Sheryl and I attended the Republican Jewish Coalition dinner at the Reagan Library last night. The speeches at these events are usually pretty dreary but they had three good ones by Steve Poizner, Dennis Prager and the very youthful Josh Mandel - an ex-Marine now Ohio politician who is a coming super star for the Republicans. Kudos to their California head honcho Larry Greenfield.
Not surprisingly, however, our Prius was the only hybrid I could see in the parking lot for the event (attended by 600 people). Still a lot of Lexus SUVs (not the hybrid type) among the upscale Republican crowd. Well, tough cheese for them. I got 57 mpg on my way home! (It’s about 30 miles from the library to my house.)
In his latest New Yorker entry “Preparing the Battlefield” [in Iran] Seymour Hersh seems to be competing for a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for the greatest numbers of anonymous sources in one article. The first sentence alone presents a trifecta of the unnamed: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.”
They are never identified.
It goes on in a similar mode for the next seven pages almost to the level of self-parody. So I have some questions for The New Yorker editors. How do you fact-check Hersh and do those methods coincide with your overall policies (if any)? Do you know the names of his anonymous sources? Have you queried those sources to see if the writer fairly represents their opinions or to discover whether they are disaffected civil servants with an ax to grind? When dealing with an issue as incendiary as war with Iran, it should be standard journalistic procedure to do so. I would hope the editors of The New Yorker agree readers deserve a high level of transparency on such life or death issues.
In general mainstream media outlets are rather opaque about their fact-checking, particularly regarding their “anonymous source” standards, even though it is those sources who are most useful to a writer who wishes to manipulate the facts. Until those standards are made clear in a public manner and in a way that readers can feel confident they are being followed, articles like Hersh’s must be read as fiction. And not very good fiction at that.
UPDATE: Ron Rosenbaum analyzes Hersh’s (spotty) track record.
Please read “L’Affaire Enderlin - Being a French journalist means never having to say you’re sorry” by Anne-Elisabeth Moutet at the Weekly Standard. My only regret is she didn’t do it for Pajamas Media. (WARNING: Be sure to take your blood pressure pills before reading.)
Howard Kurtz comments on something today that should be obvious, but is still worth underlining in these wildly partisan times. Kurtz writes, regarding Obama’s views on the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment decision: Wouldn’t it be better for Obama to say he had thought more about such-and-such an issue and simply changed his mind? Is that verboten in American politics? Is it better to engage in linguistic pretzel-twisting in an effort to prove that you didn’t change your mind?
Kurtz clearly has a point. The term flip-flopping has flopped its way into our political lexicon and should now be banned. It is mere propaganda that almost always obscures the truth: a grown-up, when he has a good reason, changes his mind. Indeed, this is one of the hallmarks what being a grown-up is.
For example, John McCain opposed off-shore drilling for environmental reasons when gas was $2.50 a gallon. Now that it is close to double that, and drilling techniques have improved, he supports it. Logical? It is to me. But Obama is unable to make that change. His propagandists accuse McCain of “flip-flopping” on the matter, when the candidate merely adapted to new conditions.
On the other hand, as Ed Morrissey tells us, Obama has been doing some serious “flip-flopping” of his own: We used to call John Kerry a flip-flopper for his embarrassing quote on his opposition to Iraq war funding. Obama has now changed position on almost every key position in this election, and exposed himself as incompetent as a Constitutional law analyst as well.
But is “flip-flopper” the right term? To be a “flip-flopper,” you actually have to have a position, I would think. It may be, in a very real way, Obama does not. I would suggest most of his positions are simply ad hoc. In other words, he is more of “waffler” than a “flip-flopper.” Or simply expedient. What he is not is someone who changes his mind. If he is elected, too bad for us. (via Instapundit)
Another indication that the New York Times is more biased (yikes!) than Fox News [...but that's impossible.-ed. Anything is possible, my son.] is how the two outlets evaluate the political ads assaulting the airwaves these days. The Times assigns Larry Rohter essentially to review them. So what we are given is simply one man’s opinion. Today, good Timesman that he is, he doesn’t much like McCain’s new energy ad. Rohter concludes: But voters under 50 may not recall John F. Kennedy’s promise to put a man on the moon in less than a decade, and the musical accompaniment, a mix of electronica, percussion and swelling strings, seems more somber than uplifting.
Well, okay, Larry, if you say so. I haven’t seen the ad myself, so have no opinion. But I have to ask: why should I care abou Rohter’s? This isn’t a movie or a play. Or an art opening. The only operative question here is not whether some journalist likes the ad, but whether it works with voters. Over at the supposedly hugely biased Fox, Frank Luntz understands this and performs one of the most interesting services on television. He takes ads like this and simply puts them before focus groups of voters. (He also has them rate the debates.) The results are far more interesting and provide riveting political television, some of the best out there.
Because you know it’s going to be outmoded the moment you drive it off the lot. Even so, I’m having fun with my Prius. It achieved an impressive 46.0 mpg in the first 300 miles, although I have virutally no skills as a hybrid driver - other than watching the consumption gauge obsessively and driving more slowly than my dead grandmother to make sure I don’t waste an ounce of gas. Good thing I got the Bluetooth because - with a cell phone to my ear, eye on the gauge - I’d be a dead man by now. Nevertheless, I am a jealous man, knowing that the plug-in version is just around the corner. (Yes, I am a sucker for gizmos. Yes, I already want the new iPhone.)
