Yesterday's report that Sen. Joe Biden put his big feet in his mouth again showed Joe not only displaying his characteristic smug bonhomie but yet again lifting material from someone of genuine stature. Watch the tape of Joe declaiming about the need to have an Indian accent to enter a 7/Eleven or Dunkin Donuts in Delaware and tell me he's not doing his best Larry David (Curb Your Enthusiasm) imitation.
The Spectacle Blog
Now that Felipe Calderon has apparently eeked out a win in Mexico's presidential election, it might be worth revisiting this bit at AlterNet describing why the American Left should have prayed harder for a victory by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez pal/ideological fellow-traveler Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Reason numero uno? Why "An Obrador win will drive Bush and his right-wing cronies batty!" of course! Isn't that the firmest ground to be on in any ideological or philosophical dispute?
Indeed, Dave, two cheers. But not three. This language sounds right on enthusiastic skim but look again and it's all wrong:
"the present generation should have a chance to decide the issue through its elected representatives"
Not only must the present generation have that chance, that chance is not a chance but a certainty. There is no "should" about it, or there is only insofar as what is not unconstitutional "should" not be held to be unconstitutional. The duty is not moral. Even the right answer wrongly derived is to be appreciated on its merits, but I worry when even would-be strict constructionists lapse into normative language -- the flashing red light of which is that bad old chestnut of imaginitive jurisprudence -- "We believe."
On gay marriage is a model of judicial restraint and clear writing:
We emphasize once again that we are deciding only this constitutional question. It is not for us to say whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong. We have presented some (though not all) of the arguments against same-sex marriage because our duty to defer to the Legislature requires us to do so. We do not imply that there are no persuasive arguments on the other side -- and we know, of course, that there are very powerful emotions on both sides of the question.
I just happened upon this ad, "Free Lance writer avialable" on New Hampshire's Craig's List:
I am a free lance writer available for your writing needs.
I write on every topic from hamsters to cars. You name it I can write about it.
Well, son, since the first two things I was going to name were hamsters and cars, I have no lingering doubt in either your literary abilities or mind-reading skills. Now let's talk rates. How much do you want for the hamster racing story.....
James, the lede still reads like an editorial, calling the legal challenge "an attempt to win equal treatment under New York State's marraige law." That's just begging for the retort: they can get married -- to persons of the opposite sex.
Not even the New York Times, it seems, can get away with spinning the gay-marriage ruling of their state's highest court. The breaking-news headline announced a holding that gay marriage "Should Be Considered" by the state. But this one-line editorial has been erased. In its place -- only minutes later -- one reads the fact of the matter, which is that the court "Rejects Challenge to Gay Marriage Ban."
Interesting that Senator Swift Boat has decided not to endorse Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary race in Connecticut. Another cut and run routine, and a class act all the way around.
Some folks have misinterpreted our call for RNC support of Lieberman. The nut job leftists attacking Lieberman are doing so almost exclusively due to Lieberman's strong and consistent support of the Bush administration's war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom. And colleagues like Clinton and Kerry are enabling these buffoons. All of this, of course, is good for conservatives and Republicans.
But it would tragic for Lieberman to lose his primary on the efforts of our men and women fighting for freedom and to keep us safe. If the Republicans could tolerate the likes of Chafee and Snowe, they can tolerate six weeks of support for Lieberman.
Speaking of the President's milestone day, the Washington Post yesterday was clearly disappointed that Mr. Bush wasn't making a bigger deal of turning 60 or observing his big day ahead of time:
...Bush appeared annoyed when a reporter asked if he planned to treat himself for his birthday, which is Thursday.
"Generally, I celebrate my birthday on the birthday itself," he scolded.
This "[i]n contrast to President Bill Clinton, whose 50th birthday in office was celebrated with an extravagant, star-filled, televised gala ..." A nice reminder. Would Bush numbers be higher if he were an obsessive megalomaniac?