David Brooks has rightly taken a lot of heat for his "I know the common people mentality" comment on MSNBC that "Obama's problem is he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who could go into an Applebee's salad bar, and people think he fits in naturally there." (By the way, there is an Applebees in Times Square, a few blocks from Brooks' office. Clearly, Brooks is not dropping by on a regular basis with MoDo for lunch).
Last week's edition of the The New York Times Magazine, in addition to a cover story about Chris "My Life is Nothing But Strategy" Matthews, featured a Deborah Solomon mini-interview with Grover "Drown it in a Bathtub" Norquist.
In response to one of Solomon's questions regarding the potential benefits of regulation, Norquist responded with a non-sequitur that was (pick one: obtsue, lazy thinking, right-wing mythology)
Former Attorney John Ashcroft has an op-ed in today's New York Times defending the retroactive immunity that will be granted the telecommunications companies in the pending FISA bills. His position is that because the Administration assured the telecommunications companies that it was acting lawfully, the companies really had no choice but to abide the Administration's demands. His position reads the Fourth Amendment right out of the Constitution and ignore FISA.
This "controversy" has already been covered in more than exhaustive detail, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents regarding a couple of points of Prager illogic that I think have been overlooked. (Leave aside the facts that Prager's demand that the "Christian Bible" be used or be present at swearing in ceremonies is both unconstitutional, and factually and historically inaccurate.)
Barbara Cubin's (R-WY) new attack makes the shocking charge that Gary Trauner is from New York. How is it that middle America feels entitled to attack other Americans, whether they be New Yorkers, from Massachusetts, "Hollywood", or San Francisco, but I must respect and understand middle America--a group of whom feel not the slightest hesitation to demonize me?
The more I think about, the more I think the ad the RNC is running against Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race is potentially libelous. The "blonde" in the ad makes an affirmative statement of fact: "I met Harold Ford at the Playboy party." Now, the woman who said that, in fact, did not meet Harold Ford at a Playboy party (take a look at hre, she couldn't dance at my local strip club, let alone gain entrance to the Playboy mansion), and she (and the RNC)know it.
I just canceled my subscription to The New Republic. I hung in there with TNR a lot longer than many in the Kos Community. Despite the fact that I disagreed with many its editorial positions, most prominently its full-throated support for the Iraq quagmire, I found the journalistic level of articles to be superb, I thoroughly enjoyed its arts, literature, and cinema coverage, and I can't get enough of Leon Wieseltier.
One of the things that has irked me is the Republican talking point that Democrats view the Global War on Terror (whatever that means) through a pre-9/11 worldview, while Republicans take a post-9/11 worldview.
Yet, over the past few weeks, desperate to stave off a looming defeat, Republicans from Bush on down have done their level best to compare the GWOT to the great ideological struggles of the 20th century, from communism to fascism, and the "good" wars we fought (are we now in WW III? WW IV?). They have even gone as far as to accuse Democrats of appeasement akin to Munich 1938.
The irony apparently is lost on this bunch. I mean, with the debut of these latest talking points, how much more of a pre-9/11 worldview can one party take?
From my office, I have a good view of the entrance to the Citigroup building. Trucks from the various media are parked in a row along Lexington Avenue between 52d and 53d Streets. Each I suppose is hoping to grab the exclusive: "Bob, I am standing here with a live exclusive of one of the terrorists hoping to blow himself up." The story line for today is more likely "No terrorists today, people go to work."
In remarks that President Bush made during a speech last week in Pennsylvania, it would appear that he would support the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which restricts the right of gay service members to openly declare themselves as homosexual. In expressing his support of the Federal Marriage Ammendment, the President said:
"What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do...This is America. It's a free society."
If that is the case, then what logical rationale is there for requiring gay service members to conceal their sexual identity? This is particularly the case after the Texas v. Lawrence.
