It is, it seems, impossible to escape the anti-Americanism that runs through the London Independent like some rancid stream. Here, buried deep in a review of a movie that is itself hardly a paean to the US, we find this charming comment:

“But this would be to ignore the veiled criticism of America, once the country that prided itself on being a refuge to the tired and poor but more recently the scourge of immigrants and aliens.”

A scourge?

Robert Brandon, the, er, ‘chair’ of Duke ‘University’s’ philosophy department has now come up with a reply to his critics. It’s worth reading, but let’s take a look at a few of the points he raises.

“There seems to be a widespread perception that professors reward students for agreeing with them and penalize those who disagree with them. That has certainly not been my experience; not as a student, nor a professor.”

Ah well, Professor, could that be, perhaps, because you have always surrounded yourself with those prudent enough to subscribe (at least publicly) to the smelly little orthodoxies of today’s academy?

But is there any bias in the way that Duke hires its teaching staff? Brandon doesn’t think so. To his credit, he is honest enough to acknowledge that its faculty does lean to the Left, but:

“The claim is that we liberals only want to hire other liberals. The process for hiring faculty in our university is largely decentralized. The hiring units in universities are departments, not the administration. I did not presume to speak for other departments, but I did categorically deny that there was any such bias in the hiring practices of Duke's philosophy department. None of us would want such a bias to be there, and in virtually all cases there is no mechanism for it to be there.”

That’s an argument, I suppose, but , thinking about it for a moment or two, it fits entertainingly uncomfortably with the case for mandatory ‘diversity’ usually made by academics in universities such as Duke. I don’t know where Professor Brandon stands on that particular issue, but supporters of affirmative action generally regard a heavy preponderance of one ethnic group or one sex within an institution as undeniable proof of prejudice. Following that logic, the same should be true of a teaching staff heavily skewed towards one ideological point of view. Any thoughts on that, professor?

What really is nonsense, however, is this claim:

“Typically, we know nothing about the candidates' politics until after they are hired.”

Oh come on, professor. In your discipline, a quick glance at a candidate’s publications, fields of interest and so on will be more than enough to reveal his or her political leanings. You don’t need to look for a bumper sticker.

Brandon also wonders why so many academics lean to the Left. Hmmm, tempting though it may be, the old jibe (“those who can’t do, teach) is not the sole explanation. Still, Brandon has raised an interesting topic, but one for another time, so I’ll just conclude with this remark from the professor:

“There is a statistical association between the qualities that make for good academics and those that lead to left-leaning political views.”

Well, Dr. Brandon, that depends on what you mean by a ‘good’ academic.

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg:

You got the title wrong when you said "WATCHBLOG DENIES ANY LINK TO KERRY RUMOR"

In actuality, Watchblog claimed all of the credit for the Kerry rumor (claiming Drudge stole it).

What they denied was that the site's proprietor, who is the link to the Clark campaign, had any involvement.

They sent us this:

Your report of conspiracy theories regarding WatchBlog, its founder Cameron Barrett and the Kerry affair rumor have no basis in fact. Cameron Barrett turned the management of WatchBlog over to me back in October when he went to the Clark campaign. Cameron has had absolutely no role in WatchBlog operations, nor has he written anything on WatchBlog since then. Cameron's only role since October of 2003 with WatchBlog is that it is his server which hosts the software which WatchBlog runs on.

The writer who broke the story on Feb. 6 on WatchBlog, SoL, is known by me personally and he has no contacts with Cameron Barrett and has told me his source was a media insider having no connections with the Clark campaign. Drudge stole the story some 6 days later and called it a scoop. The story has been on WatchBlog for 7 days now. These are the facts from the source. If you are interested in publishing facts, publish this email. If like Drudge, you are just into promoting ratings through misinformation, by all means wastebasket this factual feedback on the conspiracy theory of a connection between WatchBlog's founder and the Clark Campaign and the stolen story by Drudge.

These facts can be backed up by the editors and writers of WatchBlog who now number more than 40.

David Remer
Managing Editor, WatchBlog

Russian womanhood has been scarred by the country's extraordinary popular reliance upon abortion as a primary means of contraception -- with the abortions in question conducted under the less-than-exemplary standards of Soviet and post-Soviet medicine. As one expert (Murray Feshbach) has noted, "approximately 10 to 20 percent of [Russian] women become infertile after abortions, according to numerous reports." Add to this the explosive spread of potentially curable sexually transmitted infections. According to official figures, the incidence of syphilis in 2001 was 100 times higher in Russia than in Germany.

A reader notes:

There are some significant difference between broadarick and Burket. The two people that Burket relies upon for corroboration say he is a liar and the people Broadarick told about the rape support her story. That all goes toward crediblity, doesn't it?

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg:

You provided a link to Instapundit pointing out how Barrett lied.

I would point you to this article by Tim Noah over on Slate, in which he bemoans what is happening to Kerry, sarcastically decribing how to smear someone. I notice this:

"In lieu of actual evidence, it's sufficient to find the accuser believable. That was Wall Street Journal editorialist Dorothy Rabinowitz's justification for running with the story of Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed that Bill Clinton raped her."

A cynic like me would point out how the entire story regarding Barrett involved the reporters finding the accuser believable in lieu of actual evidence.

Why do you think Mr. Noah didn't write a similar piece on the anatomy of a smear against President Bush when it had been all over the media, and instead wrote one in response to the Kerry allegations which the media has barely touched?

Well, I've put up a dozen of the last 14 posts. I'm gonna go write a very special G-File now. Back in a bit.

From a very depressing story in the IHT: :

Anti-Semitism is so prevalent in some of the housing projects that ring Paris and other major French cities that "it's become infused into the language," according to Barbara Lefebvre, a history teacher at a French public school.
.
"Just about every week I see students in my class - where there are no Jews - insulting each other by saying, 'Stop it, you Jew.' Or 'No, you can't borrow my pen, it's not yours, Jew.' Or if their pen is broken they'll say: 'What's wrong with my pen? It's a Jew.'
.
"When you point it out, they say, 'This is just a way of speaking.'"

The Retired Texas National Guard Lt. Col who's accusing Bush of having sanitized his military record has had run-ins with the National Guard before. On December 21, 2001 the Austin-American Statesman reported that Burket was one of the leading "disgruntled" guardsmen to oppose Bush's appointment of Daniel James III to run the Air National Guard. James is the son of the first four star African-American general was appointed to run the Texas National Guard by Bush in 1997. From the story:

James said he was notified by an Air Force inspector general soon after his Oct. 3 nomination that allegations against him had caused the Air Force to begin a review of his tenure in Texas.

James said he believes at least 10 former Guard members who served under him at Camp Mabry are trying to block his appointment. He blamed years of strained relationships with them. Most of the men did not embrace his leadership when he took the job, he said, and others are angry because they were bypassed for promotions.

Some of the former Guard members acknowledged sending letters protesting the nomination to the Senate Armed Services Committee and filing reports listing alleged incidents of mismanagement with the U.S. Air Force, the supervising authority of the Air National Guard. They declined to provide copies of the reports and letters, as did the Armed Services Committee.

One of the most vocal detractors is Chief Warrant Officer Harvey Gough of Dallas, now retired from 30 years in the National Guard. He has been locked in dispute with James for at least two years, culminating with a lawsuit Gough filed against James in a Travis County court in January 2000. Gough alleged he was subjected to ethnic slurs in 1998 by members of James' staff and accused James of retaliating against him by court-martialing him for insubordination without an appeal hearing.

The suit was dismissed earlier this year after a judge said Gough's complaint belonged in military review boards. That decision is being appealed.

Gough said that when he learned of James' nomination, he quickly mobilized other disgruntled soldiers. One is Lt. Col. Bill Burkett of Abilene, who acknowledged that he sent two letters to the Air Force and the Armed Services Committee.

Burkett also has a lawsuit against James on appeal, alleging that Guard officials prevented him from getting medical care at Dyess Air Force Base near his home when he returned from a mission in Panama because of a management audit report he filed.

I'm sure this reader is right. And many other emailers have also told me to beware any email which begins "As a lifelong Republican...." But I would add that I doubt it's just letter's to the editor and emails to bloggers. I'm sure C-Span callers and others have played this game too, on both sides of the aisle. What's different is that people are publicly advocating it, saying lying is a good thing. The Clintonian rot sinks ever deeper. Anyway, the letter:

I am not surprised by the actions of Moby and others of the liberal/leftist persuasion. I wouldn't expect less of them. But did you ever consider that maybe their tactics are also aimed at the various "letters to the editors" pages of the daily newspapers? and not just to the blogosphere?

More and more I am reading such letters that begin with something like "I am a life-long Republican" or "I voted for Bush in the last election" that then go on to list the litany of sins perpetrated by the current administration.

Letters such as these may well influence the non-blogosphere since their carry the cachet of the daily snoozepaper. I've noticed that these letters don't have the same amount of vitriol that a liberal/leftist writer would use, but they have got me thinking.

I don't agree with everything going on the Bush administration, but I sure wouldn't write a letter complaining about it to the local news.

