole CBS thing all that much, but figured that I ought to weigh in now that I've come up with a snappy headline for my post.

I'm also weighing in now because it seems like an easy call. Why? Because:

A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.

The big question now is whether the WaPo will put it on the front page when CBS finally admits it was swindled. (By whom? And why?)

The apparent lesson of this whole story is that Rather & Co. were so desperate to shift the focus from Kerry's military record to Bush's that they went public without fact-checking their story first.

The irony, of course, is that Rather & Co. were so angered by the Swift Vets' unfounded allegations that they decided to fire back with unfounded accusation of their own.

Yet whereas the Swift Vets acknowledged their ideological and partisan motives, Rather operated from behind a veil of objectivity. Whereas the Swift Vets had to wait months before getting publicity for their work, Rather & Co. had immediate access to an audience of millions (plus front page coverage in the next morning's papers).

If Rather didn't already have a reputation as the most liberal of the network anchors, I might be inclined to write this episode off as an unavoidable low point in an otherwise impressive career. But I just don't have that much faith in Dan Rather.

On the other hand, it's sort of interesting how much interest the blogosphere has shown in Rather's work given that none of us seem to watch CBS on a regular basis. After all, how many posts do you see that begin with "Last night on CBS..."?

However, there are still 10 million Americans watching each of the networks nightly broadcasts -- a total audience of 30 million. And if the blogosphre's raison d'etre is to factcheck big media, shouldn't we be watching what other people actually watch?

Probably. But it's just so boring. Television takes a lot of time to present very little information. It entertains but doesn't inform. Well, there are three of us on this website, so maybe we could take turns watching...or if the Volokh Conspirators each gave 30 minutes of their time, they could watch Brokaw, Jennings and Rather every night of the week!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:06 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WE ARE LOSING THE WAR ON TERROR. In the name of security, we deprive our citizens of their constitutional rights. In the name of democracy, we enforce a hostile occupation. In the name of human rights, we brutalize countless prisoners. And day by day, our soldiers get shot down one by one in the futile hope of winning a war we never should have started.

That is what I would say to Vladimir Putin if I were a Russian citizen. Putin's war on terror is a sick and perverted mirror image of America's just cause. In the aftermath of Chechen terrorists' horrific attack on the children of Beslan, we stood as one with the Russian people. And now we must stand with the Russian people against the government whose authoritarian deception and incompetence has left them increasingly to terrorist attacks.

In the Washington Post, Russia expert and democracy promotion advocate Michael McFaul writes that

Putin needs to reevaluate not only his strategy for fighting terrorism, but also his plan for building a strong and effective state...

Each of Putin's political changes increased the power of the Kremlin and decreased the power of other political actors and institutions. The
restructuring has not produced a more effective state, but a weak, corrupt and unaccountable regime: authoritarianism without authority...

Beslan is the most horrific terrorist attack in Russia but not the first.
The list of victims is as long as it is shocking: More than 300 died in
apartment bombings in Moscow and two other cities in the fall of 1999; 120 hostages died in the standoff at the Moscow theater; more than 270 people, including the Kremlin-backed president of Chechnya, Akhmad Kadyrov, died in eight incidents between December 2002 and May 2004. In June, 92 were killed at a police station. On Aug. 24 two passenger jets exploded, killing 89, and 10 more died on Aug. 31 when a suicide bomber struck outside a subway station in Moscow...

Over the last four years, Putin's advisers have explained the rollback of democratic practices as part of a trade -- less freedom for more security. But Putin has not delivered on his part of this deal, as Russians now have less freedom but no more security.

Imagine our response in the United States if Al Qaeda continued to launch attack after attack while the Bush administration did nothing more than shut down the New York Times and CBS. That is the only way to understand what Putin has done.

Yet just today, Putin announced plans to replace Russia's elected regional governors with Kremlin-appointed bureaucrats. In addition, Putin will force members of the Duma, the lower house of parliament, to run on centrally-controlled party lists instead of running as independent candidates.

And let us not forget the atrocities that Putin is responsible for in Chechnya. In January, Human Rights Watch informed the UN Commission on Human Rights that

Russian forces round up thousands of men in raids, loot homes, physically abuse villagers, and frequently commit extrajudicial executions. Those detained face beatings and other forms of torture, aimed at coercing confessions or information about Chechen forces. Federal forces routinely extort money from detainees’ relatives as a condition for release. “Disappearances” remain a hallmark of the conflict, and their frequency rose sharply in early 2003. According to statements by pro-Moscow Chechen officials, in the first half of 2003 an average of two people went missing every day, many of them after being detained by Russian forces. The Russian human rights group Memorial documented 294 “disappearances” between January and November 2003, including forty-seven people whose corpses were later discovered in unmarked graves or dumped by the roadside. The group estimates that the real number of “disappearances” was three or four times higher.

According to one HRW analyst,

Five months of indiscriminate bombing and shelling in 1999 and early 2000 resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. Three massacres, which followed combat operations, took the lives of at least 130 people. By March 2000, Russia’s federal forces gained at least nominal control over most of Chechnya. They began a pattern of classic “dirty war” tactics and human rights abuses that continue to mark the conflict to this day. Russian forces arbitrarily detain those allegedly suspected of being, or collaborating with, rebel fighters and torture
them in custody to secure confessions or testimony. In some cases, the corpses of those last seen in Russian custody were subsequently found, bearing marks of torture and summary execution, in dumping grounds or unmarked graves.

Moral clarity in Chechnya means recognizing that this is a war of evil vs. evil that has taken the lives of thousands of innocent civilians on both sides. If so, is there anything that the United States can do other than wash it hands of the conflict?

Yes and no. There is no forceful action we can take, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we must tell our supposed allies in Moscow that their self-destructive war on terror has provided another base for the terrorists of Al Qaeda. The more that Russia abuses the Chechens and slaughters the legitimate Chechen opposition, the more room Al Qaeda has to operate. According to McFaul,

Some Chechen groups have allied with al Qaeda and joined the jihad against Western civilization. Many other Chechen opponents of Russia's military operation inside Chechnya, including most government officials in power before Russia's second invasion in 1999, have unequivocally denounced the Beslan attack. They understand that such actions do not serve the interests of the Chechen people. They are nationalists, ready to begin negotiations with
authorities in Moscow, and they do not exclude the possibility of some special arrangement about Chechen sovereignty even within the formal borders of the Russian Federation. They could become, over time, allies of Moscow in fighting the kind of terrorists who attacked Beslan's children. To date, however, Putin has refused to engage in a dialogue with anyone inside Chechnya except his handpicked puppets.

Negotiation may seem unthinkable once children have been murdered. Both Russians and Chechens have a right to feel that way. Yet victory on the battlefield is not a realistic option.

In contrast to the insurgents' demands in Afghanistan and Iraq, those of the moderate Chechens are entirely reasonable. Compromising with the Chechens is not appeasement, but justice. What the Chechens want is what the United States has already offered to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan: a chance to determine their own future.

UPDATE: Joe Gandelman has some trenchant thoughts of his own.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:55 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

YES, DISGRACEFUL: I'm going to disagree with Josh. Dick Cheney's remarks earlier this week were disgraceful. Even though Cheney's remarks are already old news -- and the Vice-President has offered a pseudo-apology -- I just want to go on the record saying that his remarks were offensive. Here's what Cheney said:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again...that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we'll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind-set, if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts and that we are not really at war."

This is the lowest sort of scaremonging, the kind that lowers public standards of debate even in the midst of a divisive election like this one. Cheney's comments were totally devoid of substance. They were an attack on John Kerry's character, not his policies. They were a suggestion that the terrorists want Kerry to win.

