Best of the Web Today - February 24, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
The AARP Kerfuffle
If you're bored by the Social Security debate, help is on the way. A kerfuffle has erupted that provides both comic relief and insight into the paranoid workings of the Angry Left mind. It got started the other day when an outfit called USA Next briefly ran an inflammatory ad attacking the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons) on The American Spectator's Web site. (USA Next quickly pulled the ad and replaced it with an inoffensive one.)
"The REAL AARP Agenda," declares the original ad, beneath two photos--one of a soldier, covered with a red X mark, the other of a man kissing his male bride, covered with a green check mark. The New York Sun explains what's behind the gay wedding picture:
AARP does not have a position on gay marriage, [spokeswoman Nancy Thompson] said. AARP Ohio opposed that state's gay marriage amendment [which appeared on the ballot in November] because part of the proposal would have "truncated certain rights" of people living in the same household who were not married, and that would have included many seniors, she said in an interview.
We have no idea what USA Next is trying to say with the soldier pic; we weren't able to find any explanation either in news reports or on USA Next's Web site. (Admittedly, our search was less than exhaustive.) In any case, we agree with the critics that the ad is crude and unfair.
It turns out that USA Next has hired some of the same consultants who worked on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's campaign to demystify John Kerry's Vietnam service. This brought liberals--who've simmered for months over the success of that effort--to the boiling point. Newsday's Ellis Henican:
Finally rested up from their cynical assault last year on John Kerry's patriotism, the most ruthless smear squad in American politics is back together again. . . .
Their latest ugly enterprise? Sliming the AARP, which had the nerve to come out against President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.
This is the same gang of rhetorical hatchet men behind the deceptively named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. During last year's presidential campaign, they were telling vicious lies about Kerry's combat record in Vietnam. Now, they're turning their trash talk on the nation's largest and most effective senior citizens lobbying group, which they'll try to tar as an extreme left-wing cabal.
Blogger Steve Soto offers the AARP some advice:
First, if he hasn't done so already, AARP Chief Executive Officer Bill Novelli needs to call Karl Rove and demand that the White House condemn the ad and the tactics of the USAN. Of course Rove will not do this, and Novelli should tell Rove that failure to do this will be interpreted by the AARP as a sign that the White House supports and was a partner in this smear and in future smears.
Second, the AARP should do a press conference after the call to Rove for two reasons: first, they should show the despicable ad to the media and point out to what lengths Bush's supporters will go to smear the AARP; secondly Novelli should reveal at the press conference that he has demanded the White House repudiate the ad and the USAN smear campaign, and has received no such repudiation from the White House. As a result, Novelli should tell the media that the AARP will assume the White House supports this smear.
AARP is doing nothing of the sort; the Sun reports its spokeswoman "said the group is 'not reacting' to the attack ads." But at least one Democrat, Sen. Jon Corzine of New Jersey, has called on President Bush to repudiate them.
Why in the world should the White House even dignify this ad by commenting on it? Here we come to the paranoia of the Angry Left, which is firmly convinced, as during the Swift Boat episode, that the evil genius Karl Rove is pulling all the strings. As Soto writes:
Making the USAN a pariah and calling them out for what they really are and exposing who is really behind them, while pointing out what the White House and its cronies on the Hill and at the RNC are willing to do to destroy the AARP will kill off not only the USAN but Bush's remaining privatization effort as well.
Of course, the tack Soto advises is precisely the approach that failed so miserably for Kerry in responding to the Swiftians. It relies on a non sequitur: that the absence of a White House condemnation of the ad is evidence that the White House is responsible for it. This argument is persuasive only to true believers--those who are already convinced that all support for the administration is part of a conspiracy directed by Rove.
Oddly, Soto's advice to the AARP reflects a similar misconception of those on his own side of the political fence. AARP is a nonpartisan special-interest lobby; although it is on the same side of the Social Security debate as the Democratic Party, it is not an arm of the party. The AARP seeks to influence officials of both parties, and it would be totally irrational for it to pick a partisan fight with the White House over the actions of some rogue supporters of the administration's position.
Aussie Fetuses Join Rove Conspiracy!
