The Spectacle Blog

James Webb, Alito And The Post

By on 9.14.06 | 2:45PM

An article in today's Washington Post reads:   

Virginia/>/>'s U.S. Senate race turned nasty Wednesday as Republican Sen. George Allen launched a character attack on his Democratic opponent's past views toward women in combat, signaling the start of a two-month barrage of negative campaigning in what has become a close race.

/>/>

 

Canadian Columbine

By on 9.14.06 | 2:08PM

Every tragedy contains a little lesson. The Montreal killings informs us that the perpetrator, Kimveer Gill, was fond of playing the Internet game, "Super Columbine Massacre." The lesson: there is such a game. Derivative lesson: it can't be long now.

Remnick on Clinton

By on 9.14.06 | 11:51AM

Last night, I read David Remnick's very very long New Yorker profile on Bill Clinton, in which he follows Clinton around Africa as Clinton does work on AIDS. For those who don't have time to read the whole piece, this press release highlights many of the key parts and the magazine's website also posted an interview with Remnick, in which he discusses the story. Putting aside Remnick's gushing over Clinton, which is par for the course for the New Yorker, I thought the piece went on far too long and lacked a clear focus. Remnick obviously had a high degree of access, but I think he assumes that the reader will be as interested as he was in every little detail of his trip with Clinton.

Re: Radical Rosie

By on 9.14.06 | 11:03AM

Hunter, the "radical Christian" trope is a tired staple of the left, as you know. Some years back, Andrew Sullivan put it forth most tiringly, and I wrote a column, called "The Politics of Horniness," for Enter Stage Right, here.

I concluded:

What does Andrew Sullivan really mean? If Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are no better than Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, what should we do? Send Green Berets to root out The 700 Club? Or does Sullivan mean that Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden are no worse than Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? If so, we could simply exile them from the A list of the Eastern seaboard. Maybe let them host a late-night down-market cable television show.

The Chafee Victory

By on 9.14.06 | 9:37AM

The Republicans put forth an impressive effort in Rhode Island, according to The Washington Post. Would seem to bode well for them in November.

As someone who grew up in Rhode Island (with a lot of family still there), I think there is no way in hell that Laffey was going to win there. As much as Chafee triggers my gag reflex, there is something to be said for making the strategic choice in this situation. Retaining the majority in the current unstable, insecure atmosphere of terror and war is important.

Unless Chafee wins and then fails to vote for the GOP caucus nominee for Majority Leader. Then you can throw what I wrote above out the window.

The Dems’ Security Agenda

By on 9.14.06 | 8:45AM

The Washington Times today has a "we're not Softees on terrorism" article about the Democrats, with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi determined not to be "Swift-Boated:"

Part of national security, said the House's top Democrat, is protecting the environment.

"We are advancing tough and smart national security policies to keep the American people safe," said Mrs. Pelosi, adding that Democrats' national security agenda aims "to fight terrorism and defeat it, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, to stop global warming and any other threats to the safety and security of the American people."

Kevin Madden, spokesman for House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, said the remark reflects a broader national security weakness by Democrats.

"The American people want a strong posture against the global scourge of terrorism and all Democrats can offer is Nancy Pelosi's babble putting that fight on par with global warming," he said.

Pages