After Cheney's impressive speech at the convention, I expected better from him (in spite of his hypocritical comments about Kerry wanting to fight a more "sensitive" war on terror). But it seems that the Vice-President really hasn't learned anything about civility during his time in office.

(Btw, John Edwards' description of Cheney's comments as "un-American" was over the top as well. But Cheney did come perilously close to attacking John Kerry's patriotism.)

On a related note, Tom Coburn, the GOP senate candidate in Oklahoma, declared that the choice between himself and Democratic candidate Brad Carson is a choice between "good and evil". One or two more comments like that and Coburn will be a full-fledged idiotarian.

In the meantime, Coburn may not become a full-fledged senator in spite of the fact that Bush is running 25 points ahead of Kerry in Oklahoma. I guess that the Sooner electorate knows the difference between moral clarity and being just being a schmuck.

UPDATE: Steve Sturm has given this post the honor of a thorough fisking. Steve says that Kerry and Dean have said things that were just as bad Cheney's remarks, but doesn't provide links or quotations.

Steve also says that Cheney's comments did have substance because they took issue with Kerry's "law enforcement" (i.e. non-war) approach to fighting terrorists. Yet Kerry has repeatedly said that we are at war. In Boston, he said that

We are a nation at war – a global war on terror against an enemy unlike any we have ever known before.

So if Cheney is accusing Kerry of subscribing to a law enforcement mentality, then Cheney is lying.

Next, we come to Cheney's suggestion that the terrorists want Kerry to win. Steve responds:

Well, DUH. David: do you really believe the terrorists are ambivalent about the outcome of this election?...to speculate that they would prefer one or the other is not out of bounds.

Saying the terrorists want your opponent to win is pretty much saying that your opponent is so weak that he barely recognizes that the terrorists are our enemy.

In his pseudo-apology, Cheney tried to back away from this interpretation by saying that he was only criticizing Kerry's policies. But Cheney's original remarks didn't point to any substantive difference between Kerry and Bush. His remarks were nothing more than a malicious ad hominem attack.

Finally, Steve says Colin Powell agrees with Cheney. Not by a long shot. In the article Steve cites, Powell tries to pretend Cheney didn't mean what he said. Powell then adds that

"Both candidates, I'm sure, will do everything they can to defend the United States of America, whichever one becomes president."

If only Cheney were decent enough to say that himself.

UPDATE: Surprisingly enough, Matt Yglesias has decided to defend Dick Cheney from OxBlog's attacks.

Picking up where Matt left off, H-Bomb says that his post from three days ago refuted my criticism of Cheney even before I made it.

First, HB makes Steve's point that Kerry has sunk to the same level as Cheney, for example when he said that the Bush administration has "made America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world". I admit that that's not softball politics. But it's still a helluva lot different than saying that if you vote for the other guy, America will get attacked. Cheney's comments made it seem like it is Kerry, and not the terrorists, who are the biggest problem.

Next, HB points to Kerry's statement from January that

"The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military...But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation."

Kerry is muddying the waters here, but he clearly says that we are at war with the terrorists and that war involves military action.

Finally, HB says that Cheney's controversial speech did make substantive distinctions between Bush and Kerry. Well, sort of. Cheney said that Kerry voted against the Reagan defense build-up, opposed the first Gulf War and flip-flopped on the second. But it's a very long way from there to saying that if you vote for Kerry, terrorists will attack.

In closing, I'd just like to thank Steve and HB for responding to my post. There is considerable merit to their arguments, even if I disagree with them.

I think that this post is a classic demonstration of how the blogosphere promotes well-informed debate. If I were in a bar with Steve and HB, we'd just have to agree to disagree and probably forget about our argument on the way home.

Instead, each of has done additional research and brought new sources to each others' attention. And anyone who reads through our posts can click through to those sources and judge for themselves which of us has made the best argument -- a perfect example of what the blogosphere offers that printed matter can't.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:47 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

NO COMMENT! NO COMMENT! From the WaPo:

John F. Kerry continues to be elusive to the media contingent traveling with him on his charter jet. Not that anyone is focused on this much, but regular reporters on the plane say that the Democratic presidential nominee has not had a formal news conference since Aug. 9. On Aug. 2, he took two questions from the media in Grand Rapids. On Aug. 14, during a flight from Portland, Ore., to Idaho, he came back to chat about windsurfing.

Since then -- nothing. Reporters who sit 20 feet from Kerry only see him with a cast of thousands at rallies.

On Wednesday, traveling journalists got excited when he walked up
to the assembled horde on the tarmac near Cincinnati. But after making a brief statement marking "the tragic milestone" of the 1,000 dead U.S. troops in Iraq, he walked off, ignoring shouted questions.

The campaign further raised reporters' ire Thursday by moving the news media back from Kerry as he bounded down the stairs from the plane -- symbolically and literally suggesting that Kerry was putting distance between himself and the news media.

"I think it's ridiculous," said Jodi Wilgoren, who covers the Kerry campaign for the New York Times. "There are a lot of things happening in the country and the world, and the public has legitimate questions they'd like to ask. I don't know what he's afraid of. He's criticized the president for not giving enough press conferences. And now we face daily arm-wrestling to ask a question."

Privately, campaign aides say the campaign is trying to keep Kerry "on message" and does not want to run the risk that he might make other news.

Does 'no message' count as 'on message'? Anyhow, Kerry's introversion is hardly surprising. At a forum I hosted at the Olin Institute earlier this year, Patrick Healy, the Globe's lead correspondent for the Kerry campaign, was already attacking the Democratic candidate for not being available to the press.

But who knows? Perhaps Kerry has a surprise in store for all of us.

UPDATE: Steven Den Beste points out [via e-mail] that Kerry has broken his silence with an interview in Time. Steven also points out that Time provides its own harsh commentary in the interview, in which the author suggests that Kerry is an ostrich with his head in the sand.

The commentary's main point is that Kerry's tepid response to the Swift Vets' attacks has left voters with the impression that he is weak. I vigorously disagree. While Kerry's response could've been sharpter, the media did more than enough on its own to discredit the Swift Vets.

The real issue is that Kerry hasn't presented a clear alternative to Bush's foreign policy. In the interview, he talks about a "more effective" war on terror and how he "would not have taken the country into war [in Iraq] the way [Bush]did.

Not much of a rallying cry, is it? "I would've done the same thing slightly differently!"

We armchair pundits may know that Kerry can't be more forceful because he has to satisfy the anti-war Democratic base while also reaching out to more moderate swing voters. But if you want swing voters and independents to throw out an incumbent and take a risk on a new president, you have to present them with a clear alternative.

UPDATE: Gene Vilensky speculates about the relationship that a President Kerry might have with the media. At least in this one respect, Kerry is Reaganesque.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:34 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SEPTEMBER 11TH, THREE YEARS ON: In memory of all those who were lost. They were the citizens of many nations and the faithful of many faiths.

In honor of those who rushed into the burning towers, sacrificing their lives in the hope of saving others. With profound admiration for the brave men and women who struck our first blows against terrorism in the skies of Pennsylvania.

In tribute to all those who rushed to Manhattan and to Northern Virginia, providing comfort to their fellow Americans with their blood, their sweat and their tears. On September 11th, 2001, we learned once again that in the United States every generation is the greatest generation.

Yet September 11th was not just an attack upon the United States but upon the free world. The men who carried out the attack subscribed to a violent faith that spills the blood of innocents without shame or remorse. A faith of conquest, but not of understanding. These men were not Muslims, only terrorists and criminals.

United by the ideal of the liberty, the free world will prevail in its war on terror. Sharp arguments divide us, yet our profound commitment to this ideal will overcome such divisions.