According to the experts , George W. Bush is, is, is "looking for votes!"

Update: This link was broken before. It's been fixed.

Until now, I've always used the phrase "Lying for Justice" to describe how environmenatlists, racial hucksters and other leftists seem perfectly willing to make up "crises," racist incidents (from Tawana Brawley through the epidemic of racial hoaxes on college campuses) and the like in order to mobilize society in a "progressive" direction (this will be a big subject of my book, btw). Well, now we have Mobyism. The rock singer recently explained to the Daily News:

"No one's talking about how to keep the other side home on Election Day," Moby tells us. "It's a lot easier than you think and it doesn't cost that much. This election can be won by 200,000 votes."

Moby suggests that it's possible to seed doubt among Bush's far-right supporters on the Web.

"You target his natural constituencies," says the Grammy-nominated techno-wizard. "For example, you can go on all the pro-life chat rooms and say you're an outraged right-wing voter and that you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to an abortion clinic and paid for her to get an abortion.

"Then you go to an anti-immigration Web site chat room and ask, 'What's all this about George Bush proposing amnesty for illegal aliens?'"

A couple of weeks ago, several liberal bloggers announced that they wanted their readers to deliberately make up fake emails and send them to NR because they found the real emails we were posting in the Corner too unhelpful to their cause. So far they've all been way too stupid to fool us, but that could change. And now, last night, Andrew Sullivan received an email that he -- and I, and a lot of our mutual readers -- think was made up.

Whether it was or wasn't, it now seems safe to predict that the Moby-Moore fringe of liberalism is ratcheting-up it's ends justify-the-means approach to political discourse. Get ready for the Age of Mobyism, it won't be pretty.

Andrew Sullivan frets that that the Republicans might be behind the Kerry story and he posts a long letter which more or less takes it as a given that they are. I agree that it would be bad and stupid if the GOP was behind this. And I agree that we have more important things to argue about right now. (And I agree with Rick that the Republicans should shut up about the whole thing).

But why Andrew is so credulous is beyond me. The Republicans I've talked to today, including one in the administration, all think that the timing of this story doesn't really help Republicans much. That may be right or wrong, who knows, they certainly didn't know anything about the origins of this story. But we know from that Craig Crawford email that Chris Lehane has been "shopping around" the story for a while and that Clark himself has been alluding to Kerry's "intern" problem (I'm hearing it's not really an intern, by the way, but that's entirely unverified). How exactly does that sound like a Republican-driven story?

Sullivan's correspondent frets that the Republicans are once again "taking us down the Lewinsky path. Well, two points about that. First of all, the person -- the only person -- who took us down that path was Bill Clinton.

Second, as for the meaning of that whole episode I've long disagreed with Andrew's
interpretation of the whole Lewinsky scandal. His "Scolds" piece in the New York Times magazine moved the whole "conservatives are obsessed about sex" storyline very far down the field and in my opinion did considerable damage to the conservative cause. And while he may have been right about some conservatives, he painted with way too broad a brush, in my opinion. For example, he wrote "For the new conservatives, the counterattack on homosexual legitimacy is of a piece with the battle against Presidential adultery." And, as someone who was pretty deeply involved in the Lewinsky battles, I can say that was simply untrue in my own experience.

Regardless, maybe Andrew knows something that gives credence to his fears that the GOP is behind this. But it sounds to me like he's getting ahead of himself.

To look at it from an economic point of view, this has all the earmarks of a "demand-pull" story. The whole hep political world spends a week saying: "Only a big ol' sex scandal could stop Kerry now!" There's a low-level not-so-scandalous rumor involving sex and Kerry and the magic word "intern" that's been kicking around for a while. Demand's so strong it pulls in whatever's out there in the way of supply, and thanks to Drudge, it's now a "story" that "rocks the campaign."

I may be wrong, but it sure looks bogus to me.

From ABC's " The Note ":

" RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie speaks at the Washoe County Lincoln Day Dinner in Reno, Nev., today and the gloves come off again, with regards to Sen. Kerry.

The Note has a preview:

"One of Senator Kerry's campaign consultants was recently quoted in the New York Times saying, 'Everything is on the table&Everything.'

"We know that 'everything' means taking slanderous charges against the President of the United States, funneling money to shadow organizations in voter suppression tactics, and spreading lies on the Internet."

"It's only February and they have made it clear they intend to run the direct the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics. This is because they don't want a debate on the issues, and they don't want to run on Sen. Kerry's record. I guess I can't blame them for that."

"We as a party can not sink to their level. We must stick to the truth in this race."

Simpsons movie on the way.

FROM SESAME STREET TO PENNSYLVANIA AVE: BIG BIRD AND FRIENDS RUFFLE FEATHERS ON "THE WEST WING"

Special Episode Set To Air on NBC, Wednesday, March 3rd

Burbank – February 12, 2004 – Members of the Sesame Street Muppets will make their first-ever guest appearance together on a primetime series when they visit The White House on NBC's "The West Wing." The episode will air Wednesday, March 3, 2004, 9:00 –10:00 p.m. ET.

Big Bird, Elmo, Zoe and Rosita make their debut when President Bartlet (Martin Sheen) enlists C.J. (Allison Janney) to help improve the First Lady's image. Abbey (Stockard Channing) embraces C.J.'s suggestion to work with the Muppets and show the public that she's a First Lady who is also a working doctor. The White House staff and their children are abuzz when Abbey films a public service announcement in which she gives the beloved Elmo a check-up.

Her views on marital fidelity: "I don't think I could have coped so well" with a mate's philandering as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has. "I used to say to my husband, my late husband, 'If you ever get something I'll maim you. Not kill you, just maim you.' And we'd laugh, laugh, laugh." Heinz adds that she has never had any reason to suspect either of her husbands. "Not for one day, because what I expect of them, they have a right to expect of me. Maybe I'm into 18-year-olds." At which Heinz's campaign handler, former political journalist Chris Black, cautioned bleakly: "That was a joke."

Some very quick thoughts before I run off to lunch:

1. Personally, I don't relish another one of these "debates" over adulterous sex by a Democratic politician. Not because I condone it or anything. But, I'm just exhausted with the topic. It is entirely possible, and perhaps probable, that most Americans will view it the same way and this story will have few legs.

2. And, we do not know if the story is true yet. I am sure the Drudge story is true to the extent that he's accurately reporting that others are investigating it. But the underlying story may not be as juicey as it sounds. Or, it may be much, much jucier, but nobody will talk on the record, killing it.

3. Assuming there's a kerfuffle coming, I'm delighted that this is coming out in the primary and not the general election because I'm fairly confident that Republicans don't have their fingerprints on the story and that would be impossible to deny -- regardless of the facts -- if this came out during the general election.

4. It will be fascinating to see how Howard Dean and John Edwards talk about the issue. They have one obvious point to their advantage. Because Kerry's campaign is based almost entirely on the "electability" issue they can go after Kerry on those grounds while at the same time denying the underlying offense is "anybody's business." Hence they will be able to say something like "those nasty Republicans will unfairly exploit John Kerry's private mistakes. I think that's terrible, but we have to face reality and run the best candidate we can. John Kerry's damaged goods."

5. I'm going to lunch.

Gosh, I hope she keeps defending John Kerry. I particularly like this line, "Any attempts to link Kerry to me and make him look bad with that connection is completely false."

Um, does that mean any attempts to link him with her to make John Kerry look good are true? And if so, how exactly does one link a Democratic candidate to Hanoi Jane for the purposes of making him look good?

Seriously, if Kerry can be linked to Fonda to make him look good, presumably he can be linked to her period. Besides it's not up to Jane Fonda to judge whether such links make him look good or bad. Her links to the North Vietnamese, for example, made her look good to some people and bad to others. You can't declare that just the bad impressions are "false."

John - My point isn't that you can't pick a boring VP. George HW Bush was boring. Al Gore (versions 3.1 thru 9.6) was boring. But the Veep needs to balance-out what a candidate is missing or put forward a theme. I agree Gephardt would help in the Midwest and if he could assure Missouri, that's a strong argument for him. But Gephardt multiplies the dull white liberal guy factor of the Kerry candidacy. While I diagree that people saw Cheney as boring (I think they saw him as having mega gravitas), getting a boring Veep didn't hurt Bush because Bush needed a heavy-hitter to round out his ticket. Yes, I know, Gore didn't round-out the Clinton ticket so much as reinforce it -- new generation of leaders and all that. But the insight Clinton had was that the Veep pick was a way to launch a theme, convey an image. Bush did that in 2000 with Cheney by picking a guy from Wyoming in that he wanted to signal the frat party in Washington would be over if the GOP won. If Kerry picks Gephardt what will the the message be? Tired dull Democrats who oversaw the demise of the Democratic Party take one last stand?

Hey, I could be wrong because I'm analyzing this badly, or I could be wrong because Kerry makes the wrong decision. I hope it's the latter.

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg, I am a Democrat. While I don't like George Bush, his policies or this current Republican Administration I also completely relate to what you said about Kerry. He is not an inspiring or commanding figure. In fact I think he is phony, and I believe that he will have a difficult time relating to the average American voter in November.

