Week of: |
4:50 PM
Smearing Soros
Anyone who's been paying even cursory attention to the 2004 presidential race knows who George Soros is. Moreover, they know the billionaire financier has emerged as the most generous supporter of liberal soft money groups like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together. But that isn't enough for Tony Blankley, the Washington Times editorial page editor.
In print, Blankley comes across like a predictable, if particularly inflexible, neocon partisan (consider his May 19 column arguing that "any politicians proposing to turn Iraq over to the United Nations or other weakling entities are prepared to accept strategic defeat," or his absurdly similar May 26 commentary asserting that "Bush will be better served relying on that overwhelming force than relying on the United Nations"). But appearing on the Fox slander-fest 'Hannity & Colmes' Thursday evening, Blankley delivered a world-class bit of character assassination. For the most part, Blankley stuck to the GOP's recently-minted 'attack-Soros-to-discredit-Kerry' plan -- a strategy described by the New York Post, and presented in some detail on the Republican National Committee's own site. But then Blankley veered into unrefined hysterics. Soros, he blurted, is "an atheist," and "a man who blamed the Jews for anti-Semitism." But even that wasn't enough. Blankley pulled out the defamation artillery: "He was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the holocaust."
Huh? Did he really say that? And was he really implying what he seemed to be implying.
Taken out of context, of course, the comment might even be considered praise -- Soros, through bravery, force of will, or simple luck, escaped the Nazi scourge. But that is clearly not the message Blankely means to send. Of course, despite the new GOP offensive, these smears are nothing new for Soros. Matt Welch, the associated editor of Reason, examined the 'Soros is a self-hating anti-Semite and maybe more' conspiracy theories last year. His conclusion:
I don't have the omniscience or temperament to make that judgment about someone who survived the Holocaust and directly confronted anti-Semitism on a constant basis in post-communist Central Europe. I can say, after more than a decade of observing his actions and words, that, regarding his comments on his own role in anti-Semitism, overly critical self-examination is at the root of his intellectual approach, along with (contradictory as it sounds) a massive ego and belief in his superior hunches.Soros is at turns a fascinating and infuriating man, eminently ripe for the criticizing ... especially now that he's thrust himself at the forefront of the 2004 presidential election. But he's neither socialist nor shylock, and calling him so reveals more about the prejudices of the speaker than the faults of the man.
That's well put. So well put, in fact, that I don't think there's much to add, even six months later.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
4:15 PM
First Tenet, next ... who?
Late last month, former Vice President Al Gore called on the primary players in President Bush's war cabinet to resign. Accusing them of reckless incompetence, Gore said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George J. Tenet should all step down. Well, with Tenet bowing out, Gore is now 1 for 3. But can the former veep -- not to mention millions of liberals and progressives and moderates and even conservatives -- reasonably hope for more?
Democrats calling for Rumsfeld's head wildly overplayed their hand, forcing the White House into a defensive huddle around Rummy. And Rice continues to be the administration's good-cop fixer, trotted out to placate the media masses whenever Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bush steer foreign policy off a cliff. So, both are inexplicably safe, right? Maybe not. As E.J. Dionne notes in his recent column, the Pentagon's disastrous mishandling of Iraq has exposed deep rifts on the right.
Yes, Bush's problems have something to do with his declining poll ratings. Trouble in politics breeds more trouble. A bit more stability in Iraq could breed a bit more stability in the conservative movement. Bush has to hope so, because it's hard to win reelection when you have to put out so many fires in your own back yard.
And Tenet's resignation is unlikely to satisfy the scores of conservatives eager to see a real shakeup in the Bush policy team.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
04:00 PM
Rewriting Kerry
Two weeks ago, Joshua Wolf Shenk argued right here on MotherJones.com that liberals in general -- and John Kerry in particular -- need to tear up their tired political narrative: "Whereas the right-wing has a good story that they believe, liberals have a lame story -- and they don't even believe it." Well, Shenk isn't alone. Howell Raines, the controversial and crusading former New York Times editor, argues in a new column that Kerry "has to figure out how to deliver a message on two key points, one easy and one hard."
The easy part, Raines writes, is Kerry's anti-war past. Sure, Kerry waffled terribly in his interview with Tim Russert, but that damage can be healed, Raines argues. Provided Kerry takes the initiative.
Kerry has yet to learn to do what Bush and vice-president Dick Cheney do when they're in the hot seat. They take over the interview even when they have nothing to say and nothing to sell. There's hardly an American who does not know that George W got into the Air National Guard when others couldn't through his father's political pull, that he got into flight school ahead of others due to his father's political pull, that he was allowed to skip his normal weekend drills and make them up without being punished because of his father's political pull. There's hardly an American who doesn't know that Cheney used graduate-school deferments to beat the draft. If John Kerry, Purple Heart winner, can't take that set of facts and handle Russert as well as Messrs Bush and Cheney do, he's not likely to cause enough defections in the Christian bloc to defeat them.
The harder part, Raines writes, is the economy. As unfair as the tax system may be, Americans don't want to hear about it. Because most people in this country still believe they could end up rich, and reap the benefits of that unfair system. Facing such delusion, Raines says, "Kerry has to understand that when a cure is impossible, the doctor must enter the world of the deluded."
What does this mean in terms of campaign message? It means that he must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans - ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour. That means that instead of talking about "fixing" social security, you talk about building a retirement system that makes middle-class voters believe they will be semi-rich someday. ...Surely someone in Kerry's campaign can figure out a way for him to say, "Here's my plan for getting us out of Iraq and defeating terrorism," and "Here's my plan for making sure you're not sick and poor in your old age." And then make him say it over and over again, no matter what question is asked of him. Kerry has to face the fact that even though the incumbent looks like Goofy when he smirks, he's going to win unless Kerry comes up with something to say. To stay "on message", you have to have one.
Surely. Unless, as Shenk notes, Kerry holds onto the hoary strategies of perennial loser Bob Shrum.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this
3:05 PM
Pretzel illogic
Is President Bush sick? Could it be that he's suffering from some sort of compassion-deficit-disorder? That's the conclusion Timothy Noah facetiously reaches in a new Slate column, suggesting tha Bush's inability to feel regret over the situation in Iraq (or anything in his presidency for that matter) may actually be the result of a medical condition stemming from his legendary January 2002 pretzel incident.
Noah Cites a recent study published in the journal Science that found those with brain injuries did not mind losing while gambling as much as healthy participants, and were less likely to change course, even while continuing to lose. Gosh, that sounds a lot like a certain world leader we all know. Maybe Noah's crazy idea isn't so crazy. Maybe Bush really did injure his orbitofrontal cortex when he choked on that perfidious snack. Maybe.
Link this
E-mail this
Print this