Already, two captive nations have begun to taste the life of freedom. It is our sacred obligation to ensure that both Iraq and Afghanistan become democracies in the fullest sense of that word. Their freedom must serve as an example to all the oppressed nations of our world.

Freedom alone can vanquish terror. Painfully separated from their families and their homes, our soldiers fight and die on our behalf and for our ideals. We must honor their sacrifice by ensuring that it becomes the foundation of a world that will one day become entirely free.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:51 AM by Patrick Belton  

THREE YEARS:

May you rest in peace. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:00 AM by Patrick Belton  

JAMAICAN PLUCK: Sian Halliwell in Kingston, by email to BBC:

We've managed to stop the water coming through the shutters by nailing towels to the window frames and putting the bottom ends into buckets - it seems to be holding up fairly well and the floors are a lot drier.

"The wind is still slamming into the back of the house and so we've switched to drinking Red Stripe Beer instead of tea! Much stronger and will save the water for cooking!"

Being extraordinary fans of the country, we wish her people much luck. No one cyaan test Jamaica. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:33 PM by Patrick Belton  

THINK TANKS ON IRAQ: CSIS's Frederick Barton and Bathsheba Crocker have a report out measuring the progress of reconstruction in Iraq. Also, Michael O'Hanlon has updated his Iraq index at Brookings. Up in New York, the Council has begun a series of scorecards comparing differences between Bush and Kerry on foreign policy, beginning with a good inaugural effort on homeland security.

(Thinking of the Council, I can just taste the bad coffee on the fifth floor of the Pratt House now....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:13 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

HE SAID/SHE SAID JOURNALISM: Conservatives prefer a very simple explanation of why the media is biased: because most journalists are liberal.

Liberal critics of the mainstream media have a far more nuanced explanation: because journalists are so obsessed with preserving their reputation for objectivity, they tell both sides of every story but provide little indication of which one has more merit. You might call it "he said/she said journalism".

Recently, liberal critics -- including both Hendrik Hertzberg and Kevin Drum -- have invoked the he said/she said hypothesis to account for the media's unjustifiable decision to treat the Swift Vets as "serious (though partisan) critics" of a certain Senator from Massachusetts.

Kevin's comments came in response to the "wildly misleading" post in which I described press coverage of the Swift Vets as sympathetic to Kerry. Since Kevin has decided to call me out on this one (along with Zachary Roth at CJR's Campaign Desk), I will do my best to oblige.

The place to start is with the three articles to which I provided links in my post about the sympathetic coverage. The first of the three is the NYT's first major investigative report about the Swift Vets. Its authors elaborate their conclusion in the seventh paragraph of their article:

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

It's not exactly what you would call he said/she said journalism. But that doesn't mean it's sympathetic to Kerry. After all, if the Times is right about the Swift Vets' allegations, then that's just the truth, not a pro-Kerry broadside. Moreover, OxBlog has argued that the Swift Vets are full of it, except for their allegations about Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia.

So what's to complain about? Answer: the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the NYT report. They read:

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of
connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

This passage clearly suggests that Kerry is right and that Bush broke the law that prevents the coordination of political campaigns with independent 527 advocacy groups. However, there is no evidence to substantiate this charge in the NYT report, nor has any evidence emerged since.

(The closest thing to such evidence has been the revelation that a lawyer by the name of Ben Ginsberg worked for both the Bush campaign and the Swift Vets. Ginsberg confirms this allegation, points out that his behavior was fully legal, and that the media have ignored numerous connections between the Kerry campaign and a whole host of liberal 527s.)

Next up, the LA Times. Here are the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs from its first major investigative report:

What military documentation exists and has been made public generally supports the view put forth by Kerry and most of his crewmates — that he acted courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts honestly. This view of Kerry as war hero is supported by all but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two boats he commanded.

None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry. Some of them also have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections.

But what actually happened about 35 years ago along the remote southern coast of Vietnam remains murky. Some of Kerry's own recollections over the years, as presented in two biographies and many interviews, also have been inconsistent.

The reference to Kerry's inconsistencies puts the LAT ahead of the NYT, which two sentences to Kerry's statements about Cambodia. Yet when the LAT actually addresses the evidence about Cambodia, it comes down firmly on Kerry's side.

Anyhow, the main point is that neither the NYT nor the LAT practiced anything close to he said/she said journalism in their first major reports on the the Swift Vets. If I haven't persuaded you yet, I strongly encourage to go beyond the excerpts I've provided and read the rest of the lengthy NYT and LAT reports, which continually and explicitly cast doubt on the Swift Vets' recollections.

Finally, the WaPo. Here's the first sentence from it's article:

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

I guess you could call it "he said/he said" journalism. I should point out, however, that this wasn't the WaPo's big piece on the Swift Vets, just a companion piece. The major WaPo report [still searching for permalink] was authored by Michael Dobbs and published on August 22nd. Its strangely worded conclusion was that

An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day [in March 1969] suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeding in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.

Once again, this is anything but he said/she said journalism. However, it may provide the Swift Vets with far more credibility than they deserve. Have they "succeeded in raising doubts about Kerry's war record"? Yes, in the sense that their allegations have had an impact regardless of whether or not they are true.

Also, what exactly does it mean to not prove someone a liar? That kind of phrasing suggests that the Swift Vets' allegations have as much merit as Kerry's defense.

The rest of the WaPo article is quite well-done, however. It's main shortcoming is that it only focuses on the March 1969 Bronze Star episode, a decision that makes the Swift Vets look better than they should. On the other hand, it also prevents the article from commenting on Kerry's inconsistent recollections about Cambodia.

In conclusion, I'd say that I've taken the first steps towards showing that straight news accounts of the Swift Vet controversy took a clear stand on the merits of the Swift Vets' allegations. Kevin, Zach, the ball is in your court.
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:06 PM by Patrick Belton  

MY FRIEND GOT detained at the RNC for having anti-Bush literature with him that someone handed him on the way in. He wrote a piece about it. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:59 PM by Patrick Belton  

ON PAGE 32 OF THIS WEEK'S ECONOMIST, a full-page advert from European aerospace contractor EADS apparently seeks to make the important and timely point that European women have a role in the world of national security and aerodefence, as long as they're hot. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:00 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

METHOD ACTING: Jamie Kirchick takes a backstage look at the art of political theater at Yale and the RNC.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:20 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE TEXT YOU ENTERED WAS NOT FOUND: Gary Farber has put up a clever post about the words that were and weren't in George Bush's acceptance speech.

Michelle Malkin has run a similar search on the NYT's big front-page story on the hostage crisis in North Ossetia. (Hat tip: TMV)
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:13 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ZELIKOW LIVE: Philip Zelikow, staff director of the 9/11 Commission, is speaking about the Commission's report at the Miller Center right now. Live webcast here. Just audio here. Comments forthcoming.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:49 AM by Patrick Belton  

NEW ISSUE OUT OF NATURE GENETICS: My friend edits this. Go read.

If you're not convinced already, it includes a feature called 'Mutant of the Month'. Miss September is this lovely little mutant flower (Antirrhinum majus var. pallida-recurrens), an unstable little snapdragon, with red sectors and spots appearing on the ivory background as a result of somatic excision of a Tam 3 transposable element in the promoter of the pallida gene, required for pigment synthesis:
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:28 AM by Patrick Belton  

FUN IN TEXAS: In Houston, that is. Our local chapter of our nationwide, bipartisan Nathan Hale Foreign Policy Society will be meeting next Tuesday. If you're not in Texas, but instead live in New York, Boston, New Haven, Washington, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Miami, Puerto Rico, Montreal, or Oxford, and you're not already on our mailing list, please just drop us a note! Our chapters are all gearing up for a busy autumn. Here's a sample of the fun you could be having -

The Houston chapter of the Nathan Hale foreign policy society will meet
 Tuesday, September 14th at 7:00 PM until 9:00 at:
The Black Labrador (pub)
Churchill Room
4100 Montrose
713-529-1199
RSVP: September 13

This month's topic is ethics in foreign policy. Only one suggested reading: From the Journal Of Democracy,  'Globalization and Self Government' by Marc Plattner.  The article is available at www.journalofdemocracy.com.