But I also believe Kerry will ultimately win in 2004, because Bush has successfully alienated not only virtually every Democrat in the country, but also many 'independent' and Republican voters. I believe enough of the country is angry or disaffected enough for him to loose. I pray everyday that he will move back to Crawford, TX permanently.

Anyway, thanks for your great article about Kerry.

Balko responds to Ramesh and me.

John - Your piece this morning is very good and very helpful in terms of laying out the pros and cons of the Veep contenders. But I do not buy the Gephardt prediction either. You can pick a Washington insider when you're a Washington outsider. But when the top of the ticket is pure beltway politician -- I mean he's taken more special interest money than any other Senator for fifteen years -- adding another beltway pol doesn't make that much sense. It certainly makes some, as you point out. You'd have to go back to LBJ to find an all-insider presidential ticket.

And remember Dean's fired up a big chunk of the base by running against the business-as-usual crowd. Gephardt is the distilled essence of business as usual. He oversaw the loss of the House to the Gingroid Barbarians, for Pete's sake. He's perhaps the only major Democratic politician other than Kerry who's duller than Kerry -- that is since Gore has lost the ability to modulate the pitch of his voice. The Democrats really, really need to fire-up their base, excite the media, etc. I just don't think Gephardt fires up anybody except Teamsters in St. Louis.

I am in the military and stationed overseas (not in Iraq or a forward deployed location), we have the pleasure of listening to NPR as part of the Armed Forces Network radio programming--they do give us Rush Limbaugh in the evenings so at least I feel like it's even. For the most part NPR doesn't bother me--although subversive in their means--at least they don't yell and every now and then there is a good story. Although they do have to do away with all that "authentic" background noise during their stories. If I hear one more person stacking boxes, breathing heavy, or the sound of seagulls on the coast--I'm going to scream. WE GET IT--you're tying to keep it real. Anyways on my way back from lunch I heard Bob Edwards morning edition. On it he was interviewing a reporter about President Bush's guard service record. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY OFFENSIVE TO GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL! I realized that the media attention on the service record shows no deep though or true flushing out of the entire issue. THEY COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE GUARD OR RESERVE SERVICE MEMBER. Here is a copy of the e-mail I am sending to Mr. Edwards for your review (I think it explains my thoughts the best):

Mr. Edwards- Sir I have always considered you an even handed reporter of most situations and in addition you are always well read and knowledgeable about nearly every issue. However, your story this morning about the President's guard service record disappointed. Your show, in addition to the most recent media coverage, does not understand the basics about what service in the National Guard or Reserves means. It is NOT full time active duty. Guard members shuffle their training exercises, extra details, and required training throughout the year in order to maintain their guard status. In addition their are several layers of service--full-time, part-time, active duty reserve, and active duty guard. Guard members will often bounce back and forth between different statuses--active, inactive, etc...--throughout their careers. They truly are "citizen soldiers" that supplement the active duty military in peacetime and wartime. Many guard and reserve members spend much more time as "civilians" than as "military members." With recent events the necessity of calling up so many more guard and reserve personnel has switched that paradigm--many now spend a lot of time being "military members" and less time as civilians. So while you have reported in the past about the trauma to communities and families caused by the activation of guard and reserve communities--you do not see the connection between that anxiety of being called to full time active duty (when one is used to being a part-time guard member) and what the President did. It is obvious from his pay statements and medical records that the President was serving a part time guard requirement--like many of his counterparts did and continue to do. Rather than explain these nuances or fully explain the story this morning--you got into the specifics about dental records. Rather than look at all sides, you see one detail. It appears to me that the story was designed to convince the listener that President Bush was not serving his military requirement. The unfortunate bi-product of that report was to communicate to those individuals who proudly serve as part-time guard members (and there are a significant number) that there service is not good enough.

Sincerely, [NAME WITHHELD]

On the slim chance that you get to read this--along with the other 200 e-mails you get a day--please do not refer to my name. This is my opinion and not the opinion of the military. Thanks for leading the way on the corner--you all keep many of us in the military going!

One final note. In order to become a fighter interceptor pilot, President Bush had to complete Undergraduate Pilot Training. UPT--as we call it--is the most demanding training program in the Air Force and one of the most demanding flight schools ever created. It is a year long brutal trail by fire. The washout rate when he went through was probably about 30% (and these are college educated highly skilled motivated people). I don't have any hard data on that, but that's about the historical washout factor. The T-38 would have been his last training jet and is still considered on of the most difficult aircraft to land due to its high approach speed and large amount of power. Your brain has to think at about Mach 5! They just don't graduate people from pilot training because their fun to be around--you have to pass numerous checkrides and EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT is graded--(upwards of 37 separate times). If you can't do it--you're gone. How's that for a free market, conservative program?

Thanks for listening to the rant!

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

Brandon is, clearly, a bigot, not a gentleman. For a definition of a stupid conservative, however, I'll offer this: a stupid conservative is a conservative who gives any money to Duke 'university'. Alumni, please note.

The headline reads: "Greenspan Says Economy Improving but Risks Remain"

The lede:

The Federal Reserve's chairman, Alan Greenspan, offered his most optimistic outlook for the economy today since taking over the central bank in 1986. And he gave no indication that the Fed was at all inclined to begin raising short-term interest rates anytime soon.

An email about my article on NRO today:

One part toward the end gave me pause:

"We had gone to war for our own interests, [Krauthammer] said, not for the freedom of Afghan women. Now this was a kind of hypertrophic realism. From the principle that a nation should follow its interests it does not follow that it is in its interests always to make its case in terms of its interests. "

Perhaps I misunderstand, but you seem to give support for a Kissinger-style
policy of disinformation regarding the country's intents. Restated: What is
truly in the nation's interests does not always sound good when placed
against the backdrop of standard liberal values, so therefore, the president may find it desirable to disguise his true intentions under the cloak of
liberal values.

I must take exception, and state that such a stance can only hurt the
administration. Among other things, it was this sort of policy that led to
the "credibility gap" of the Vietnam-era presidents, and is leading to the
resurfacing of that exact same charge against the current administration. I
have yet to see the exact term "credibility gap" resurface in the major
media, but they are dancing around the term, and it is only a matter of
time. It is not a charge of lying, per se, but rather one that denotes
untrustworthiness on the part of the president's spokesmen.

Call me a liberal idealist, but I believe that if classified information is
not at stake, the president as well as his competitors should be as
forthcoming as possible with their intentions and ideas. Massaging the truth
is tempting and may work in the short term, but ultimately, it may render a
president as powerless as it did LBJ and Nixon in their final months.

My response: I was not primarily arguing here that American administrations should dissemble about their motives--although I wouldn't categorically rule that out. On the Afghan case, what I would say is this: We did not go to war to free Afghan women from oppression for its own sake, and would not go to war only to free other women elsewhere from oppression. But their liberation is a very beneficial side-product of the war; it is probably in our long-term interests; and there is no reason not to highlight this happy effect when encountering people who regard America as a force for evil. Let me use another example to get at what I had in mind. Let us say that the administration believes that the Kyoto global-warming pact would hurt the economy a lot and help the environment very little. Now the U.S. could say we won't participate in this treaty because it hurts us--because it's against our national interests. Or it could say: We oppose this treaty because it's a bad idea for everyone. I'm just saying that the former public rhetoric, which the administration has adopted, may not serve its interests as well as the latter, which is just as true. Very often there are multiple motives for a political decision, or multiple layers of motives; all of them can be taken into consideration, but not all of them are equally worth dwelling on. In the Kyoto case, you could go behind one of the motives to explain that for the same reason it wasn't in America's interests, it wasn't in anyone's.

I can't decide how impressive I think this is. If you pretend to be a sitcom character or a dictator it asks you questions and guesses who you are.

You just got to love this:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey sought a lenient sentence for a convicted rapist who is the son of one of her staffers, igniting a political firestorm over the weekend.

The Petaluma Democrat quickly apologized after a Marin County newspaper reported she intervened on behalf of Stewart Pearson, who pleaded guilty last fall to raping a 17-year-old Terra Linda girl and covering her face with a rag soaked in household chemicals in an attempt to incapacitate her....

.... "Given my support for both women's rights and victims' rights, my constituents and my community are right to be shocked by my action. I apologize to them. But most of all I apologize to the young woman and her family.

"I apologize for making a horrible situation worse, and I am sorry that they have been forced to relive this heinous crime by reading about it in the newspaper, again."

I'm just going to drop this one in here like a hockey puck and quietly back away. From the AP:

GUADALAJARA, Mexico — The boos nearly drowned out "The Star-Spangled Banner," and a few dozen fans chanted "Usama! Usama!" as the United States was eliminated by Mexico in Olympic men's soccer qualifying.

A loud anti-American crowd yelled the first name of Usama bin Laden (search), the leader of the Al Qaeda (search) terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks, as Mexico beat the United States 4-0 Tuesday night in the under-23 tournament, claiming a berth in the Athens Olympics (search).

As U.S. players left the stadium for their bus, several fans -- some clutching beers -- chanted "Usama! Usama!"

