Great posts by Kaus.
Kerfuffles 'R Us
Kf's finger on the pulse of the Left!
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Wednesday, Feb. 16, 2005, at 12:38 AM PT
Kf Covers the Left II: I've been trying to avoid thinking about John Kerry. But a Democratic friend from Northern California recently sent this email, which succinctly makes a--maybe "the"--key point about his current approach for those who haven't written him off:
I went to a John and Teresa Kerry reception last night. he gave a good speech about how we are going to fight on to some applause and some muttering. I think the problem is that he is obviously running for President, not leading the Democrats. he does not even attempt to say that it is not about him. He is a visible US Senator who was almost elected President. If he led or contributed strongly the opposition from that perch, he would be valuable and filling a role that exists in most democracies, I think. It is the obvious personal agenda that makes the whole exercise (MTP, Imus, appearances all over, I assume) seem so ghoulish and misguided. [Emph. added]
12:15 A.M.
Lackobama Blues: Kf, its finger on the pulse of the left as always, hears that the talk of progressives these days is incoming senator Barack Obama's vote in favor of the bill limiting class action lawsuits. The worry is that by siding with President Bush on the issue, Obama has signalled his intent to pursue a Hillaryesque centrist strategy instead of providing the left with the the full-throated anti-Bush champion it craves. ... Fingers are pointed at Pete Rouse, the veteran Daschle aide Obama has chosen as his chief of staff. ... But don't you think this is something Obama would make up his own mind about? 11:31 P.M.
Fast Times at WSJ High: On February 10 the Wall Street Journal ed page prints an opinion piece by one of its writers, Bret Stephens, that concludes:
Mr. Jordan made a defamatory innuendo. Defamatory innuendo -- rather than outright allegation -- is the vehicle of mainstream media bias. Had Mr. Jordan's innuendo gone unchallenged, it would have served as further proof to the Davos elite of the depths of American perfidy. Mr. Jordan deserves some credit for retracting the substance of his remark, and some forgiveness for trying to weasel his way out of a bad situation of his own making. Whether CNN wants its news division led by a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel and field softball questions is another matter. [Emph. added]
But when CNN seemingly decides it doesn't want its news dvision led by a man who can't be trusted to sit on a panel, the WSJ ed page denounces the network for allowing itself to be "stampeded" by an "Internet and talk show crew." Why wasn't it stampeded by the WSJ? ... P.S.: At the end of its high-schoolishly self-centered and defensive editorial, the Journal actually boasts that it's the "grown-up" and doesn't engage in the "enthusiasms and vendettas of amateurs." ... P.P.S.: Don't you think that when the editor of a site devoted to lecturing professional journalists about proper journalism denounces the "salivating morons" who brought down Eason Jordan and the "gleeful gloating of the moon howlers at all too many politically-inclined blogs"--and when he shrewdly goes out of his way to make it clear he isn't talking about powerful Jordan critics lke bloggers Buzzmachine or Captain's Quarters--that he should at least come up with one (1) example of who he is talking about? ...
Update: FisbhowlDC asks:
Why can't both sides just understand that one wouldn't be nearly as effective without the other, and that blogging--despite how much fun it is--would be nowhere without the "mainstream" reporters who, actually, manage to get most of their stories correct (albeit without necessarily agreeing with your particular viewpoint)?
That's the usual symbiotic template--reporters report, bloggers opine. But on the Eason Jordan story, bloggers like Abovitz, Sisyphean Musings and Michelle Malkin did actual reporting, while the New York Times kind of just sat there for two weeks, no? ... Of course, when it was all over the Times did deploy three reporters who managed to a) mislead readers as to Jeff Jarvis' stance and b) raise fears about the "growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue." [You think there's no "lynch mob" danger in rampant, unedited dialogue?-ed. No, it's an interesting worry. The First Amendment itself was never a lock. We shouldn't expect all democratic changes to be all good all the time. But this is not the worrisome case. See Shafer and Kurtz.] 2:42 P.M.
Means-testing: The most popular Social Security solution, and by far the most popular solution that involves a benefit cut rather than a tax increase. ... USA Today cynically suggests that it's the selfish non-wealthy who support the idea of "limiting the benefits of wealthy retirees":
The willingness to support sacrifices by somebody else isn't surprising. ...[snip]
Three-quarters of middle-income workers — those with annual household incomes of $30,000 to $50,000 — say it makes sense to limit retirement benefits for the wealthy. That's 10 points higher than among those who make $75,000 or more.
Hmmm. "Three-quarters" minus "10 points" is still a clear majority among even the more affluent group, no? In other words, there is substantial support among the affluent for limiting their own benefits. I'd say that's the lede. ... P.S.: USAT is assuming that higher "income" workers turn into the "wealthy" retirees who'd get means-tested. Is this rough assumption accurate? Incomes go up and down, and some high-income workers could spend their way to low-wealth retirements. Like USAT, I've always used income as a proxy for wealth. But if we're going to have a big means-testing debate maybe that equation should be examined more closely--and not just to enable an accurate reading of polls like USAT's. It's a lot easier to administer a means-test by income--something already disclosed annually to the IRS--than it is to means test by wealth, which requires an estate-like calculation of total assets. But it seems fairer to means-test by wealth. (That's presumably why USAT phrased its poll question in terms of wealth.). ... 1:41 P.M.
Kurtz didn't even get the newest Eason Jordan sex angle! |