Plattner presents a persuasive arguement for democracy and globalization in his article.  Just a couple of questions to think about. What does he mean by self-government in the title?  He talks about two sides of democracy, does globalization have two sides? In the article he uses statistics to convince that democracy is spreading but nowhere does he use stats to support globalization's growth.  Why or why not?

Enjoy the article and come enjoy the fun.

Tom

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:16 AM by Patrick Belton  

IT WAS BAD ENOUGH WHEN this election was about 1970s war records. When it became about 1970s typewriters, I decided to go write my dissertation.

Incidentally, from the steady stream of email I've been getting since my one foray into the subject this morning, the strongest argument seems to me to be the fact that Times New Roman didn't appear on Selectric typewriters, being owned (the emails tell me) by Monotype. The second strongest argument is, having served briefly in a national security branch of government, it seems from my own experience highly unlikely that anyone other than possibly a young Marine would devote the thirty seconds to changing Selectric balls and typing 'th' after ordinal numbers in superscripts. (Our Marine embassy guards, at three in the morning, would begin scrubbing things at random, occasionally to include my computer. One even tried to teach me better ways to do push-ups, around 4 am.) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:24 AM by Patrick Belton  

GARY FARBER TAKES apart a few silly media myths appearing in the WaPo, ABC, and elsewhere this morning about typewriters in the Seventies. He, you see, was there:

So now we hear that the Bush [National Guard] documents may be forgeries. Are they? I have no idea. But I do know some things that are nonsense when I see them.... 'The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.' 'I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government,' Showker said. 'The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s,' Haley said. 'Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used.'

Instead of talking to 'experts,' the Post and ABC might have done a bit of googling instead:

The IBM Executive uses a unique system of letter spacing... instead of every character taking exactly the same space on the writing line, as on standard typewriters, thin letters get narrower space, wide letters get the wider space needed. So, each word, each line, is more attractive, and more legible, and the overall appearance is outstanding. (from IBM Executive advertisement, 1953)

As Farber notes, 'They in no way cost "$20,000" or even $2000. They sold new for a few hundred dollars.'

More poor research appears in the bit about superscripts: ABC's expert Haley says 'There weren't any typewriters that did that.... That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically.' Or you could listen to a blogger who was there, who says 'it might have been done by a Selectric, which most certainly did superscripts and subscripts. All you had to do is switch golfballs. Doesn't anyone remember actually using these things?'

Well, OxBlog doesn't. But we're glad that there are people in the blogosphere who do, since the mainstream media's typewriter experts apparently don't, either.

UPDATE: A counterpoint, also from the blogosphere. Personally, I should note that like Josh, I believe rather strongly that elections should be fought on ideas, instead of the Vietnam war records of either candidate, which I consider an irrelevance and a distraction. However, as long as we're trafficking in irrelevances, I'm delighted that the blogosphere is capable of doing so at a factual level above what we've seen from the more established forms of journalism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:24 PM by Patrick Belton  

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE: Via OxBlog favourite Howard Kurtz:US News and World Report's Roger Simon pulls out this observation in his September 6th column, 'Two Conventions, One Bounce':

If John Kerry loses his presidential bid, analysts will point to the Democratic Convention as the time and place that he began losing it.

Kerry made his convention - - just as he has made his campaign - - about Vietnam, a divisive, controversial war that most Americans would just as soon forget.

By comparison, the Republican convention was anchored in the present with one clear and simple message: Vote for George W. Bush - - or die.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:25 AM by Patrick Belton  

IRISH TIMES: Continuing our gradual irresistable takeover of the European Union institutions, former Taoiseach John Bruton (Fine Gael, 1994-97) has been appointed EU ambassador in Washington. He also managed to refer to corsets in his first speech, bringing great pride to Irish hearts everywhere. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:52 AM by Patrick Belton  

BURMA UNDER SEIGE: Geoffery Hiller compiles a remarkable photojournal of Burma, which he calls 'a Fascist Disneyland'. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:14 AM by Patrick Belton  

CALL FOR CALORIES: Any of our friends in New York who'd like to meet an interesting, well-regarded Indian NGO leader are warmly welcome to come out for lunch on Saturday at 1. Our friend Anil Singh is an Ashoka fellow who gave up a government job to begin an NGO with his wife, to help create opportunities for poor rural women in India through microcredit and microenterprise.  The organization is called NEED (for Network of Entrepreneurship and Economic Development), and anyone who is interested in hearing about its work is very cordially welcome to come along - you're especially welcome if you happen to be a writer or have a background in development. So please do drop me a line if you're interested! (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:57 AM by Patrick Belton  

BRZEZINSKI ON PBS today proves that actually, contrary to popular impression, not all public television is worthwhile. Examples of interviewer Ben Wattenberg at work: (1) we don't get paid well enough to actually read our guests' resumes: You came to Washington - I was on the Johnson staff. I remember you coming down there occasionally as an advisor but then you - where - from where? From Harvard or from Columbia? (2) we also don't get paid well enough to start our homework before late the night before: I have been reading your new book, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership. In fact I stayed up late last night reading it. It is a very good book. (3) we also don't get paid well enough to be policy experts: And you are in favor of human rather than technological intelligence. You think that’s where we’re short? ... Well you mentioned - you mentioned it here - you mention frequently in the book, getting some kind of an Israeli-Palestinian compromise. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:21 AM by Patrick Belton  

NEW ISSUE OUT of the Democracy News newsletter. Go read, if you like democracy. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:03 AM by Patrick Belton  

BRING NEW YORK TO NAJAF: In reference to Naomi Klein's odd plea to peace protesters to 'Bring Najaf to New York', her Nation colleague Marc Cooper asks 'Should they also endorse Sharia while they’re at it?' Also, sensibly, Cooper calls for 'Bringing New York to Najaf', which to me sounds like a better proposal.

Incidentally, Cooper's LA Weekly column musing about the conversation between Clinton and Kerry is the finest piece of political humour writing I've read in weeks. (Example: 'I can imagine Clinton’s first question: “Hi, John, say, is Teresa there with you? What’s she wearing?'") (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

VIRGINIA WILL VOTE FOR KERRY: Well, maybe not. But Charlottesville is money in the bank for the Senator from Massachusetts.

I expected to have a quiet first morning in my new office. Instead, hundreds of visitors descended on the Miller Center for a presentation by Hendrik Hertzberg, the political voice of The New Yorker and former speechwriter for President Carter.

I had high expectations for the event. This may be a college town, but I figured there would at least be some conservative Democrats in the audience willing to ask Hertzberg some tough questions. Oh, how wrong I was.

If not for its colonial architecture, I might have mistaken the lecture hall for a Greenwich Village coffee shop. Hertzberg was preaching to the choir.

I began to suspect that I was in for trouble when the woman sitting next to me asked about the subject of my dissertation and then followed up by asking whether there is so much anti-Americanism in the world because of American efforts to promote democracy abroad. Wanting to make a good impression on the citizens of my new hometown, I told her that when America really promotes democracy abroad and doesn't just talk about it, the world respects us more.

The subject of Hertzberg's prepared remarks was the conservative bias in the United States Constitution. Instead of one government, we have three: House, Senate and presidency. Things only get done when all of them agree. That is why, Hertzberg said, we don't have national healthcare even though most people want it and every other modern democracy has it.