“‘Treasure’ is the right word to use for these three collections of children’s literature. Indeed, reading through the National Review treasuries is a happy reminder of the time when children were respected as creatures capable of both real thoughts and real imaginings rather than, as they so much are today, no more than a cohort of small and conventionally attitudinizing adults. Indeed, with the Treasuries in tow, parents and children are both apt to begin anticipating bedtime as a whole new adventure.”

Radley Balko criticizes my death penalty post from the other day. He writes, in part:

Jonah Goldberg repeats an old refrain -- that for all the wrongful death row convictions of the last several years, wrongful execution is still a poor argument against capital punishment because America has never executed an innocent person.

That's not entirely correct. A more accurate phrasing would be "we don't know if we've ever executed an innocent person."

That's because once someone's executed for a crime, prosecutors in most jurisdictions close the books on the case. Permanently. Files are generally either sealed or destroyed. The reason? Precisely so arguments like Goldberg's retain their validity. No one wants to be the first DA who's proven to have sent an innocent man to his death. Once the convicted is put to death, odds are no one will ever lay eyes on the kind of evidence that might later point to doubt. The files are gone. Or inaccessible....

There's more, but let me just say that Balko's right and I'm wrong. I should have said nobody has ever demonstrated that we've executed an innocent man. We don't know. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say I'm willing to say that I'm sure some people were wrongly executed in the United States if we are going to include the 19th century when there were scads of crimes punishable by death and trials were a little less formal.

But in the hypothetical contemporary cases Balko is discussing, he makes it sound as if innocent victims are going unrevealed because nobody is looking. That might be happening. It's more likely, however, that no one is looking because the guy was guilty and after 12 years of exhaustive appeals no one doubts his guilt.

However, it's also worth saying that even if we wrongly executed someone, that in and of itself hardly constitutes an argument for abolishing the death penalty. It constitutes an argument for fixing the death penalty. I know that OSHA and the FDA are aware that certain regulations will result in X number of deaths per 100,000. But we don't say the FDA should stop doing what it's doing. If the criminal justice system screws up, we should fix the problem, punish those responsible and move on.

From the just-posted G-File:

"The Democrats seem to have succumbed to a terrible bout of wishful thinking, like Michael Moore bringing a condom in his wallet to a Sports Illustrated swimsuit-photo shoot."

I assume everyone's seen this already? Here's how it starts:

George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch. It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention....

Our friend Kevin Holts berry sent me this from the Harvard Crimson:

After flipping through the pages of Squirm, a Vassar College erotica magazine, the Committee on College Life (CCL) voted to approve a student-run magazine that will feature nude pictures of Harvard undergraduates and articles about sexual issues at its meeting yesterday.

Fourteen members of the CCL approved H Bomb—a magazine that will be similar to the Vassar publication—as an official Harvard publication. Two members abstained.

Assistant Dean of the College Paul J. McLoughlin, a CCL member, said he consulted University General Counsel Robert W. Iuliano ’83, the University news office and University spokesperson Robert P. Mitchell before the decision.

“I needed to see if there were liability issues,” McLoughlin said.

In order to avoid liability, students will not be able to take nude pictures inside of Harvard buildings, according to McLoughlin.

He also said that although approved, the magazine will not necessarily be funded by the College.

“They will still have to go through the granting application process. [Approval] gives them the ability to apply for grants but nothing else,” he said, adding that “just to get a publication off and running is about $6,000.”

In early December, Katharina C. Baldegg ’06 and Camilla A. Hrdy ’05, the two students who proposed the magazine, met with McLoughlin to begin the approval process for H Bomb.

Baldegg said that she did not think the process was especially difficult. CCL, which is composed of students, faculty and administrators, approves the creation of all new student groups, including publications.

“I don’t think we faced any opposition. People have been very open about it,” she said.

Hrdy said that “initially there was some concern about the nudity aspect,” but that CCL members eventually “got past the fear of porn.”

Baldegg added that she does not object to H Bomb being called porn.

“It’s a sex magazine that will hopefully be run by students of all sexual orientations and backgrounds,” Baldegg said.Baldegg said she expected the magazine, which will also include art and fiction articles, to garner a lot of attention.

“I guess student porn is sort of an underground thing,” she said. ....

I was all set to get into a big knock-down brawl with Ramesh in the Corner about the Krauthammer speech. But it turns out Ramesh's objections all strike me as reasonable. Krauthammer probably is/was too dismissive of the utility of allies. But he was dismissive in style not so much in substance. He did concede that is better to have allies than not. He just didn't get into all of the reasons why this is so.

I think this reader is on to something:

I saw Harold Ford, Jr., the very serious congressman from Tennessee on Fox and Friends today. I was surprised and pleased to hear from him that the Democrats should move on and forget about concerning themselves with Bush’s military record. My first thought was, “thank goodness, someone’s being rational.” That was quickly followed with the same old cynical, suspicious thought: what angle is being played hear.

One of the hosts brought up Kerry’s post-tour anti-war campaigning. Ford’s response was that if they were going to bring that up, he would bring up Bush’s service record. The host moved on and brought up Kerry’s voting record. To this, Ford gave the same response. In other words, he won’t talk about Bush’s service record anymore unless, of course, someone brings up anything uncomfortable about Kerry’s past.

I laughed, turned off the TV and went to work.

"QUESTIONS REMAIN"

Mr. Graham --

The media is right in saying that "questions remain" about Bush's National Guard duty. Questions such as --

How can we stick it to Bush?

How can we use this make Kerry seem more palatable to the center?

How can we keep this story going until November?

Ten months after returning home from Vietnam, a young John Kerry strolled into the offices of The Harvard Crimson on Feb. 13, 1970 as an obscure underdog in the Democratic Congressional primary.

The decorated veteran, honorably discharged after a tour of duty in the Mekong Delta, spoke in fierce terms during his daylong interview with The Crimson’s Samuel Z. Goldhaber ’72.

But almost 34 years later, Kerry’s remarks on American military and intelligence operations vastly diverge from opinions expressed by the present-day Sen. John F. Kerry, D.-Mass., the leading candidate in the Democratic primary for president.

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.”

From a reader:

Remember at the end of Band of Brother when Capt Winters quoted himself by saying he was "no hero, but served in the company of heroes". Kerry seems to come from the perspective of "I was a hero, and I served in the company of rapists, murderers and drug addicts". Bryan C. Washington, DC

I didn't have the energy. But this reader seems to have it about right:

Great. So your Kerry-defending liberal was able to recite a litany of examples of Kerry bashing Republicans. Consider me unimpressed. Will he also give the Senator credit for wiping his, um, nose and looking before crossing the street? The challenge was to show where Kerry threw caution to the wind and “let the chips fall where they may.” So where has Kerry gone out on his own, challenged liberal orthodoxy, or seriously pushed an unpopular reform measure? The fact is, he hasn’t. He has spent decades in the Senate as Teddy’s shadow, voting nearly lockstep either with his party or with the prevailing liberal orthodoxy.

Yes, Kerry’s Vietnam experience shaped him – his WHOLE Vietnam experience, that is. Becoming a war hero, throwing his medals away – but not really, of course – and accusing the U.S. military of phony gross human rights abuses and crimes against humanity. He’s a cad and a phony, and even his supporters know it.

Meanwhile lots of readers are peeved over my use of the word "leaks" regarding the Manny Miranda resignation. The point's well-taken. I simply held onto the word from my discussion of the Clinton pattern. Anyway, here's a typical email:

Jonah,

Repeat after me.... "There are no 'leaks'. There were no 'leaks'...."

Language matters, and it stuns me how quickly even the brightest conservatives adopt the language framed by the opposition. There was no "leak" in the Senate Judiciary memo flap. All that happened was a republican staffer read and shared documents that were available to anyone with access to the network. By buying into the liberal's designation of it as a "leak", you impute not only motives but actions to Mr. Miranda that were not there.

Here's the only good faith effort that's come in from an actual Kerry supporter (who's also a Friend of Lowry's). It's a bit more than a paragraph, but it's all I got:

... Here's my response to your challenge:

From the perspective of a committed liberal who opposed Nixon, Reagan, the
contras, etc., I would argue that a number of the key events in Kerry's rise combined a certain gutsiness with a knack for publicity. The NY Times profile
on Sunday by Rosenbaum and Toner makes most of these points, but to highlight:

-- Kerry's overall, long-term career focus on foreign policy qualifies, since
the American public truly does not care about foreign policy, especially when it
gets complicated. Many of his initiatives and inquiries were risky, with
significant downside potential.

-- Kerry latched on early to Iran-contra, and outed Oliver North more than a year before the scandal broke. He invested his limited political capital (as a
junior Senator) publicizing an issue that was not on the public's radar screen. Yes, he benefited in the long term with favorable publicity, but doesn't he deserve it? (Doesn't he also deserve credit for helping untangle BCCI in its
early stages?)

