Everything Is Always Good For Republicans

While noting the distressing (to Republicans at least) news that yet another formerly safe Republican seat in Mississippi might be in trouble this fall, Daniel Larison writes that:

Count ‘em: the GOP is likely to lose Senate seats in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Virginia, and Alaska, will have a hard time defending Oregon, Minnesota, North Carolina and is suddenly faced with competitive races in Mississippi, Kentucky, Nebraska and even Texas.  That’s eleven, and that still doesn’t take into account the trouble Collins may have in Maine.  If the GOP somehow lost all eleven, they would have the fewest Senators in the chamber that they have had since the 95th Congress (1977-79).  Even without losing the safer seats of Nebraska and Texas, the GOP will still be reduced to 40 seats and lose the filibuster.  This is actually terrible news for Obama, because it will make it very easy for McCain to warn against the dangers of unified government and increased Democratic majorities in Congress as a reason to vote for him.

Now, I’m not going to dismiss his point out of hand, because there’s certainly some truth to it…but come on, now…with the Republican brand in such a state of disgrace, Obama could just as easily argue that tossing all the bums out might be a good bit of spring cleaning that the country needs to right itself. There are some tangible benefits to divided government, but I just don’t think this argument will have the traction with the general public that Larison thinks it will.

Of Fact Checking and Full Disclosure

There’s no measure by which anyone would call me a crusader. By nature, I’m generally a consensus seeker and not apt to rock the boat. However, as I continue to pursue a career in journalism, I find I’ve developed a greater sensitivity to pieces that rely on sloppy research or articles that fail to note some significant fact that might cause the reader to react  differently to the information as presented.

I mention that because I felt compelled today to write a letter to The Economist regarding two articles in the current issue. The letter is reprinted in full below:

SIR:
In the United States, in the article “Of snipers and sniping”, the author states that “Obama-phile” media “cravenly neglected” to point out that Barack Obama was lying by stating that he was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. The truth of the matter is that the University of Chicago Law School regards “Senior Lecturers” as professors, despite the difference in titles (citation:http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/28/university-of-chicago-obama-was-a-professor/).

Additionally, in the “Lexington” editorial, the work of Arthur Brooks (which was also cited last week by the American conservative pundit George Will) is presented as if it were a bias-free expression of facts on the differing levels of happiness between liberals and conservatives. George Will noted in his column that Mr. Books is a registered Independent, but both Will and The Economist failed to disclose was that Mr. Brooks is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a columnist for the New York Sun, and a provider of articles to the National Review, all institutions with strong conservative leanings (citation:http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-there-op-ed-page-editor-at-post.html). Surely the editors of a publication like The Economist understand the political reasons that both academics and journalists might register as Independents in America, despite their own personal beliefs.

What’s funny about these two cases is that in the first, the Economist simply parroted a competing presidential campaign’s spin without apparently doing any individual fact checking and in the second, the work of a person that shows some strong ideological leanings was presented uncritically. If the media is supposed to be trusted, it should be more than a mouth piece for those who yell the loudest nor should it provide cover for the advancement of idealogical points of view without disclosing relevant background information. What indeed would be more craven than that?

Best,
Michael Preston
San Francisco, CA

Sore Loserman

So, the netroots got itself a premier scalp tonight when Joe Lieberman conceded to primary challenger Ned Lamont. Lieberman has already vowed to run as an Independent, and that will surely cause havok this fall during the mid-terms. The New Republic must feel especially blue tonight. The magazine was especially hawkish on the war in Iraq (though a few of its writers, Peter Beinart among them, have at least admitted they were wrong on that score) and it has also been unwavering in its defense of Joe Lieberman. TNR has pulled no punches in attacking progressive bloggers who have backed Lamont in his primary challenge. To that end, New Republic editor Marty Peretz offered up this utterly ridiculous post-mortem on Liberman’s loss. He even manages to somehow blame Bill Clinton for Joe’s loss! Occam’s Razor generally states the the simplest explanation is the correct one. Couldn’t Joe’s loss be easily be attributed to his fealty to George Bush and his staunch support of an unpopular war? Nah, that couldn’t be it at all.