Now, I'm more than willing to agree that the Founders designed the Constitution to make our government resistant to change. But I'm not sure how much that has to do with today's healthcare debate.

During the Q&A, Hertzberg complained quite a bit about the extremism of the modern Republican party as well as the GOP's unprecedented control of the House, Senate and executive branch. Hertzberg says nothing is going to change because gerrymandered districts prevent any sort of turnover in the House while small states, most of them red, dominate the Senate. He said we should expect forty years of GOP dominance on the Hill, the same way we once had forty years of Democratic control. (Hertzberg didn't go into how the Democrats lost control if the system is so paralyzed.)

But if conservatives control all three of the "governments" set up by the Constitution, how can Hertzberg complain that the constitutional division of powers is what stands in the way of reform? What it really comes down to is that the Republicans have done a lot better at the polls since 1994. And as Hertzberg himself pointed out, moderate Democrats will probably stand in the way of dramatic reforms even if their party retakes control of the House and Senate.

The question that Hertzberg and his audience seemed unwilling to ask themselves was why American voters won't hand their government over to a solid majority of liberal Democrats. If someone did ask that question, I'm guessing that Hertzberg would've attributed the GOP's success to its vicious and unscrupulous lies. In his comments about Kerry's nuanced position on Iraq, Hertzberg said that one of Kerry's main shortcomings as a candidate is his "surplus of intellectual honesty."

The one interesting question the audience had for Hertzberg was whether activist websites and weblogs are right when they say that the "MSM", or mainstream media, have totally failed to expose the truth about Republican lies. Hertzberg agreed. Look at the Swift Boat controversy, he said. The media's prentensions of objectivity lead it to treat all politics in a he said-she said manner, thus giving unwarranted legitimacy to the most outrageous claims.

I wonder what newspapers Hertzberg has been reading. Certainly not the NYT or LAT or even the WaPo. As Jonathan Last has pointed out, all of the major media outlets, both print and broadcast, ignored the Swift Vets' story until Kerry himself counterrattacked. Then they provided coverage sympathetic to Kerry. Moreover, the "MSM" stills seems consitutionally unable to provide any reasonable coverage of Kerry's fantasies about spending Christmas Eve in Cambodia.

Hertzberg's comments about the MSM were enlightening, however, in the sense that they explain how the media can be so biased: because it absolutely refuses to admit even to itself -- or especially to itself -- how biased it is. [In retrospect, that comment is unfair to Hertzberg. He wasn't particularly emphatic about this point. But the journalists I spoke to at the RNC were. -ed.]

During the Q&A, I was tempted to ask a question myself, if only to disrupt the left-wing lovefest going on around me. But I'm having dinner with Hertzberg tonight, so I'm going to save my questions for then.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum describes my discussion of the media and the Swift Vets as "wildly misleading". Response forthcoming.

UPDATE: I had very nice dinner with Mr. Hertzberg, not to mention all of the other intelligent and inquisitive guests at the home of Mr. & Mrs. G. Over coffee, I had my chance to speak out. I can't say much about it, both because this was a private dinner and because the adrenaline rush shut down my memory.

What I can say is that Mr. Hertzberg listened to my improvised thoughts with greater care and greater patience than they might have deserved. I think that the other guests must have sensed my excitment at the prospect of going head-to-head with such a prominent individual. Thus, they graciously let me elaborate on my thoughts even though they themselves clearly had plenty to contribute to the discussion.

In the end, I think that Mr. Hertzberg had the better of the argument. However, the whole affair resulted in some excellent publicity for OxBlog, which Mr. Hertzberg said he would read.

(Rik, if you're reading, my apologies for throwing so many elbows your way at the beginning of this post. It wasn't my best work. If you click here and here, I think you'll see that OxBlog prefers analysis and evidence to rhetorical barbs.)
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:07 AM by Patrick Belton  

OXBLOG QUOTE OF THE DAY: Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Master of the Queen's Music, speaking to BBC Radio 3 from his home in the Orkneys: 'I'm tired of hearing that it's too hard for children to learn how to read music. It's simply not, it's just that teachers are too damned lazy to acquire the skills of communicating those skills to children.' (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:18 PM by Patrick Belton  

REZA ASLAN is keeping a journal from Iran. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:34 AM by Patrick Belton  

OXBLOG PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE JOKE OF THE DAY: Q: What does one behaviorist say to another after sex? A: That was great for you.  How was it for me? (a variant, of course, on the classic Q: What does one behaviorist say to another when they meet on the street? A: You're fine.  How am I?) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:59 AM by Patrick Belton  

SPIKED ONLINE, which has been producing a lot of good work lately, has this on the nostalgic core of contemporary anti-imperialism. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:39 AM by Patrick Belton  

OXBLOG READING LIST: Michael Ignatieff, of whom this blog thinks the world, has a new book out with Princeton University Press on political ethics in an age of terror. Rather graciously, they've put out the first chapter for free. This includes Ignatieff's suggestions for moral criteria for antiterrorist actions, which, as they tend to be consequentialist, conservative (in the sense of incrementalist), and in the spirit of the New Haven School (i.e., phrased in terms of a public order of human dignity), I think are likely to be beating down the appropriate track:

As a contribution to this process of standard setting, I would propose the following tests for policy makers. First, a democratic war on terror needs to subject all coercive measures to the dignity test--do they violate individual dignity? Foundational commitments to human rights should always preclude cruel and unusual punishment, torture, penal servitude, and extrajudicial execution, as well as rendition of suspects to rights-abusing countries. Second, coercive measures need to pass the conservative test--are departures from existing due process standards really necessary? Do they damage our institutional inheritance? Such a standard would bar indefinite suspension of habeas corpus and require all detention, whether by civil or military authorities, to be subject to judicial review. Those deprived of rights--citizens and noncitizens--must never lose access to counsel. A third assessment of counterterror measures should be consequentialist. Will they make citizens more or less secure in the long run? This effectiveness test needs to focus not just on the short term, but on the long-term political implications of measures. Will they strengthen or weaken political support for the state undertaking such measures? A further consideration is the last resort test: have less coercive measures been tried and failed? Another important issue is whether measures have passed the test of open adversarial review by legislative and judicial bodies, either at the time, or as soon as necessity allows. Finally, "decent respect for the opinions of mankind," together with the more pragmatic necessity of securing the support of other nations in a global war on terror, requires any state fighting terrorism to respect its international obligations as well as the considered opinions of its allies and friends. If all of this adds up to a series of constraints that tie the hands of our governments, so be it. It is the very nature of a democracy that it not only does, but should, fight with one hand tied behind its back. It is also in the nature of democracy that it prevails against its enemies precisely because it does.