-- As Rosenbaum and Toner point out, Vietnam normalization was seen as a
completely thankless task. Kerry made himself a potential target for some very intense POW activists, with no guarantee he would ever be able to please them --
he was fairly likely to be branded a traitor to vets (all the more so, since many had not liked his anti-war activities). http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/08/politics/campaign/08KERR.html

-- In June 2002, when most Democrats were still afraid to criticize Bush over the war on terror, Kerry blasted Bush for allowing al Qaeda to escape at Tora Bora. (He mostly lost hold of this message when Dean tied him into knots over explaining his Iraq vote; I hope he will return to it in a big way for the fall.) http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.25A.Kerry.tactics.htm

Yes, the publicity that Kerry gained from these inquiries and initiatives helped
fulfill his ambitions. But we should have no illusions about politicians ignoring their own self-interest -- we depend on a certain level of harmony between politicians' ambitions and the greater good for any good outcomes from the political process, whether you are on the left or right.

On Meet the Press the other day, the president said, "If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined." I was wondering where he got those numbers, so I asked budget maven Tad DeHaven. He directed me to the bottom of Table S-4 on this page. As you will see if you click on it, the table shows the growth of discretionary spending excluding defense and homeland security. For the last Clinton year, that number was indeed 15. Under Bush, it goes to 6, then 5, then 4, then 1. Making an allowance for looseness in the president's speech, the numbers appear to be in line with what he said.

But the numbers are misleading. First, he's talking about budget authority rather than actual spending. Second, he's excluded half the budget (entitlement spending, which he has expanded), then half the remainder (defense), then a chunk of the fraction that's left (homeland security). Third, he is excluding supplemental spending bills, too. So the numbers we are left with don't mean very much. Whether the president is aware of any of this is anyone's guess.

Sources say the race in Tennessee and Virginia looks something like below, as of noonish:

TN

Kerry 46
Edwards 28
Clark . 15
Dean 7

VA

Kerry 48
Edwards 25
Clark 1 1
Dean 8

At McClellen's press conference, a disappointed journalist said, ''Is there anybody who can corroborate these pay records, or are we supposed to just believe these documents?''

Clearly, NOTHING will be enough for the press.... On the radio a reporter said: "But as you know, a pay stub doesn't prove anything, only that he got paid" and "the microfiche is fuzzy but apparently shows the dates."

Just released:

Memo

From: Mike Tate, Dean for Wisconsin State Director
Date: February 10, 2004
Re: How we will Wisconsin

We have spent the last several days telling you we are confident Wisconsin's
voters will choose the one candidate who as President will be beholden to them,
not a Washington politician beholden to the special interests that sponsored
their campaign.

Today I wanted you to know how we will win.

Wisconsin Campaign History

Wisconsin voters have a history of bucking conventional wisdom and electing
underdog candidates. Successful campaigns by Bill Proxmire and Russ Feingold
are examples of Wisconsin's penchant for underdog candidates who take on the
special interests.

Young people, one of Dean's strongest supporter blocs, have a history of turning
out in Wisconsin elections. Turnout amongst young voters is credited with the
victories of Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewic in 2003, and U.S. Representative
Tammy Baldwin in 1998. Wisconsin had the highest student voter turnout in
country in the 2000 general election. Our campaign has active chapters on 25
college campuses.

Grassroots Organization

Dean for America has been organizing here in Wisconsin since August 1, 2003.
Today we have an increasing staff of 80 and tens of thousands of active
supporters in every county taking part in 37 monthly MeetUps each month and
more than 125 volunteer organized events through on-line Get Local tools. We
have offices in Milwaukee, Madison, and Green Bay, Superior, Eau Claire, La
Crosse, Wausau, and Stevens Point.

Paid Media Strategy

This week we launched a Wisconsin focused paid media campaign with a 60 second
television advertisement highlighting Dean's biography, record and plan for the
future. Tonight a new 30-second television advertisement written, produced and
chosen by our grassroots supporters will enter into the mix. It is called
"Mike" and features a man named Michael Reinhardt who supports Dean because of
his opposition to the war in Iraq, his common sense approach to gun control who
would "like to take back my country."

In addition, we are spending significant resources on a direct mail program.
The first piece will land in mailboxes today with at least one more piece
dropping later this week. Our direct mail program urges voters to keep the
debate alive by choosing real change and voting for Dean on February 17. It
also highlights the Governor's record of having the courage to stand up to
George W. Bush and the leadership to deliver results, not just rhetoric.

NOW:

“Mr. Bush said repeatedly that he went to the United Nations seeking a diplomatic alternative to war. In fact, the United States rejected all diplomatic alternatives at the time, severely damaging relations with some of its most important and loyal allies.”

--New York Times editorial; February 9, 2004

THEN:

“Yesterday's unanimous vote at the United Nations Security Council sends the strongest possible message to Baghdad...This is a well-deserved triumph for President Bush, a tribute to eight weeks of patient but determined and coercive American diplomacy…Only if the council fails to approve the serious consequences it now invokes -- generally understood to be military measures -- should Washington consider acting alone.”

--New York Times editorial; November 9, 2002

From a reader:

Jonah, No one sat down to explain the rules to you. Kevin Phillips has credibility because he was a Republican who disagreed with Reagan (primarily because he didn't understand supply-side economics, didn't like any of Reagan's advisers or Reagan himself). Did Reagan have any extra credibility for abandoning the Democratic party? Does Phil Gramm? Ben Whitehorse Campbell? Of course not. It's because of the rules. You know as well as anyone that Jim Jeffords could assert anything and it would have to be true, by golly, because he was a Republican and he doesn't like George Bush. You have to know the rules. My freshman year in college, our poli sci class was assigned to read Kevin Phillips drivel "The Politics of Rich and Poor." Our prof extolled the genius of this guy, and I still wonder where the professor was coming from (I forgot, he was a university professor in Bloomington, Ind.). It's been more than 10 years since then, but my eyes have just stopped bleeding. Phillips intentionally distorted facts, conveniently forgot other forces at play and continually demonstrated the inability to grasp simple economic concepts. But the professor said that Phillips was a great guy because he called himself a Republican and wrote this book that was supposedly so damning of the Reagan years. Again, if you want to become all of a sudden an expert on anything, be it tax law, constitutional law, foreign policy, home improvement, Thai food, wine-tasting, auto racing, the motion offense, the 46 defense, horticulture or interior design, just condemn conservatism in a column or better yet, a book. It worked for David Brock, right? (Anyway, looking forward to your talk at Valpo.)

Here in southern Hampton Roads, I have seen a few Kerry TV ads, and almost no signs.

Last night, however, Lyndon LaRouche lost a voter because he pre-empted one of my son's (9) favorite evening TV shows - Wheel of Fortune. When he realized that it was going to bump the whole shwo and was not just a commercial, he turned and asked, "Is he a Democrat?" When I answered affirmatively, he said, "It figures."

Gerald

The argument from the Democrats should be quite familiar by now. It plays upon a vague sense in America that even in areas outside the law, the rules of due process should apply. So, during the Clinton Administration we were constantly told that the scandal wasn't the news that came with "the leaks" -- even, perhaps especially, when the leaks were from the White House -- but the leaks themselves. The news that the President of the United States was getting jiggy with an intern whose name he probably didn't even know wasn't the scandal. No, the "unfair" taping of Monica by another woman was the scandal. The complaints of the Clintonites -- like the complaints of Senate Democrats -- are similar to the whines from teenagers who think it's out of bounds for their parents to search their rooms for drugs without permission. "You invaded my privacy!" they shriek as if that might obscure the ounce of dope in the back of the sock drawer.

Anyway, it always seemed to me that an intellectually honest liberal could be outraged at both the leak and the content of the leak. But to be outraged solely at the former and not at all at the latter is a classic sign of rank partisanship.

Found on Instapundit. I doubt it's for real.

They support his case, but why did we have to wait until now for Pete's sake? From the Boston Globe:

President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston -- according to two new documents obtained by the Globe. The personnel records, covering Bush's Guard service between May 1972 and May 1973, constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time.

One of the documents lists nine service periods of 2 to 3 days each and records the points Bush earned toward his service retirement benefit. The other is a summary of his service in the 12 months beginning May 1972, and lists the same number of service points earned.

I see a lot of his ads because of the Virginia primary going on next door. Actually I should clarify. I see a lot of one of them, because he only seems to have a single political commercial on the air around here. It's the one that touts his Vietnam record. In it he says something to the effect of how he learned that "after Vietnam, every day is extra" so he should "do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may."

Can anyone in a serious, straightforward way write an intellectually honest paragraph to back that up? In other words, can anyone make the case that John Kerry has thrown caution to the wind in any meaningful sense to fight for "what's right"? I follow politics fairly closely and I've been doing my reading about John Kerry but I haven't a clue as to how he's talking about his own political career. Note: if you're going to try, you should know that I don't consider the case against Bush to be the case for Kerry in this regard. This is about how Kerry has conducted himself since Vietnam. I just want to know how a Kerry supporter could honestly take this statement at face value.

