United We Fall

Paul Burka, the senior executive editor of Texas Monthly, has an incredible column with that title in today's New York Times. The whole thing has to be seen to be believed. Here is a letter I sent to the Times.

Paul Burka's column is disingenuous, to say the least. To compare George W. Bush with Barack Obama is like comparing oranges with apples, or rather lemons with apples. Bush made a conscious decision after 9/11 to "go it alone". Karl Rove & Co. were striving for a permanent Republican majority. Bush could have had more bipartisanship after 9/11, which is usually a President's goal in times of war. (Remember the saying "Partisanship ends at the water's edge"?) Instead he, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. decided they could have things their way, that they could enforce their own view of reality on the country and even on the rest of the world. We now have to deal with the results of their arrogance.

Obama may be naive, but he is sincere, and he is anything but arrogant (except about hope). Even granting his naiveté, he doesn't need to be lectured to like a little schoolboy about the rough and tumble political world.. Remember, he comes from the "Chicago School" of politics. He is entitled to spread his message of hope, and it is amazing to me the way the political establishment, from left to right, is -almost frantically and hysterically- trying to marginalize him.

There He Goes Again!

In an incredible "attack" op-ed on Barack Obama by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post, "A Sneer, A Tear, A Comeback", there is the following paragraph:

"One does not have to be sympathetic to the Clintons to understand their bewilderment at Obama's pre-New Hampshire canonization. The man comes from nowhere with a track record as thin as Chauncey Gardiner's. Yet, as Bill Clinton correctly, if clumsily, complained, Obama gets a free pass from the press."

Here is the comment I posted.

Obama as Chauncy Gardiner? This is a low blow, even for you. Do I detect a whiff of racism here, or is it just your usual snit when things don't go the way you deign from on high that they should?
Obama has been a community organizer, a law professor, a state senator who spoke out on foreign policy issues, and now a U.S. Senator. How do you like them apples? As Chauncy might say.
Obama may be naive and untested, but he is hardly an empty suit. Sometimes I think that as a columnist you make a bad psychiatrist.
(end of comment)

I suppose that should have been "would make" in the last sentence.
Spellcheck: The character Peter Sellers so memorably played in "Being There" was "Chance the Gardener", and he was addressed as "Chance Gardner" after he was thrust into the public eye.

But getting back to Krauthammer, I suppose I should just accept the fact that he is an "evil genius" and move on. Except that he has a big following and needs to be "kept honest."

As for the politician in today's world who most resembles Chance Gardner, I'd say the winner hands down is George W. Bush, not the "uppity" Barack Obama.

Hendrick Hertzberg in The New Yorker

Below is a letter I sent to The New Yorker, in response to Hertzberg's article in the December 10th issue. "Follow the Leaders".

The premise of Hendrick Hertzberg's article, that the "Bush Administration's Mesopotamian misadventure" brought about "regime change" among our allies as well as in Iraq, is absurd on its face. Over a long enough time period, the leadership of democratic governments does change, for example in France, which Hertzberg conveniently overlooks, where the new president, Sarkozy, is a much stronger ally of Bush (for better or worse) than Chirac ever was. I am anything but a fan of the Bush Administration, but we shouldn't let that affect our ability to reason properly.
(end of letter)

Don't hold your breath waiting for this letter to appear. After sending it, I realized that "absurd on its face" is too"in your face" for The New Yorker, although it would fit in quite nicely on the Wall Street Journal editorial page!

William Kristol, Now a New York Times Columnist

This is a slightly expanded version of an email I sent to Jack Shafer of Slate in response to his column, "Who's Afraid of Bill Kristol?", and his suggestion that his readers send in nominations for a better choice. I also posted it on The Fray

Subject: William Kristol
I dislike him, not because he is a conservative, but because he is a lightweight, with only his name going for him. Why doesn't the Times go for the real deal and hire his daddy, Irving, or Norman Podhoretz? William Safire has a certain elegance and intelligence about him. A certain gravitas, if you will. I don't care much for columnists who are reflexively or predictably this or that. Hendrik Hertzberg or Anthony Lewis, for example. I like columnists who add something. I don't have to agree with them all of the time, or even most of the time.
I would suggest Krauthammer, but he is sometimes devious and plays loose with the truth. George Will is over-rated, mainly by himself. Despite his grandiose style and logic, he is sometimes inconsistent or makes mistakes, without of course realizing it. And then there are all his factoids!

H. L. Mencken was in a class by himself, as was Walter Lippmann.

Maybe the Times should hire me.