It seems Karl Rove has been busy Down Under, too. So we learn from a Seattle Post-Intelligencer ("intelligent as a post!") op-ed by Australian writer Greg Barnes:
It's been 25 years since Australia tore itself apart debating the rights and wrongs of abortion. But the issue has resurfaced courtesy of the preparedness of Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his advisers to take a leaf out of Karl Rove's tactics textbook and the successful export of U.S. fundamentalist churches to Australia over the past five years.
Over the past month a group of right-wing Australian members of Parliament, sanctioned by the conservative Howard, have begun a campaign to outlaw "late-term abortions." This group is allying itself with churches and anti-abortion groups that are borrowing heavily from their U.S. colleagues when it comes to campaign tactics.
Howard is an unashamed admirer of Rove, President Bush's political tactics mastermind. When Howard introduced his own political strategist, Lynton Crosby, to Bush in 2001, he called him the "Karl Rove of Australian politics."
For crying out loud, isn't Rove's plate full enough, what with manipulating the media and destroying the AARP and the New Deal and all?
No W More Than Ever
Here's a cute story from Doug Moe, a columnist for the Capital Times of Madison, Wis.:
A few weeks ago, Fred Langetieg lost his W.
Langetieg was born 71 years ago with the name Frederick Wayne Langetieg. For seven decades he was known as Fred W. Langetieg.
This was not a problem until the past few years, when Langetieg's seemingly innocent middle initial began pervading the culture in any number of ways, sparked of course by its importance in identifying the president, George W. Bush. . . .
He's a guy who knows what he likes, and he does not like George W. Bush. "I think he's dishonest," Langetieg said.
Langetieg said his late father, Sigurd Langetieg, was a political progressive who encouraged his son to be the same. "He taught me everything I know," Fred said. "He was an honest guy--he had Richard Nixon figured out long before Watergate."
Partly as an homage to his father--"I think he'll rest easier," Fred said--Langetieg decided shortly after Bush's re-election that he would change his name. Frederick Wayne Langetieg would become Frederick Sigurd Langetieg.
Of course, now he shares a middle initial with notorious segregationist James S. Thurmond.
By George, Maybe He's Right!
President Bush yesterday visited Germany, a country whose government and population have been markedly hostile to the Bush administration's pro-democracy foreign policy. But an article in Der Spiegel, far from a pro-Bush organ, runs against die Gezeiten. "Could George W. Bush Be Right?" asks the headline. It turns out that yes, he could:
President Ronald Reagan's visit to Berlin in 1987 was, in many respects, very similar to President George W. Bush's visit to Mainz on Wednesday. . . . When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate--and the Berlin Wall--and demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this Wall," he was lampooned the next day on the [German] editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. Realpolitik looks different.
But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicians who were lacking in imagination--a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany. Those who spoke of reunification were labelled as nationalists and the entire German left was completely uninterested in a unified Germany. . . .
Maybe history can repeat itself. Maybe the people of Syria, Iran or Jordan will get the idea in their heads to free themselves from their oppressive regimes just as the East Germans did. When the voter turnout in Iraq recently exceeded that of many Western nations, the chorus of critique from Iraq alarmists was, at least for a couple of days, quieted. Just as quiet as the chorus of Germany experts on the night of Nov. 9, 1989 when the Wall fell.
Just a thought for Old Europe to chew on: Bush might be right, just like Reagan was then.
Meanwhile, the Majorca (Spain) Daily Bulletin carries an amusing letter on Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's efforts to ingratiate himself with Bush:
Ever since his election, Zapatero has spent much of his time shadowing Bush and attempting to shake his hand. On Wednesday, he was waiting in the shadows, and made his move when Bush was talking to Tony Blair. Bush, who I suspect didn't really know who Zapatero was said "hola amigo" and continued talking to Blair. Meanwhile, Zapatero walked off smiling away like a child with a new pair of shoes. The exchange was so brief Spanish newspapers had a nightmare trying to find a photograph of the "great meeting." To make matters worse a Spanish government spokesperson said that Bush and Zapatero had a "cordial exchange." (They forget to mention it lasted about two seconds.)
Even more laughable was the "meeting" Spanish Foreign Secretary Moratinos had with U.S. Secretary of State Rice. He literally rushed over to her in a passageway and then later claimed he had a summit meeting.
Zapatero, of course, is the Socialist who famously backed John Kerry, then ignored Kerry's pleas not to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.