A reader from Stockholm writes:

Dear Jonah,

I've been following the Corner feud with John Podhoretz with interest. It hits on something I've sensed, occasionally, as being the Achilles heel of a few of NR(O)'s writers. I hesitate to say this since I am a long-time subscriber, and a hundred-hits-daily major fan of the site and a true NR believer - but ever so often there's a tendency toward what I'd call "ivory tower conservatism" there. Meaning, a kind of "as intellectuals, we know better than those actually sitting in office doing the dirty work" attitude. You know what I mean. It's not often, but once in a while we out in the bush do have to wince a little.

John Podhoretz, whatever the debate over the details, is making an important point about overall attitude, I believe.

And listening to the buzz from all sides since the SOTU, I'd say this is an especially important subject now, since the Bush administration does indeed seem to have hit some kind of internal snag or off-kilter moment. The loosening of the glue among conservatives these last weeks has been most worrisome, and the utmost focus on the big picture is needed.

I meant to say this too. From a reader:

I, too, was flabbergasted at how ridiculous Kevin Phillips was this morning on NPR. You forgot to mention the other subject of his rant. He went on and on about Silberman's connection to the "October Surprise Scandal" as if this scandal actually existed anywhere but in the fevered imaginations of Bill Moyers and his aging, Carter-Administration friends. I can't believe NPR let him use their airwaves to push such a thoroughly discredited "scandal."

John, now, now, now. My point is simply that there is a qualitative difference between a president signing a bill with which he disagrees and a president signing a bill which he believes to be unconstitutional. Impeachment? Come, come. I do live in the real world, possibly a different real world, however, than that in which the president apparently believed that it was politically essential to sign McCain-Feingold. Remember, he signed that bill on March 27th, 2002, barely six months after 9/11. I seem to recall he was rather popular at the time, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

More generally, I think that Ramesh gets it absolutely right. The war on terrorism is the most important aspect of the Bush presidency, and his handling of this alone more than justifies his re-election, but that is not a reason for the Right to hold off on vigorous criticism on policies with which it disagrees. "Dismissive Contempt" ? Here? In this genial and gentle Corner. Again, I'm with Ramesh on this. I don't see it.

This Gore speech is awesome. When did he get this new accent?

"The Truth shall Rise Again!" is the kicker. If a Republican had said that in a Southern venue we'd be told it was direct reference to bringing back the Confederacy.

From a reader:

OK, ease up on the SciFi Channel. Friends do not let friends watch Buck Rogers, if for no other reason that the leading actor needed a girdle much worse than Kirk. Plus, I have yet to figure out their form of government. It reeked of central planning, however, which leads me to believe the Soviet Union won WWIII and/or John Kerry was elected in 2004.

From a reader:

Good day, Mr. Goldberg.

Since you appear to appreciate "Buck Rogers" along with "Star Trek", you may
want to go back and review the "Bilbo Baggins" song clip with Leonard Nimoy. One of the cast dancers on "Malibu U" was a very young (17? 18?) Erin Grey. I do believe that's her shrugging her shoulders when the blond with the "Admit Leonard Nimoy to the UN" button turns around (about 30 seconds into
the clip).

John, I wasn't at all surprised that you tried to defend the president's record, merely startled by the way you did so. There's no doubt indeed that Bush has achieved a great deal in the war against terror. Indeed, that achievement alone makes it vital that he wins this autumn. It does not, however exempt him from criticism from those who supported him in 2000. Criticism won't cost him the election, but the current drift in his policy just may. It was also dismaying to read in your article that the White House is 'frustrated' by conservative criticism. Well, that's just too bad. An old saying involving heat and kitchens rather comes to mind. More to the point, if the president wishes to reduce criticism from his allies on the right, he might want to consider stopping poking them in the eye.

Turning to other points you raise in your post. You're certainly correct that candidate Bush signalled that he wanted a more expansionary immigration policy, but, of itself, that's no reason to quash debate on that subject now, particularly given that the scope and stupidity of his proposals goes far beyond anything that even the most paranoid of 'restrictionists' might have expected. And if we're going to talk about the war on terror, let's do so. The president's immigration proposals, if enacted, will be a menace to national security. They run the risk of undoing much of the excellent progress made in this area. As for campaign-finance reform, I'm at at a loss to understand how a president can sign into law something that he himself believes to be unconstitutional. Maybe I just misunderstand what a presidency is for. Sometimes principle has to come before political advantage, and for, what it's worth, I doubt that the political cost of a veto would have been that high. Remember, that this law (an abomination, as you rightly say) was opposed by many on the left as well as the right and regarded with complete indifference by most of the country. Remember too, that Bush was riding high in the polls at time. Vetoing McCain-Feingold would not have changed that.

Credit for the tax cuts? Certainly. I'm no deficit hawk, but the president's long-term low tax credentials will be more credible once he has explained exactly how all the spending he has unleashed is going to be paid for. He hasn't so far.

Finally, the president's Marie Antoinette moment over at the NEA. Yes, seen in the light of current federal spending, $15million is not a lot of money, but the decision to blow that dough in that way at a time of budgetary stringency gave off all the wrong signals, both fiscally - and politically.

Yes, the president is coming in for some tough criticism from the right at the moment, but it's difficult to deny that he deserves it.

An e-mail:

t seems to me that the effective counter from Bush on the Vietnam service issue is this:

Bush should argue that he, unlike Kerry, learned the right lessons from Vietnam - that you support the troops wholeheartedly once they are at war, and only that commitment guarantees victory. Kerry, for a Vietnam vet, should realize that voting for war and then against the funding of the war is exactly the type of hesitant and apprehensive behavior that causes the world to view the US as a paper tiger and helps break down morale at home and in combat.

Plus, serving in combat is usually a proxy for determining what kind of leader someone would be at war. Bush ads should be daring enough to include the clips of his best moments of leadership - rallying the workers at Ground Zero, "we will not tire, we will note falter, we will not fail" on 9/20/01, the speech at the UN to start the final march to war, etc. Bush has clearly proven to be a strong and effective wartime leader, with the boldness to take the fight to the enemy. In short, we need to go back on the offensive - about why we needed to go to War, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and about how we need to keep taking the fight to the enemy, with continued pressure on al Qaeda, Iran, Syria and North Korea.

I think he was basically right in saying that conservatives were faulting the administration for following through on things that we all should have known were coming in 2000. The president did not "betray" us on shrinking the government, for example, since he never claimed he had any such intention; the entire GOP came out for a prescription-drug entitlement for seniors five years ago. There is an on-the-other-hand here, though. (During the 2000 primary, however, conservatives were told by a lot of Bushies that he would never sign the campaign-finance horrorshow that McCain was promoting; conservatives did expect more school choice in the education bill; nobody thought he would come out for as sweeping a pro-immigration proposal as he did; etc.)

I'm ambivalent about Podhoretz's column in another respect. As flattering as the attention is, I don't think a several-hours long stretch of the Corner is an accurate reflection of conservative sentiment on anything (or even a segment of conservative sentiment defined more broadly than "the sentiment held by the people who happen to be writing for the Corner at the moment in question"). Kate O'Beirne, Rich Lowry, Byron York, and I were all more favorably impressed by the "Meet the Press" interview than John Derbyshire was; we just didn't happen to be in the Corner at the time. (York was doing CSPAN about the interview, and I was preparing for Diane Rehm on the same subject.) A few weeks ago, a liberal proponent of the president's marriage initiative complained that it had taken some flak in the Corner; he seemed unaware that the magazine's editorial position is for the initiative. The Corner is not always representative of the magazine, let alone some wider tendency. The Corner is a place for a fair amount of idiosyncrasy (zeta functions, anyone?), which helps to make it fun.

The plumber just informed me that we really should have the house "re-piped." From my limited exposure to plumbers and home repair, I took this as the fiscal equivalent of saying "You really should buy a Lear Jet"

BOSTON, M.A. – Late Sunday afternoon, a representative of the Human Rights Campaign contacted Family Research Council (FRC) to report that HRC President Cheryl Jacques and GLAD’s Mary Bonauto, both of whom had previously committed to a debate against FRC at Harvard University Monday night, had decided to withdraw from Monday’s event. The HRC representative said that after discussing the matter further, Jacques and Bonauto determined they needed to instead concentrate on Wednesday’s vote in the Massachusetts State Legislature, when the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment will be considered.

“The fact that the other side does not feel assured of a victory on Wednesday and is continuing to lobby up until the last moment shows just how unpredictable this vote will be,” said FRC President Tony Perkins, who spoke to thousands at a Boston rally today. “We are also here in Boston, making sure the legislature realizes how important it is to approve the MA & PA amendment so that the people of Massachusetts, rather than four unelected judges, can decide whether marriage will be protected or deconstructed.”

In spite of HRC and Bonauto’s withdraw, Monday’s event at Harvard Law’s Ames Courtroom will go on as planned (see details below). “We promised the people an ‘Open Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage’, and that is exactly what we’re going to give what is expected to be an overflow crowd,” said FRC’s Perkins.

An Open Discussion on Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
@ Harvard Law’s Ames Courtroom (Austin Hall, 3rd Floor)
Monday, February 9th
7:00-9:00pm

Jonah: Since you asked, I'll tell you. The zeta function is a gadget that,
if you give it a number, gives you a different number right back.