Call it “the psychopathology of every day mainstream media lives”…. Joe Klein can barely contain himself in his reply to a letter by Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League:
I find your “outrage” particularly galling because the people you defend are constantly spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians, or who don’t favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran. Their campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being “soft on terrorism” or “unpatriotic” or favoring “surrender”–Joe Lieberman’s favorite—by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a neurotic need to prove their toughness. They, and you, should know that most Jews disagree with their politics and many Jews are disgusted with their behavior. They, and you, should know that the tendency to “cry wolf” about antisemitism does real harm to the Jewish community—indeed, in this case, it is laughable.
Whoa… Somebody’s ox has clearly been gored. I theorized earlier that Klein’s ugly reaction to “Jewish neoconservatives” was projection. Now I think it’s a classic case of the phenomenon, particularly “neurotic” in response to Foxman’s much more considered words.
What’s interesting in Klein’s letter - and in the original article - is that the journalist names no names, other than Joe Lieberman who seems the subject of special opprobrium. (It would be interesting to explore the etiology of that one.) To lump all “Jewish neoconservatives” together is an ancient technique and is intended to make us think they are all alike, whoever they are. Of course Klein is well aware of the history and uses of such a smear, yet still employs it with an alacrity that seems driven by private demons.
In reality, many Jews who supported (and continue to support) the war have wildly disparate views. Some completely support talking with the Palestinians. I am one of those. I am probably more of social liberal than Klein himself too, but he would more than likely lump me with the ubiquitous neocons who are out to get him, not to mention get people fired, as he indicates in the letter.
What appears to be going on here is a kind of deep confusion. The surge is working. History may regard the Iraq War as a success. People like Klein are beginning to suspect (fear?) they may have been wrong. He doesn’t want to face the possibility. So in his defense he brings forth shopworn nonsense like the cliche about Iraq distracting us from our real battle against “those who attacked us,” even though no view could be more simplistic. The battle against Islamofacism is highly complex and takes place on many fronts. Finally he brings forth that canard of canards, blaming everything on the unidentified neocons’ “neurotic need to prove their toughness.” [Why did he miss out on calling them "chicken hawks?-ed. Undoubtedly because he doesn't read enough blogs.]
If Klein’s really talking about Richard Perle here (always a possibility), he might want to view this video I shot, in which the supposed neocon mastermind does demonstrate a neurotic need…. to brew a perfect cup of espresso. (He also talks with far more sophistication and grace than Klein about Iraq.)
Obama these days seems to be playing “Mr. Nyet” (remember Andrei Gromyko?) every time McCain makes an energy proposal. Some of those are dubious (like the summertime gas tax hiatus) but most, including 300 million dollar prize for an advanced automobile battery, make sense. McCain is apparently able to see the energy crisis as a complex problem to be dealt with on several fronts from drilling to conservation and alternative fuels. Obama only sees the latter. Of course, I don’t believe him for a minute. The Illinois Senator has proven himself to be a disingenuous creep, the kind of man who publicly bashes NAFTA and then has his minions go whisper to the Canadians he was just kidding. How he will perform in office is anybody’s guess, most likely including his own. But the mainstream media continues to cover for him on a daily basis and not ask questions. Talk about creeps.
But returning to energy, I don’t agree with the (relatively mild) criticisms of McCain’s plan offered on Pajamas today by Jerome Guillet. I support drilling off shore, which by the way is fifty miles off, out of view, with much more environmentally safe systems. Those “wild polluters” the Norwegians have done it quite successfully for awhile, as have the French building nuclear power plants. We have to get into these things. Would we do so in an Obama administration? Maybe. Just as he’d probably stay in Iraq. Obama is two-faced enough to do the opposite of what he is proposing during the election. He reminds me of Nixon - only not as smart.
Meanwhile, I’m supporting the more youthful McCain who is able to hold two energy ideas in his head at the same time.
Since I’m for McCain, I was pleased to read the Arizona Senator has evened things up with Obama in the new Gallup Poll. But is this real? Only a few days ago, the LATimes was showing an Obama slaughter. What changed? Is it the pump prices and Obama’s non-response to drilling? McCain seems to have a more coherent and multi-faceted energy plan while Obama seems mired in very old-fashioned anti-nuke liberalism, but still… The question is the polls. How do we know if and when to believe them? We are looking for someone to write dispassionately about this on Pajamas Media. Feel free to leave suggestions here.
Some people don’t know when it’s time to move off stage. [Are you talking about yourself?-ed. No, I'm talking about you.] Ralph Nader — who should have moved off a decade or two ago — has accused Barack Obama of “talking white”. Didn’t know Nader was so up on his Ebonics. Maybe ‘DJ Princeton Ralph’ will start rapping for us now. He could do a duet with that other aging rapper Shaquille Oneal who has been “distinguishing” himself in the genre of late. At least Shaq can still slam dunk. Ralph… well… he’s reached the level of self parody.
