The Spectacle Blog

Ethically Challenged Congress

By on 6.26.06 | 2:27PM

The headline on page three of the Wash Post says it all: "Call for Lobbying Changes Is A Fading Cry, Lawmakers Say." Subhead: "Calming of Political Storm Cited as Reason for Attitude Shift."

Re: Prosecute the Times?

By on 6.26.06 | 2:01PM

Gonzales is right that it is premature to talk about going after the Times directly, for a number of reason. But I don't see why the reporters involved in breaking these stories shouldn't be subpoenaed to reveal their sources. Some have argued that these leaks haven't been particularly damaging, and I hope they're right. But surely no one will argue with a straight face that they've been less damaging than the outing of Valerie Plame.

Prosecute the Times?

By on 6.26.06 | 12:50PM

AG Gonzales was on Rush's show a few minutes ago. When asked about prosecuting the NYT for publishing classified information, he said, it's, "...way premature to be talking about prosecution of the New York Times." In other words, the administration is going to let the NYT continue to publish anything it wants, leakers to leak anything about this war, and no secrets can be kept except by America's enemies. This makes me sick.

Your Tax Money at Work

By on 6.26.06 | 10:26AM

According to the father of a cadet who called me yesterday, the New York Times -- Enemy of the State, publisher of our nation's most closely-held secrets -- is distributed to each cadet at West Point every weekday. Doesn't it make you proud to know your tax money is hard at work?

Re: Christianist Kicks

By on 6.25.06 | 2:39PM

James: Your point is well taken, however I wasn't attacking Sullivan's arguments about Christianists. Rather, I was attacking his judgment and intellectuall honesty on matters like endorsing Kerry.

Perhaps I should have made that clear. My bad.

Re: Christianist Kicks

By on 6.25.06 | 9:01AM

Careful, Mr. Hogberg. Though you may smell a rat, and not a coincidence, where Mr. Sullivan grabs the standard against Bush on the war, his argument about Christians and Christianism is not wrong because of that coincidence -- nor wrong because of his "desperate" support for candidate Kerry nor for any of the other reasons external to the argument itself.

When elements of the conservative base are assaulted as bigots and indeed as anti-conservatives, I think the thing to do is dare to take the salvo at face value and see whether the charges stick. (I have tried to do so here and here.) An adherence to that sort of bravery strikes me as fairly acquitting not just itself but the wrongly accused, too. This is all to the better for the reason that attacking complete straw men is somewhat beneath Sullivan intellectually. It should be beneath us as well.