(Well, not ALWAYS different. There are a few scattered numbers --
1.833772651680271396245648589441523592181 is the easiest -- that Zeta will
feed back to you unchanged.)

It works for any number whatsoever -- whole numbers, negative numbers,
fractions and surds, transcendental and imaginary and complex. The only
number it DOESN'T work for is 1. If you feed the zeta function 1, it just
burps and says: "Sorry, can't do that one."

If you give Zeta a certain number and Zeta sends back zero, the number you
gave it is WAY special & you should write it down immediately & keep it in a
safe place.

A guy in Germany, name of Sebastian Wedeniwski, has collected 100 billion of
those special numbers. They all share a certain striking property.

Unfortunately, we know that there are an infinity of the little suckers. If
you could prove, by pure mathematics, that EVERY ONE OF THEM has the
striking property that Herr Wedeniwski's 100 billion have, you'd win a
million-dollar prize.

I promise I shall never mention any of this again on The Corner.

Maybe this woman will become a martyr of some kind too? (I'm not condoning the horrrible rape and murder behind the story of Boys Don't Cry, btw, but I'm still contemptuous of that movie's message). Here's the lede (via Drudge):

A lesbian paedophile who posed as a teenage boy to begin a relationship with a 12-year-old girl she had met on school playing fields was today convicted of indecently assaulting the child.

Kelly Trueman, 23, reinvented herself as 16-year-old Jake and concocted a string of lies about her former life to befriend a group of youngsters in Ripley, Derbyshire.

Derby Crown Court heard that the young victim believed she had embarked on her first relationship when she met the supposed teenage boy last summer.

Protest of Justice Scalia

When Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Amherst next week, we will not be in attendance. We will neither ask questions nor debate Justice Scalia because we believe that the liberal ideals of constructive disagreement and debate only work when both sides act upon these ideals in good faith. We will not offer a tacit endorsement of this man’s presence on campus.

There are many who would argue that such a course is contrary to the democratic exchange of ideas, the respect for differences of opinion and the need to maintain some distinction between private preferences and public debate, all of which should organize an academic community. These are all noble ideals but none to which Justice Scalia himself subscribes. Indeed, it is precisely the conceit of public versus private that allows Justice Scalia to indulge in vitriolic name-calling. Thus, for example, those citizens, gay and straight, who disagree with his position on the sodomy laws are part of a “homosexual agenda” (dissent in Lawrence v. Texas).

Fellow judges who disagree with Justice Scalia over the reach of the equal protection clause to prevent discrimination against homosexuals are not just part of a debate over “constitutional interpretation,” but rather are on the wrong side of a “Kulturkampf” (dissent in Romer v. Evans). To be against capital punishment, to disagree with Justice Scalia over the morality or legality of the death penalty is not to debate the eighth amendment, but to be a bad Christian and/or a European: “the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post-Christian Europe and has least support in the church-going United States” (from “God’s Justice and Ours,” First Things 123, May 2002).

Finally, despite his invocation of democratic politics over an ‘activist’ judiciary, Justice Scalia is suspicious of the effects of popular sovereignty. He urges: “The reaction of people of faith to the tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible” (from “God’s Justice and Ours”). For the above reasons and many more, the following professors will stay away: Nasser Hussain, Margaret Hunt, Kannan Jagannathan, Martha Saxton, Jay Caplan, Jamal Elias, Thomas Dumm, Austin Sarat, Paola Zamperini, Martha Umphrey, Deborah Gewertz, Jan Dizard, Robert Romer, Rosalina De La Carrera, David Delaney and Judith Frank.

Kevin Phillips furthered his slide into self-parody on NPR this morning. The bulk of his rant was about what a terrible man Judge Laurence H. Silberman is. Silberman will be on Bush's intelligence commission and Phillips thinks that's very bad because of some stuff from Iran-Contra etc. Fine, fine. It sounded like a lot of flimsy stuff cribbed from Lawrence Walsh's book, but whatever. Fair game and all that. But then Phillips went on to insist that the commission needs some more "honest Republicans" other than John McCain. Phillips' only nomination? Scott Ritter! Apparently Ritter is a registered Republican and he did say that Iraq didn't have any WMDs. But the lunacy of the idea says so much about how out there Phillips has become. Why not nominate George Galloway? Or perhaps Noam Chomsky? Oh, that's right. They're not registered Republicans.

While taking the hound on patrol this morning, I caught a couple items on NPR which bugged me more than usual. The first was a story about some men being prosecuted for having ties to a terrorist organization or network. They're Muslim. The details aren't that important. What bothered me was the long jag the defense lawyer went on about how this would never have happened were it not for the 9/11 attacks. It was the closing statement in the story and the way the thing was edited it seemed like the reporter considered this the most damning accusation.

Well, of course that's true! The US government didn't spend a lot of time scrutinizing domestic groups and their ties to foreign terrorism before 9/11. That's the whole point of this "war on terrorism" thing. Now, these guys might be innocent, they might not. That's why they're on trial. But how it can be considered a blanket defense to say "this wouldn't have happened if terrorists hadn't blown up the World Trade Center etc" is beyond me.

Am I glad I missed all of this. I guess I should have chimed in yesterday. But while the entire world was watching MTP on NBC I was on CNN. Even the folks in the CNN greenroom were watching Meet the Press. Anyway, I caught about four-fifths of the interview. My own personal reaction was that Bush did better than I thought he would insofar as I had read extended excerpts from the transcript in advance and they came across as lifeless and inarticulate at times. So, when I watched him he seemed much better. I thought he conveyed his ideas and his convictions pretty well -- for him. There's no escaping the fact that George W. Bush is not a great extemporaneous speaker (some of his formal speeches, however, are outstanding) and pretending otherwise only makes conservatives seem intellectually dishonest. The question remains whether he is an effective speaker and that's a tougher question. He's certainly effective at infuriating his opponents, which can be good. And I think he's effective at communicating where his heart lies -- often because he uses such un-ironic expressions as "in my heart..." But, it must be said, that when a Tony Blair (or Dick Cheney) style refutation is in order, Bush is severely wanting.

As for the exchange between John Podhoretz and the gang, I guess I come down in the middle. Candidate Bush said all sorts of things. Certainly his "compassionate conservative" treacle was a clear indication that he was going to be feeling a lot of folks' pain a la Bill Clinton. He also claimed to be a "reformer with results" and while he can certainly argue that he's been one, I'm not sure he can claim the results have been what conservatives want.

Tim: Sure, one interview isn't going to make or break George W. Bush. He
really should have done better, though.

I have boasted in my columns about the occasional privilege I have of going
to the Metropolitan Opera with Jay Nordlinger. Jay, a professional music
critic, tells me exactly what everybody is doing wrong. "The conductor is
taking it too slowly... The soprano lost time in that passage... The
woodwinds are overbearing..." I sometimes enter a mild protest: "Jay,
please don't be so hyper-critical. I'm having fun here." To which Jay
replies, correctly: "Look--this the Metropolitan Opera. This is the
premier opera house in the USA. Orchestra seats cost almost two hundred
bucks. This should be the best, the VERY VERY BEST. All criticism is
justified!"

Same with GWB. He is the head of the executive branch of our government,
which we support to the tune of several hundred billion dollars a year. In
time of war, which this is, he is responsible for decisions of tremendous --
possibly fatal -- import for the rest of us, and for the Republic. If he
can't make a better impression on people like me, who support him and wish
him well, it is a sorry state of affairs. Listen to one of my readers --
one of many expressing similar sentiments:

"I can accept a bit of a lack of eloquence, but I expect the man that I have
been defending to the hilt for the past few years despite all of my
misgivings with his other policies to be a bit more prepared. In fact, I
think it is perfectly reasonable for all of us to expect Bush to hit every
question out of the park. He has had a year and a half to shore up his
answers to every possible question. He's even had a few months of the
knowledge that we were likely to find no WMD. Instead, he seemed almost
frightened by each coming question.

"Dare I say, from a performance perspective, high school seniors do better
in college entrance interviews (or college seniors in job interviews) at
handling their nerves and mustering answers in Q&A that almost certainly
haven't been rehearsed to the extent that President Bush gets to deliver
much-practiced salvos every single day."

I agree. I certainly hope my kids do better in their college-entrance
interviews than Bush did with Tim Russert. I shall be disappointed in them
if they don't.

The Corner wasn't critical of Bush because they want him to lose. They were critical of him because they want him to WIN. Kerry is a REAL opponent (unlike Dean, who is a psycho-opponent), and Bush will have to be at his best to return to office in 2005. In other words, "We're from the Corner, and were here to HELP you!"

Some of my fellow conservatives found his performance wanting. Or more than wanting. As the show was airing, National Review magazine's Web site was firing on all cylinders as participants in its blog, The Corner, threw brick after brick at the president.

Talk-show host Michael Graham called it a "disaster." Rod Dreher, formerly of this paper and now of the Dallas Morning News, said Bush made him wince: "He looked nervous, defensive and intellectually insecure." The vituperative John Derbyshire called Bush "pretty dismal."

