Don't ride that hobbyhorse too hard, George. I don't think it makes sense to read this election as case of failing by moving left; if anything, Arnold & Co. blundered by taking on too many liberal interest groups at once.
The Spectacle Blog
St. Martin's Press has hit upon a novel advertising strategy for its release of Mary Mapes' book, emphasizing that she is now flying with even less of a net below her than before. "No One's Censoring Her Now," reads the ad in the New Yorker.Â Now she's got no editor, it exults: "Get the clear, unedited picture of the biggest news stories in the run-up to the 2004 election."
See the Forgeries They Didn't Let Her Run!
Arnold Schwarzenegger, in an interview with a German newspaper a while back, instructed his fellow Republicans to move leftward. This, he said, would result in endless political victory. The newspaper quoted him as saying that the "Republican Party currently covers only the spectrum from the right wing to the middle, and the Democratic party covers the spectrum from the left to the middle...I would like the Republican party to cross the line, move a little further left and place more weight on the center. This would immediately give the party 5% more voters without it losing anything elsewhere."
When is this formula going to start working? Perhaps the country-clubbers will argue that the solution is to move even farther to the left. But why stop there? Why don't they just go all the way and merge Schwarzenegger Republicanism with the California Democratic Party? That way in a one-party state they could win everytime.
Instead of teaching a silly ethics course at the WH, how about a primer on warfare for our esteemed members of Congress? While the Dems reacted to the news of the latest leak probe in their usual knee-jerk fashion, crying politics from the start, some of the usual suspect Republicans couldn't stop themselves from joining in the Democratic chorus. This from Senator Lindsey Graham took the prize: "Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. The real story is those jails."
Huh? Lindsey ol' buddy, aren't you forgetting something? When last I checked, we were engaged in a GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM. As captured terrorists are not POWs entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions (to do so would be to legitimize their insidious brand of murder), and as revealing the location of their captivity would endanger the people who guard them and any innocent civilians by making them defacto targets, isn't it a good idea to keep that information secret? Do we really want al Qaeda to know where KSM and Ramzi bin-Alshib are passing the days?
It's a sign of the Armageddon. Christopher Hitchens is speaking in one hour at the Family Research Council on "Jefferson's America: An Enduring Vision of Democracy and Freedom" as part of the Witherspoon Lecture Series. I'm heading over for a bit of an old friends moment (I was a Witherspoon Fellow last fall). I'll have a recap afterward. In the meantime, learn more about the Witherspoon Fellowship.
With the news this morning that the CIA has requested that the Department of Justice investigate real leaking of classified material, the "Black Site Scandal" is in full swing.
Those media types that think this is just tit for tat over the Joe Wilson scandal, miss the point. It doesn't matter if the highly classified material was leaked to the media, to an al Qaeda operative, or to Senator Kennedy's water spaniel, Splash.
The Washington Post -- clearly working and coordinating with Human Rights Watch (that is another matter that should be discussed) -- had the right to publish the information once someone gave it to them. After all, it was news.
This investigation is not about the media, it's about the people who undercut our national security by leaking information that helps our enemies.
John: Though the Ashton Cabinet #2 is a truly fine cigar, I must dispute your contention that it is a perfect election night smoke. The perfect smoke to enjoy whilst awaiting returns depends on the final polling numbers. If you expect a win, but expect it late into the night, the PG Celebration is the best at about 9.5 inches long it lasts about 3 hours. I'd put the Ashton #2 behind it, barely. If you expect a loss (or the election of a Clinton, any Clinton, to any office) your cigar must match your black mood. Which brings us to the Ashton or PG or Avo maduros. (Ashton used to make a small maduro, panatela size, that was my fave. Haven't seen it in years.) And in either event, you must have just one wee dram of whiskey. In the event you expect to lose the presidency in '08, better have a PG Maduro Celebration on hand. It's powerful, but should not matter in that circumstance. Your head will be buzzing anyway.