Lies, Damn Lies and…other lies

The cover story in last week’s Time magazine is titled The End of Cowboy Diplomacy. The article lays out the many foreign policy problems that have arisen since the implementaion of the so-called “Bush Doctrine”; President Bush’s theory which believes in unilateral engagement, pre-emtive war and the use of “hard power” to protect American interests and advance democracy. For the most part, the article paints a fairly clear picture of the failures of this particular worldview. However, one passage in the piece propagates a popular myth that the White House has advanced since the 9/11 in regards to the reasoning behind going into Iraq. In the article, White House counselor Dan Bartett made the following statement:

The impression that the doctrine of pre-emption was the only guiding foreign policy light is not true. Iraq was a unique circumstance in history, and the sense of urgency of certain decisions in the early part of the first term was reflective of a nation that had to take decisive action after being attacked.

The September 11 commission debunked the notion that Iraq played any role in the 9/11 attacks. Yet, two years after those findings were made public, a senior White House offical is found in the pages of a major American newsmagazine spreading blatant falsehoods. If Bartlett had been talking about toppling the Taliban, that would be one thing, but he conflates the justifed decision to go into Afghanistan with the unwise war of choice undertaken by the Bush Administration in Iraq. The statement is left unchallenged in the article. When controversial statements like this are made, reporters need to challenge them because not doing so confuses the public’s understanding of the issue and allows lies to masquerade as truth.

Recent items of note

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of al-Queda in Iraq, was killed by an American airstrike on Wednesday.

The Senate this week rejected an effort to abolish the estate tax. The Senate also rejected an effort to ban gay marriage via a constitutional amendment.

Mental Midget of the Day

HUD Sec. Alphonso Jackson.

Really, who's stupid enough to admit that they denied a contract based on politics?

“Red States vs. Blue States”…are we still doing this?

Andrew Sullivan posts a reader's letter that makes the claim that so called "blue state" enclaves such as Boston have more in common with a foreign country (Britain in this case) than the rest of the United States. Sullivan agrees. Another reader contests the comparison and offers his own rather strained response (comparing "red state" America to Iran). Sullivan, however, seems shocked that someone might not only take offense to the original characterization, but that they might also offer their own loaded retort in response.

Sullivan's blog does not allow for comments, so I wasted about 10 minutes composing a response. Here it is:

Mr. Sullivan, I've read the two opposing posts on "blue states/Britain"/"red states/Iran" today and I've come to the conclusion that Americans (yourself included) have lost a real sense of what makes this country great.

I question the sensibility of seeking a deeper truth about Americans by using the tired "red" and "blue" state divisions. I grew up in the south (born in North Carolina, raised in Virginia), went to college in the south, and now work for a major university in Northern California. To be sure, there are regional differences and I would be naive to assume that a liberal lesbian might receive the same initial treatment in a small town in Nebraska as she would in New York City. But, to me, that is beside the point. The cultural and political elite continually clash over the "divided America" but if you truly go out into the cities and towns of this great country, you quite often will find people of tremendously divergent backgrounds living with, working with, playing with, and loving each other with little (if any) regard for political ideology.

The bi-coastal elite (of which there are certainly a great many Republicans, despite their claims to the contrary) interact mostly with each other, dueling in their hyper-partisan way through the op-ed pages and books, broadcasting the self-important primacy of their ideas. Most Americans, in my humble opinion, don't care all that much for this kind of liberal/conservative pugilism; their concerns are more local and of the day to day variety.

What's lost in the "red state/blue state" debate is that many people hold mixed (dare I say "moderate"?) views, even among those who claim a party allegiance. Morris Fiorina's book "Culture War?" reveals as much. If you accept that some of America's greatness comes from the wonderfully diverse citizenry and the pragmatism that it embodies, then these classifications become unnecessary.

In times like these, we would do well to remember that our national motto is "E Pluribus Unum" ("out of many,one").

Speaking “truthiness” to power

Stephen Colbert of "The Colbert Show" enters the hornet's nest at the White House Correspondents' Dinner and stings everyone in sight. Truly must see tv.

Bush’s 1000 Days

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. on our president and history. A great read.

A cartoon the reflects the times

Propaganda indeed.