The Spectacle Blog

If Californians Elect Phil Angelides…

By on 10.7.06 | 12:39PM

…they get what they deserve.

Angelides comes off as the quintessential slick, trial lawyer. He'll pander to anyone. Just saw him on the news, and he said he wants "to balance the budget, give a tax cut to the middle class, and roll back tuition increases for college students."

And, watch him pull a rabbit out of his hat!

The New York Times Reporting Studds

By on 10.7.06 | 10:01AM

In a New York Times article assessing post-Foley GOP House election prospects today, reporter Adam Nagourney makes this assertion:

Republicans and their allies, including conservative talk radio hosts, have responded by rallying around Mr. Hastert and blaming Democrats and the news media for the frenzy.

Talk radio hosts, working off a list of talking points distributed by Republican Party officials, recounted how two decades ago, House Democrats stood behind Representative Gerry E. Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, after he engaged in sex with a male page.

Talk radio hosts working from GOP talking points -- as though they were taking marching orders? I didn't detect in the story that Nagourney had interviewed any talk show hosts to ask them if they were reading from a Republican game plan. Nor did he even quote any on-air remarks.

Re: Great Moments in Punditry

By on 10.7.06 | 9:24AM

That's the same Charles P. Pierce who writes for the Boston Globe Magazine, who penned a paean to Ted Kennedy that was outright embarrassing, ending with the words, "Mary Jo Kopechne would have been 68, and Ted Kennedy would have taken care of her in her old age." And he apparently thought this was some sort of compliment.

Pierce is one of the more unbearably ambitious leftist characters, has got himself a pretty regular slot on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me," a current events quiz show that spends a lot of time bashing George W. Bush in whatever terms are fashionable. It's on Saturdays at noon here in the Boston area, and I recommend it for insight into what liberals are really thinking, and how they are really behaving.

Great Moments In Punditry

By on 10.6.06 | 9:33PM

I thought most people who followed these things closely understood almost as soon as Joe Lieberman decided to run as an independent that a Lamont general election victory was pretty close to mathematically impossible. But over at TAPPED, Charles P. Pierce is apparently just now realizing that Ned Lamont might not win.

Resurrection Song?

By on 10.6.06 | 12:04PM

My friend David J over at the great blog Resurrection Song details his reasons, both pragmatic and philosophical, for sticking with the Republicans in the upcoming election and sparks some debate in the comment thread for his decision.

Swing Jihadists

By on 10.6.06 | 11:49AM

In his column today, Charles Krauthammer makes an important point on whether or not the war in Iraq/>/>/>/> increased terrorism. He writes:

It is an issue of time frame. The bombing of the Japanese home islands may have increased short-term recruiting for the kamikazes. But success in the Pacific war put a definitive end to the whole affair.

Re: Hastert

By on 10.6.06 | 11:38AM

Jed, I refer you back to my first response to Quin yesterday: "(Hastert) doesn't get it. The issue isn't about when he knew about e-mails, IMs, or when and whether he did or didn't decide to do something about them. The issue is that the Foley disaster represents one more in the long list of ethical breaches (Cunningham, Ney, Abramoff, etc.) on his watch, not to mention the abominations of legislation...." It's not just this one thing; it's the pattern of things.

Re: Hastert

By on 10.6.06 | 11:21AM

Paul: You're enormously overheated on the Hastert issue. There's no proof -- even alleged -- that Hastert knew about "attempted pedophilia." Why the panic?

The 527 Media have made this a story, and people who keep going on it are playing into their hands. Booting Hastert now does the same, and corrects nothing. Part of leadership is taking the heat. And part of campaigning is keeping your head when your adversary wants you to lose it. You may not believe that dumping Hastert -- before any proof of culpability -- would help the Dems. But that doesn't prove it false.

Re: Hastert Obnoxious

By on 10.6.06 | 9:37AM

Leaders are supposed to lead. They set the tone for how their organization is to be run. They establish their expectations of what their organizations' moral and ethical standards should be and expect everyone to follow them.

Have you ever heard out of Hastert's mouth "this is the way it's going to be and we will tolerate no less," or words to that effect? Have you heard him make any bold statements against ethical breaches, self-serving pork, or any of the other crap that has taken root under GOP control -- at least any the media has latched on to? Yeah, he's supposedly "taking responsibility" for the Foley lapse, but what the heck does that really mean? Calling for an investigation? Big step! And as far as Hastert condemning it...gee, that's really stepping out bravely when one of your soldiers has been hitting on teenagers.

Sure, Hastert is probably personally ethical (as much as anybody who has to compromise with Democrats on laws is capable of doing)...nice guy...former wrestling coach...but does training grapplers make you qualified for one of the three or four most important leadership posts in the country?