The Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington’s answer to Matt Drudge, went live today, with a handful of celebrity postings (for example, John Cusack on Hunter) and a blogroll of the usual suspects. Seems ok, I guess, although I think Huffington would do well to make the site layout look less like the print version of The Onion.
Category: Pundits
See it Now.
The first pic from Goodnight & Good Luck, George Clooney’s forthcoming film about Edward Murrow’s televised unmasking of Joe McCarthy, is now online. The cast includes Clooney (Fred Friendly), David Strathairn (Murrow), Frank Langella (Bill Paley), Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, and Robert Downey, Jr.
Causing Deprivation.
I was at the movies during Dubya’s State of the Union address — I tried to watch it online this evening after my Radicalism sections, but Quicktime died in mid-sentence, so I just ended up reading it. And, while I thought it was very well-written as per the norm, my thoughts on the address have been colored even more than usual by the punditocracy. So, with that in mind, I’ll avoid being derivative and just direct y’all to the following:
- Fred Kaplan: “Some of the president’s statements on national security were simply puzzling. Again on Iran, he said, ‘We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium-enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing.’ This is just false.“
- Chris Suellentrop: “You could call Bush’s idea the Screw Your Grandchildren Act…This was the Greatest Love of All speech, in which Bush asserted that The Children Are Our Future. But before you sign on to Bush’s proposal, be aware that what he’s offering is pretty tough love.“
- Will Saletan: “Tonight’s State of the Union Address demonstrated again that President Bush is a man of very clear principles. He’s just flexible about when to apply them.“
- Joe Conason: “Although George W. Bush and the White House aides who craft these public spectacles become increasingly adept at manipulating the feelings of his audience every year, their underlying method remains the same: to shade inconvenient realities with rhetorical vagueness and outright deception.“
- E.J. Dionne: “Our country could profit from an honest debate about the future of Social Security. Judging from President Bush’s State of the Union address, that is not the kind of debate we are about to have.“
Payola III.
The trifecta…The Dubya administration coughs up a third conservative commentator on the federal payroll — Michael McManus of Marriage Savers. How many more before we can call it an all-out flunky epidemic?
Payola II.
As Howard Kurtz outs another commentator on the administration payroll — this time, Maggie Gallagher and HHS — Dubya declares the gravy train for right-wingers has stopped. Aw, man, don’t y’all want to hear my price first? GitM sells out cheap. Did I mention lately how splendiferous I think the war in Iraq is going?
No Right-Wing Flunky Left Behind.
By way of a friend of mine, the Dubya education department gets busted subsidizing conservative commentator Armstrong Williams for good press on NCLB. I mean, really, wasn’t Fox News enough?
He Fights for Us.
“CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think. STEWART: You need to go to one.” Sent to me by a friend in the program here, Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson battle it out on Crossfire. (More here.) I wish I’d seen this live…the transcript is definitely worth a read. “CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you’re accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely…You’re on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.” Update: See it here, via High Industrial.
Worst-Case Scenario.
In the new Washington Monthly, David Greenberg, E.J. Dionne, Paul Begala, and several others ponder the troubling question, “What if Bush wins?” The short answer? Head for the hills.
Bobos on Progressivism.
Interrupting my usual enjoyment of the Sunday NYT crossword this past week was the magazine’s cover story, in which conservative media darling David Brooks tried to outline a new “progressive conservatism” for 2008. Given my interest, historical and otherwise, in reviving progressivism in any form, I applaud Brooks for giving it the ole college try here. But this piece suffers from a couple of serious problems.
For one, there’s not much “new” here. Writers like Michael Sandel have already thoroughly outlined this project, the case for a Hamiltonian revival was done better in Michael Lind’s Hamilton’s Republic, and even George Will anticipated much of Brooks’s argument on government, culture, and fostering independence twenty years ago with Statecraft as Soulcraft.
More problematic, Brooks seems totally unacquainted with his own party. “[A]lmost every leading official acknowledges that we should have as much of a welfare state as we can afford.” Oh, really? On education, “[m]ore and more conservatives understand that local control means local monopolies and local mediocrity.” Coulda fooled me. “Most Republicans, happily or not, have embraced a significant federal role in education.” Well, somebody should tell these guys.
I don’t want to harsh on Brooks too much, because at least he’s trying to make the case for something close to a progressive resurgence (“But through much of American history there has always been a third tradition, now dormant, which believes in limited but energetic government in the name of social mobility and national union.”) But first he’s gotta realize that he’s standing on the shoulders of giants here, and should say as much. And, more importantly, if we really wants to see a return to progressivism, he’s probably looking in the wrong party. As Bill Moyers recently and eloquently restated, progressivism was ultimately a reaction against the corporate domination of politics that afflicted the Gilded Age, and somehow that doesn’t seem to bother the current GOP too much. Dubya and Rove apparently aspire to be William McKinley and Mark Hanna respectively, and the closest thing the GOP had to a TR is now gleefully prostrating himself before his corporate overlords. So, we’re probably going to have to search elsewhere for our Teddys, Woodrows, and Crolys these days.
That Woman? Not hardly.
By way of Value Judgment, Alexandra Polier — the woman whom Drudge et al earlier claimed had an affair with John Kerry — digs into the unsavory origins of her own non-story. The first half of the article is basically a recap of her situation and her actual connection to Kerry, but the second half — when she begins interrogating the journalists who breathlessly created this media scandal out of whole cloth — is quite interesting.