This is fairly typical of attitudes expressed these days by conservative opinion leaders, who are upset with the administration for a variety of reasons. Some don't like his immigration proposal. Others are disgusted by the free spending in his budget, particularly on the matter of the prescription-drug benefit.

As a frustrated White House official told me last week, everything the president has done to anger conservatives arises from proposals he made while he was running for president in 2000. They accepted his advocacy of the proposals then, so why are they complaining now? He did not run for president as a small-government conservative, and yet they backed him to the hilt four years ago. So why the enmity today?

It's a good question, and a sobering one. Recall that conservatives backed Bush in 2000 without knowing just how dreadfully he and this nation would be challenged by the events of 9/11 and their aftermath. They supported him, in other words, when he was merely promising to be a big-spending conservative.

The president they got turned into a great wartime leader, and now some conservatives are griping about how he is actually fulfilling some of the promises they were willing to overlook when they wanted to back a winner four years ago.

It is 2:30 pm here on the west coast. I watched the last 1/2 hour of Meet the Press earlier this morning. I just now turned the computer on to read what your impressions were. I have to put myself in the camp of the "were we watching the same interview?" - I thought he did just fine! No, he didn't hit every pitch out of the ballpark but I don't know a politician who does. Bush doesn't sound rehearsed. I never heard a stammer (at least in the 1/2 that I saw) and he seems genuinely energized by the issues brought up by Russert, particularly, the war on terror (no surprise there). I can't imagine spending four years listening to John Kerry's sonorous cadences ...

Contrast that with a moment I caught of Wesley Clark on CNN - he said (discussing Saddam) "We picked a guy, made him into a villain, had him contained, and then went to take him out" or some such. Yeah, right, I forgot. WE made Saddam Hussein a villain.

Missing from Russert's point sheet:

(1) Federal role in education. The No Child Left Behind Act is shaping up
like this. Feds to states: "You can get federal moneys if your schools meet
this, this, and this condition." States to their school administrators:
"Make sure you meet these federal conditions." Administrators: "Without
cooking the books? Impossible!" States: "Who said anything about 'Without
cooking the books'?" Cheating is rampant. Couldn't this have been
predicted?

(2) Homosexual "marriage." What does GWB think of this idea? I have no
clue. Have you? I still have no clue. Would like to know. (Of course, on
the basis of this morning's performance, it is highly probable that I would
STILL have no clue even if Russert had asked the question... but he should
have asked anyway.)

(3) Illegal immigrants. Did the conservative reaction to his Jan 7 proposal
on this issue, or the reactions he heard at the recent weekend retreat for
House Republicans, cause him to have any second thoughts? How hard will he
be pushing those proposals between now and November? Why does he keep
referring to Vicente Fox as a "friend of America" when Fox opposed us on
Iraq, will not cooperate in helping us apprehend Mexican criminals, will do
nothing to help us control illegal border crossings or drug trafficking,
gave only feeble support to the Free Trade Area of the Americas at the
recent Summit of the Americas, etc. etc. What, in the President's opinion,
would an UNFRIENDLY Mexican government look like?

(4) Axis of evil. Since we now know, and the administration implicitly
admits, that our prewar intel on Iraq was pretty crappy, what confidence
does he have that our current intel on North Korea and Iran is any good? Is
good enough to be a guide for our policies toward these countries? Since we
were too bold in interpreting the prewar Iraq intel on WMD, is there a
possibility we may compensate by being too cautious on NK/Iranian WMD? With
nasty surprises to follow?

(5) The dollar. Does the President think the dollar is too strong, too
weak, or about right?

(6) China. This administration's policy, like that of the previous
administration, has been to hope that increasing prosperity and the rise of
a consumerist middle class will push China towards political liberalization
and rational, constitutional government. Does the President see any sign
that this is happening? Is he happy with Chinese cooperation on trade
problems? On North Korea? On terrorism? Does he support bringing China
into the Group of Seven?

It's amazing how different people can watch the same thing and come to such radically different conclusions. Watching Bush, I saw a decent man comfortable with power and clear on the importance of the moment he has found himself in. His most important answer was the last one: what is this election about? It is about whether we know that times have changed since the 90s, and that American policy must meet the new challenge on its own terms. This is truly the most important distinction between Bush and the Democrats, and to see that he understands it is very reassuring. The notion you relayed from someone that if Bush loses the election then this will be the day he lost it betrays a profound lack of proportion: not only was this just a Sunday morning political show, it was a Sunday morning political show nine months before the election. Most people who watch such shows already know who they'll vote for in the next election (and have known since the day after the last election), and most people who will vote in the next election were not watching. Bush's voters were in church.

We'll all be talking and talking over the next few months, but for most people this election will begin in August, and everything could change and change again by then. Bush could certainly lose, but all he's done today is confirm some fears and confirm some hopes and offer some of us junkies a way to pass the time.

As we learned in the days after, because of incompatible computers, the FBI was unable to e-mail pictures of the 9/11 killers to local offices. Yet there's money for rock 'n' roll nostalgia, and an "indoor rain forest" in Iowa. The president should not be the National School Superintendent, the Pharmacist-in-Chief, the Curator of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or the Inspector-General of Janet Jackson's Breasts. And, if neither politicians nor the electorate understands that at a time of war, then republican government is doomed.

Just got through watching the President on Meet the Press. I thought it was
a pretty dismal performance. I'll be voting for GWB in November, but let's
face it, the Great Communicator he ain't. The tongue-tied blather was
coming thick and fast. At times, he looked like Al Sharpton on the Federal
Reserve.

Russert: "Why didn't you establish the intelligence commission earlier?"
GWB: "Blather blather blather. No answer."

Russert: "Will you yourself testify before the commission?"
GWB: "Blather blather blather. No answer."

Russert: "Why was Saddam Hussein a threat to the US?"
GWB: "He had the capacity to make weapons... a madman..."

Russert: "There is a sense in the country that the intelligence was
ambiguous, that in presenting it to the country, you sexed it up."
GWB: "He had the capacity to make weapons... a madman..."

This stuff isn't going to convince anyone, and will probably turn off some
supporters. The best defense of the Iraq war I have yet seen was given by
Alan Keyes on FNC last week. Crisp, clear, and convincing. POTUS should
hire Keyes as a speechwriter, at any salary he asks for.

It got a bit better. National Guard? Stop denigrating it. (Darn right.)
GWB got honorable discharge--what's to argue with? But then we hit the
economy.

Russert: "Our current fiscal policy is unsustainable, according to the GAO.
Why, as a fiscal conservative, would you allow this deficit disaster?"
GWB: "The budget I have just proposed will cut the deficit... If Congress
is wise with the people's money..." If Congress is ****W*H*A*T****???? Ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha!

There were all sorts of presentational problems that GWB really should not
be suffering from at this stage in his career. He dropped the acronym
"PDB"; Russert had to interrupt to explain to us peons that it means
"President's Daily Briefing." Too reminiscent of Bob Dole in '96 mumbling
about "cloture" (which, as P.J. O'Rourke said at the time, most Americans
probably believe to be a surgical procedure).

Russert: "What will be the main issue in this campaign?"
GWB: "Who can most properly use US power..."

To place national security up front like this, on its own, has all sorts of
perils. What if there's another big terrorist attack in October? I myself
believe that GWB **IS** the right man in a dangerous time, but he's not
going to convince the unconvinced with feeble performances like this.

I guarantee you that most people who watched it like him more now than before. He came across as a thoroughly good man. He was more articulate than he was in 2000, the last time that the vast majority of people watching him will have heard him speak off-the-cuff.

This is like the debates with Al Gore that he won: the pundits all thought that he'd lost; the focus groups thought otherwise.

This appearance was good. Period.

I disagree with your characterization, & Michael Graham's. Perhaps you all expect too much. After two months of drift, taking punches, & dispiriting his base while wild-goose-chasing the left-middle, this was a solid start.

He was calm, in good spirits, affable, sincere, & strong. Without being belligerent he made sure his answers were complete and that the premises of the questions were challenged when they needed to be. He was evasive only on the National Guard service question, but that was assuaged by the (new?) offer to release all his service record.

What he did do, however, was to lay out - for those of us who have no intention of abandoning him merely because he is not perfect - the premises upon which he is staking his re-election, letting us know he is having no second thoughts about them, and specifying the facts which support those premises.

The sainted President Reagan failed to do that, opting for a "Morning in America" touchy-feely campaign. As a result, the Iran-Contra incident could be treated as a "scandal" when a more thematically principled campaign would have afforded The President a policy base from which he could have either (a) provided substantive help to the Contras or (b) mounted a sound policy defense to the initiatives he did take.

The President has reassured me that I need no longer carp (as I have done) about over-spending, fair trade, new entitlements, amnesty, and the like in fear that more appeasement is coming up. He is zealously committed to won wars and low taxes. I can be satisfied with those two, big ticket causes plus whatever else can be accomplished at the margin.

So, pre-appearance, what did I think he needed to accomplish? Get off defense, get on offense, and relieve the dispirited base, i.e. me. Mission accomplished.