For more, see The New York Review of Books's review and Ignatieff's transcript from a roundtable at the Carnegie Council. (American Prospect has a review article by James Mann, who we also like, but you either need to be a subscriber or read it in Border's....) (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:04 PM by Patrick Belton  

HOW I STARTED RACHEL DOWN A LIFE AS A KEPT WOMAN: Me: 'Maybe by favors he just meant feeding his fish?' Her: 'Then why does he say 'please include a photo in your reply' after the bit about 'Prefer a female roomate and I am willing to lower or eliminate the rent in exchange for favors'? Me: 'Well, maybe it's to make sure you won't scare the fish?' (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:20 PM by Patrick Belton  

RNC POST-HOC QUOTE OF THE DAY: 'This is New York. Of course we have naked people on Eighth Avenue.' Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, commenting on nude anti-Aids protesters, via Associated Press (8/26). (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 AM by Patrick Belton  

OUR THOUGHTS AND WELL WISHES go with you today, Mr President. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:45 AM by Patrick Belton  

YIDDISH CORNER: More than a couple of our readers (we are here targeting our 'Indian' and 'Hebrew' market demographics) will be interested in Haaretz's story about India's Jewish general, Jacob-Farj-Rafael Jacob, whose ancestors emigrated from Baghdad to Calcutta in the nineteenth century. And Bush writes about Israel and the peace process in the Forward. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:37 AM by Patrick Belton  

EVE TUSHNET lovingly takes apart my YFP interview. Although I can't quite figure out whether I'm meant to be the headless body or the topless blog.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:17 AM by Patrick Belton  

DEAD TREE WATCH: We complain a great deal that the nation's chief newspapers avoid covering ideas and trends, but mercifully, under Moisés Naím, Foreign Policy is becoming a noteworthy gathering point for precisely such conversations. To wit, Fareed leads off a piece on 'the world's eight most dangerous ideas' with an essay on anti-Americanism (excerpt: 'In this post-ideological age, anti-Americanism fills the void left by defunct belief systems'), while Marvin Leffler assesses Bush's foreign policy, and Kerry assesses Kerry's foreign policy. Other interesting pieces take on reforming Saudi Arabia and economic growth in India, while a very nice section in the print edition, 'In other words,' reviews books from overseas which (generally) aren't available in the United States.

I was sceptical of FP a few years ago, when every issue seemed to have a piece on assessing globalisation, generally with comparisons to McDonalds. But the limited scope of conversation in its pages may have just reflected a more limited foreign policy conversation then; at any rate, I'm now considering it one of the most creative publications focused squarely on ideas and on trends longer than a CNN news cycle. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:30 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE WaPo GETS IT RIGHT: Living in NYC the past month, I haven't been reading the WaPo. Shame on me. As Jason Broander's comparison points out, the Post's coverage of Bush's speech was far more even-handed than that of the NYT:

NEW YORK, Sept. 2 -- President George W. Bush accepted the Republican nomination for a second term Thursday night with a lofty speech casting his reelection as crucial to the spread of democracy across the world and to the security of Americans at home...

Spreading democracy? But the NYT didn't say anything about that!
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 2:23 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OPEN MINDS AT HARVARD: Robert Tagorda is still looking for them.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:52 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

FOLLOWING THE PAPER TRAIL: In July, I had a plan. Instead of throwing away my print editions of the NY Times from the week of the Democratic convention, I decided to put them aside and wait until the Republican convention had passed so that I could compare how the Paper of Record had covered both events.

This post will address a very specific question: How did the NYT portray each candidate's comments about Iraq the morning after his speech? The answer is that it didn't. Even though the Times itself often describes Iraq as "a pivotal electoral issue", Adam Nagourney -- who wrote or co-wrote the lead story on both Bush and Kerry's nomination speeches -- somehow managed to avoid the subject.

In the lead story on Bush's speech, the word 'Iraq' only appears once, and in the following context:

Mr. Kerry said..."I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have, by those who misled America into Iraq."

Now, perhaps, if Mr. Bush had ignored Iraq himself, Nagourney's approach would be justified. But here is just some of what Mr. Bush had to say about Iraq:

We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September the 11th requires our country to think differently: We must, and we will, confront threats to America before it is too late. (Applause.)

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat...

Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force...

Because we acted to defend our country, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are history, more than 50 million people have been liberated, and democracy is coming to the broader Middle East...

Despite ongoing acts of violence, Iraq now has a strong Prime Minister, a national council, and national elections are scheduled for January. Our nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word...

So our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq is clear: We will help new leaders to train their armies, and move toward elections, and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible. And then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned...

I believe in the transformational power of liberty: The wisest use of
American strength is to advance freedom. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region.

I could provide additional examples, but I'm sure that all of you have either read or listened to the President's speech. Yet somehow, not one of the passages cited above made it into either Nagourney's lead article or Todd Purdum's news analysis column.

To be fair, Mr. Bush gave a very long speech. Perhaps it simply was not possible for Mr. Nagourney or Mr. Purdum to cover all that he said. Of course, Mr. Nagourney did have time to write that

As he did in 2000, Mr. Bush warmed the audience with self-deprecatory jokes, including one about his tendency toward malapropisms...

Before [the President] walked out Republicans handed out hundreds of placards reading, "Agenda for America," which they waved in a blizzard of American flags...

Mr. Bush, the 43rd president, smiled at the 41st president and his wife - that would be George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush - sitting in a box across the hall.

Somehow, Mr. Nagourney decided that self-deprecatory jokes, American flags, and smiling at one's parents were more newsworthy than the President's bold and controversial statements about Iraq.

(If Matt Yglesias were covering Bush's speech for the Times, he at least would've had the decency to quote Mr. Bush at length and then explain why he was lying.)

In contrast to Mr. Nagourney, Mr. Purdum does devote a respectable amount of attention to Mr. Bush's relationship with Iraq, even if he refuses to divulge what Mr. Bush himself actually said. Here are the contexts in which Mr. Purdum refers to Iraq:

For a nation divided over his stewardship, distressed about the economy and dubious about the war with Iraq, President Bush had one overriding message last night: He's still the one...

Mr. Bush spoke confidently but saved his passion for national security issues, and sounded a tone of defiance at critics of his decision to invade Iraq...

No one...can dispute that [Bush] has [led], first by steamrolling big
tax cuts through a compliant Congress, then toppling the Taliban and winning support for the controversial war with Iraq...

Even his father's former national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft... warned two years ago against rushing to war with Iraq...

Polls showAmericans have doubts about Mr. Bush's stubbornness, his truthfulness (only about one in five Americans now think he is telling the entire truth when he talks about Iraq), and even the likeability that helped him so much last time.

How strange. It almost seems as if Mr. Purdum has some sort of agenda. While the author of a news analysis column has more latitude than the author of a straight news article, one would hope that Mr. Purdum would at least analyse what Mr. Bush actually said.

Instead, he reminds us again and again of how "dubious" and "controversial" the invasion was while not even bothering to quote Mr. Bush's defense of it or mention that most Americans supported it.

But perhaps I shouldn't be suprised with the way the NY Times has covered this issue. As I show in my dissertation, when Ronald Reagan spoke passionately and at great length about democracy promotion in the 1980s, the NYT and WaPo ignored what he said and instead focused on the more controversial aspects of his foreign policy.

It's like deja vu all over again...

Coming up next: The NYT, Kerry and Iraq.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:52 PM by Patrick Belton  

I READ THE GUARDIAN DAILY, not for the politics but because, apart from the LRB, I haven't yet found a better publication in England for covering the worlds of letters and ideas. But that high-mindedness doesn't stop them from producing hard-hitting investigative journalism, it turns out. For instance, thanks to today's paper I know now that 'Every weekend, Britain's town centres are transformed into scenes of drunken mayhem.' Other upcoming story lines, thanks to OxBlog's sources in the Guardian news room: UK dogs reported to have fleas; politicians discovered shamelessly courting votes of honest citizens; rich bastard in home counties considers casting ballot for Tory candidate. More coming.

UPDATE: A friend writes in to ask why not the TLS instead. Good point - it's mostly because they don't put up very much of their content for free. However, if on the other hand, they would like to give OxBlog a free subscription.... (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:57 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

A PAEAN TO NUANCE: In the Times Magazine last Sunday, James Traub observed that

Both the president and the protesters prefer certaintly to complexity. Is there room for nuance in a time of war?

How sad. I'm an intellectual. I love nuance and complexity and irony and uncertaintly and subtle gradations of meaning.

So whom should I hold responsible for the branding of 'nuance' as the most despised word in the American political lexicon since 'liberal'? The faux populist who cuts taxes for the rich and mocks his thoughtful opponent? Or the calculating opportunist who sways with the political winds while the nation's most prominent journalists and intellectuals praise his commitment to nuance?
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:56 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

ROGER, OVER AND OUT: I spent four days this week huddled over my laptop just across from that irrepressible, fedora-clad blogger, Roger L. Simon.