Spot the Idiot
NPR's Bob Sommer isn't the only American who's bent out of shape about yellow "support the troops" ribbons. One Thomas Naughton, a columnist for the Daily Collegian at the University of Massacusetts-Amherst, says he and his friends actually "rip yellow ribbon 'support the troops' magnets off of cars or wherever people have affixed them":
By ripping off these ribbons, we find a way to deal with our guilt, as though with each ribbon swiped we take back a life that was taken by this senseless war started by our senseless president and those who support him. . . .
We say, "support the troops" so that we won't feel guilty about saying "no" to war. We reason that if we say that we support the troops, somehow we aren't monsters for not saying a word when the death tolls of U.S. soldiers climbed above 1,000. Those ribbons are yellow for a reason, they are not the mark of armed forces support, they are the mark of cowards.
Pundits on the radio advise their cowardly listeners to approach men and women in army uniforms and say "thank you." I cannot do that. Every time I pass a person in uniform I look long and hard at them and all I can think inside to say is "I'm so sorry." I want to apologize to them, to their families and to their friends. I feel sorry that we, the people, couldn't control our own government at the outset of this conflict when most of us knew deep inside that it was a mistake.
It's remarkably similar to an article in the Onion "by James W. Henley":
I support Bush-administration foreign-policy goals, but I stand firmly against the individual men and women on the ground in the Persian Gulf.
Yes, occupying Iraq does require troops, but they are there for one reason and one reason only: to carry out the orders of the U.S. Defense Department. As far as their overall importance goes, they are no more worthy of our consideration than a box of nails. Ribbons and banners in ostensible "support" of the troops miss the whole point of the invasion, which is to gain a strategic hold over that volatile and lucrative geopolitical region.
When real life produces guys like Thomas Naughton, satire begins to seem somewhat redundant.
Homelessness Rediscovery Watch
"If George W. Bush becomes president, the armies of the homeless, hundreds of thousands strong, will once again be used to illustrate the opposition's arguments about welfare, the economy, and taxation."--Mark Helprin, Oct. 31, 2000
"Chip Halbach: Bush and Pawlenty Help Homeless at Expense of Others"--headline, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb. 24
Homer Nods
The official language of Belgium is not Belgiumish, as we said in an item yesterday. We regret the error. Belgium's language is actually known as Belch.
Cinematic Spoilage
We heard from quite a few readers who were unhappy that in an item yesterday (SPOILER ALERT!), we gave away the "surprise ending" of the Oscar-nominated film "Million Dollar Baby" by quoting from an article in the New York Observer (SPOILER ALERT!) that described it. Some of you hadn't yet seen the movie and feel we ruined it for you. We've been asked to include a SPOILER ALERT! if we do this in the future.
All we can say is, we're really sorry. We had no idea it was a surprise. We haven't actually seen "Million Dollar Baby," but we had read about the ending, so we just assumed everyone else already knew. We'll try to do better in the future.
In the meantime, so as not to prejudice the members of the Academy, here are the endings of the other four films nominated for Best Picture. Note: SPOILER ALERT!--click here to skip to the next item.
o "The Aviator": Sorry, we haven't seen it and don't know how it ends.
o "Finding Neverland": Actually, we haven't seen this one either. We don't even know what it's about. Sorry.
o "Ray": Jamie Foxx's character goes on to a successful career as a musician.
o "Sideways": Paul Giamatti's character reunites with his love interest. Or not. It's hard to tell. We guess we'll find out in "Sideways II."
By Any Other Name
The Arizona Republic reports that the Scottsdale school district is adopting fancy new titles for many of its employees. Barbara Levine, who "used to be known as the receptionist," is now the "Director of First Impressions," which we guess means she's allowed to ignore anyone she already knows who comes into the office. The bus driver is now called the "transporter of learners," and the assistant superintendent for elementary schools is (take a breath) "executive director for elementary schools and excelling teaching and learning." Here's the explanation:
Sound confusing or like hyperbole?
Scottsdale Superintendent [sic] John Baracy, who created the new titles for about a half-dozen employees, doesn't think so.
"This is to make a statement about what we value in the district. We value learning," said Baracy.
"Learning"? That's "facilitating the development of critical thinking skills" to you, bub! |