Today, Roger slams NY Newsday for its politically-motivated and unprofessional decision to excerpt one of his GOP convention posts without letting him know which one. Unsurprisingly, Roger says, they chose his most anti-Bush post without letting their readers know that Roger will vote for W. this fall come hell or high water.

As punishment for its iniquity, Roger brands Newsday's editor as one of the "New Reactionaries". I beg to differ. I got the same e-mail from the same editor at Newsday. The editor asked if I wanted to know, before Newsday went to press, which passage it had chosen. I said yes and received another e-mail shortly thereafter which included the excerpt.

As it turns out, Newsday chose a passage from my post about Laura Bush. It was somewhat critical, but not at all harsh. If Newsday wanted, there were plenty of harsh posts to choose from. (For example, here and here.)

For the moment, I don't know which excerpts Newsday chose from the rest of the RNC bloggers, since there's nothing up on their website. But I think Roger might strengthen his full-frontal assault on the media if he planned his attacks a little more carefullly. (Not that you couldn't say the same thing OxBlog...)

UPDATE: Newsday has posted the excerpts here. Greyhawk thinks that Newsday is cherry-picking. I wouldn't say Newsday chose our best posts, but I don't see a political agenda here. At worst, there's a bit of condescension.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:43 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SCHLESINGER BEATEN LIKE A DRUM: Congratulations to Kevin for publishing his first book review in the New York Times. Once again, Kevin has reinforced his reputation for being an open-minded liberal by thrashing Dr. Schlesinger's paranoid and incoherent anti-Republican rant. I shudder to think what sort of mail Kevin is about to get from his 40,000 fans at the Washington Monthly.

FYI, Kevin can be just as tough on Democratic candidates as he can on over-the-hill intellectuals:

Anyone who thinks the primary message of Kerry's campaign should be anything other than national security is just deluding themselves. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's 9/11, stupid."

In fact, it's a no-brainer: somehow Kerry has to convince people that
he can be trusted with national security and Bush can't — and if he doesn't, he's going to lose. But I guess he still doesn't get that.

I'm finally beginning to think Mickey Kaus might be right: Kerry has
spent too much time inside the liberal cocoon. It's going to cost him the election if he keeps it up.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:42 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

GO BACK TO SLEEP! What are you doing up at 6:30 in the morning, Josh? Looking for Jenna Jameson? I know you're not an official a "Dr." yet. But I'll bet anyone dollars to donuts that you'll walk out of your thesis defense with nothing but honors.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:37 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL GHOST-WRITING! Consider the following passage from Jenna Jameson's memoir:

Trying to maintain eye contact with [my co-star] was like trying to
read Dostoyevsky on a roller-coaster.

Fyodor must be turning in his grave. Then again, perhaps I am wrong to doubt the highly athletic Ms. Jameson. She did come across as quite intelligent in her extended interview on VH1.

Moreover, Ms. Jameson has addressed the Oxford Union more often than I have, although her performance did pale somewhat in comparison to that of Mr. Dr. Chafetz. (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:02 PM by Patrick Belton  

AND THEY SAY BLOGS ARE BAD? NYT runs a story with the title, "Deploying Children as Weapons of Mass Affection" (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 8:12 AM by Patrick Belton  

ECONOMIST ANSWERS THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN ON EVERYONE'S MIND: Why are Eurocrats in Brussels so side-splittingly funny? (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:05 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

IGNORANT YANKEE! Much obliged to all those who pointed out that the unidentified narrator from last night was Fred Thompson. HS writes that

FYI, it wasn't Waylon Jennings, it was Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee and now actor on 'Law & Order.' He began the narration live with a mic on stage, then he stopped, exited stage right, and there was a seamless transition to the prepared video voice-over (it was hard to see him standing there even on TV, so it's not surprising you missed him if you were sitting in the convention hall).

You're right: folksy as all hell, so folksy it was almost a parody of
folksy; definitely reminds me of Jennings 'Dukes of Hazzard' oeuvre.

Viva los Duke boys! I actually saw Thompson come out on stage but didn't recognize him. Although I had never known what Thompson looked like, I did always think of him as the man who famously said that as soon as he got to Washington he began to yearn for the honesty and sincerity of Hollywood.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:42 PM by Patrick Belton  

THOUGHTS FOR THE SABBATH: Michael Ignatieff on genocide, human rights, and a postwar Polish Jewish intellectual named Raphael Lemkin.

---

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:35 AM by Patrick Belton  

REQUIESCANT:
In place of death there was light.

- Leo Nikolayevitch Tolstoy, The Death of Ivan Ilych

---

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:42 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

LIVE BLOGGING THE PRESIDENT: There was no wireless access in MSG, but I did have my laptop with me. Here's what I wrote:

9:58 PM – Time for a video. The narrator sounds like Waylon Jennings from the Dukes of Hazzard.

10:03 PM – If this isn’t Waylon Jennings, it’s the best imitation I’ve ever head. Folksy, lots of inappropriate pronouns.

10:05 PM – It’s him! The crowd goes wild! [Bush, not Jennings. --ed.]

10:07 PM – The cameras are flashing. You could almost hear a pin drop.

10:14 PM – I gave you tax breaks! Lukewarm applause.

10:15 PM – Bush: I am a compassionate conservative. Government should help people improve their lives, not run them. We’ve come a long way from Ronald Reagan, haven’t we? What a strange
compromise. Conservatives are no longer allowed to attack government, but liberals aren’t allowed to call themselves liberal.

10:17 PM – “Two-thirds of moms also work outside the home.” Very scattered applause.

10:19 PM – A promise to make tax relief permanent. Big applause.

10:21 PM – A promise to lead a bipartisan effort to “reform and simplify the federal tax code.” Maybe the President can ask
Zell Miller about bipartisanship.

10:22 PM – Bush is speaking quite well. Patient. Serious. But down to earth.

10:23 PM – A pledge to help the workers at small businesses get more affordable insurance.

10:24 PM – A promise to establish rural health centers. I have nothing to say about that. It sounds like a good idea. But I really know nothing about the state of American healthcare.

10:25 PM – Stop the lawsuits that put doctors out of work! Huge applause. Now is this a one time thing, or will Bush & Cheney be attacking John Edwards all along the campaign trail?

10:27 PM – An ownership society? It’s a nice turn of phrase. It may do for this campaign what “compassionate conservatism” did for the last. But after January 20th, who knows?

10:29 PM – Empowerment and ownership. Empowerment and ownership. Howard Dean talks about empowerment, but not ownership.

10:31 PM – W. breaks out the Spanish! "No dejarémos a ningún nino atrás!"

10:32 PM – Bush plugs his website. Memo to OxBlog: Get nominated for President so you can plug your website on national television.

10:35 PM – Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal! Bush is a borrow-and-spend liberal!

10:37 PM – Abortion, yadda yadda. Gay marriage, yadda yadda.

10:39 PM “I will never relent in defending America whatever it takes!” Standing ovation! USA! USA! USA! Vague! Vague! Vague!

10:41 PM – “Striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home!” Where is my nickel?

10:43 PM – Protester time. God, these people may as well just vote for Bush. For Kerry, they’re just an embarrassment.

10:44 PM – Protester. Here we go again. Pathetic.

10:46 PM – “Do I forget the lessons of September 11th?” Or do I attack Saddam? Clever.

10:47 PM – Democracy in Afghanistan. Bush isn’t mincing words on this one.

10:47 PM – “When America gives its word, America must keep its
word.” It’s the OxBlog agenda. But what will Yglesias say?

10:49 PM – Our troops will come home when Iraq is a democracy.

10:52 PM – Flip-flop time.

10:53 PM – Big cheers for Tony Blair. I hope no one tells the delegates that Blair is head of the “Labour Party”.

10:54 PM – “Coaltion of the coerced and bribed”? John Kerry scorns our allies! Very clever.

10:56 PM – Democracy discredits hate. Democracy will transform the Middle East. Stop it! Stop it! George, if you keep sounding so idealistic, I’m going to have vote for you!

10:58 PM – Now Bush is mocking the New York Times. If this keeps up, OxBlog will be unemployed.

11:00 PM – A reference to promoting democracy in Nicaragua. Now Bush is trying to write my dissertation!

11:08 PM – “This young century will be liberty’s century.” How much did PNAC have to pay for that one?

It was a masterful performance. In a word, presidential.
(1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:38 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THAT TACKY PATAKI: There was no wireless access in MSG, but I did have my laptop with me. Here's what I wrote:

9:37 PM – It’s Pataki time! The governor is thanking all those states that came to New York states after 9-11. During the break, volunteers handed out little flags for all of us to wave.

Pataki says that New York looked terrorism in the face and spat in its eye. Thanks, George, for doing so much to get rid our reputation as the least polite state in the union.

Pataki reminds us that he went to college with both Kerry and Bush. Kerry was the head of the Liberal Party, Pataki was head of the
conservatives.

I was also in the Liberal Party (at the same college) and even served as an officer. I became somewhat disenchanted as time went on, but I am still inspired by the other members’ commitment to social service.

“He said he’d do it, AND HE DID!” Great call and response.

Pataki says Kerry has to Google his own name to find out
where he stands. Presumably, Santorum doesn’t have that problem.

9:46 PM – Pataki slams the Clinton administration for being soft on Al Qaeda. That’s low.

9:48 PM – Pataki: They say what about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Well on 9-11, box cutters were weapons of mass destruction. Quick, call David Kay, did he find any box cutters in Iraq?

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:29 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

LIVE BLOGGING THE DARK MATCHES: As any professional wrestler can tell you, a night on the road begins with "dark matches", or brief contests among no-name contenders that take place before the television cameras come to life.

And political conventions are no different than wrestling shows. Before the main event, you have to watch the undercard. Even though there was no wireless access this week at Madison Square Garden (the home of pro-wrestling), I decided to type down my thoughts and post them later. Here goes:

8:40 PM – I just made it into the hall. At this time last night, the
green seats would mostly have been empty. Now they are almost full. I walked in with John, Tom and Roger, but we each had to find separate seats (although not too far from one another.)

Tommy Franks is giving his speech. He says he won’t trust terrorists to take care of his grandchildren. Neither would I. Presumably, John Kerry would.

“To take the fight to the terrorists is the best way to protect our country.” Presumably, John Kerry would wait for them to show
up in New York.

8:45 PM – Barbara Bush – the grandma, not the twin – is being interviewed. She says her favorite speakers were her grand-daughters. If I were Arnie or Rudy or Zell, I’d be pretty damn
insulted.

Getting a little sarcastic, aren’t I? I just don’t think I can take any more of the groupthink. Jim Taranto summed it up pretty well:
At the Democratic convention, you could listen to the delegates argue with one another and write about that. Here, you have work hard to find the news.

8:49 PM – Baby footage of the twins. Awww.

8:51 PM – It’s Michael Williams, the former Texas railroad
commissioner. In other words, he used to be George Bush’s boss. Lots of noise in the hall from people walking around and having their own conversations. I can barely hear what Williams is saying.

8:58 PM – It’s a video about the First Lady!

8:59 PM – Well that was short.

9:01 PM – Musical interlude. Time to save some battery power on my laptop.

9:17 PM – It’s Mel Martínez! Thanks to the music, I had the chance to make a pit stop and pick up a hot dog. There aren’t that many events at which you can trust the person next to you to watch your laptop when you step outside.

9:18 PM – Mel reminds us that if he wins, he will be the first Cuban-American to serve in the United States Senate. Martínez talks
about the hopelessness of his childhood in Cuba. Lots of noise in the
hall. Perhaps if he talked about terrorism people would pay more
attention.

“…to re-elect President George W. Bush!” Big applause. Then back to the noise.

9:21 PM – Martínez says he believes in compassionate conservatism. It’s true: Democrats are afraid to describe themselves as liberals but Republicans are proud to be conservative.

9:22 PM – Martínez mentions that minority home ownership is at an
all-time high. If I only had a nickel for every time someone mentioned that statistic this past week. I wonder what the real story is.

That's it for the dark matches. Now get ready for prime time.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:19 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

GILLESPIE ON VIETNAM: The convention bloggers had the chance to interview the RNC chairman just over an hour ago. My mission was to break through the "We condemn all 527s" and get Mr. Gillespie to say something substantive about the Swift Vets' charges:

OxBlog: Mr. Gillespie, a question about the Swift Vets’ impact on the polls. Um, obviously until now the White House has been dodging the issue by saying that “We condemn all 527s”, but the issue is are the adds true or are they full of lies? If they’re true, will George Bush come out and say something supporting the Swift Vets, or if they’re lies will he join John McCain in condemning the content of the adds, not just the fact that they’re from 527s?

Gillespie: Well, let me just say, uh, uh, I’m going to restate the fact that we are opposed to these 527s. I filed a complaint with the Federal Elections commission back in March or April. $63 million has been
spent on attack against the President by 527s, using anything ranging from intentionally poisoning our children to trying to deny Hispanic Americans their constitutional right to vote to lying and to bandoning our troops in the field.

OxBlog: Can we get your personal opinion on the content of the Swift Vets’ two ads? Is there truth to what they’re saying, and if so, how much?

Gillespie: Well, I mean it’s obvious when you see Senator Kerry’s 1971 testimony there’s no denying that Senator Kerry spoke before the United States Senate and made very damning accusations against the soldiers in Vietnam.

Gillespie caught me there. I shouldn't have mentioned the second add.
Mentioning it gave him a good excuse to ignore the one that really matters, the
first. But I wasn't about to give up:

Ox: How many of the five medals did John Kerry deserve to win in Vietnam?

Ed: I assume that he served honorably and I’ve never questioned his
service and never will. I was just, by the way, 10 years old when John Kerry came back from Vietnam.

I didn’t, you know…these men have strong feelings obviously, and they are free to express their feelings and those who support Senator Kerry are free to express those feelings, using the political process. But I have no knowledge of it and I assume that he served honorably and we have consistently said that...

Ox: Have your research teams come to any conclusions about the
Swift Vets’ charges?

Ed: Our research teams have not researched Senator Kerry’s medals. Sen. Kerry himself said he’s proud of his leadership of Vietnam
Veterans Against the War and stands by the testimony he made before the United States Senate in 1971.

I think Gillespie got out of that last one on a technicality. Someone's research teams must be vetting the Swift Vets's allegations. Perhaps it was the White House instead the RNC. Perhaps it was a consultant. But I don't doubt for a second that Gillespie has an opinion on this issue which he is very carefully keeping to himself.

I may not have gotten anything out of Gillespie in the end, but the experience itself was an incredible adrenaline rush. I did get past the 527 line. Thinking on five seconds notice about how to rephrase my questions was a tough and exciting challenge.

It was more of a game than a discussion of politics. Gillespie had to evade my questions without evading them and misrepresent or hide his opinion without telling a lie.

In the end, I lost. I lost because I am a blogger and I lost because Gillespie is simply better. But if I got through the 527 line, you'd think that the professionals could do even better, since Gillespie can't dodge their questions forever.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion