Month: February 2006

Joe Klein in Time:
“The news from the Middle East – Iran, Iraq, Palestine – has been nonstop awful, and Bush is beginning to sound as airy and out of touch as Woodrow Wilson must have in 1919, when that President tried to sell the futile dream of a League of Nations. “
To the claim that the “news” from the Middle East has been “nonstop awful” — well, yes. Hard to argue. But that’s a rather different thing than the reality in the Middle East being non-stop awful, no?
See also, Victor Davis Hanson: “It is an odd war, because the side that I think is losing garners all the press, whether by blowing up the great golden dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, or blowing up an American each day. Yet we hear nothing of the other side that is ever so slowly, shrewdly undermining the enemy.”
Time, Mr. Klein, and the MSM in general are fond of engaging in this particular dance. Step one (“news” desk): ignore any signs of progress or good news from the Middle East; report in lurid detail all bad news. Step two (“editorial” desk): write pithy columns about how “the news” from the Middle East has been nothing but awful. Rinse. Repeat.
I can take some small pleasure in taunting Time, however, because they’ve obviously invested this week’s issue in the concept that the mosque bombing last week is starting a civil war. As they explain breathlessly in their press release:
“AN EYE FOR AN EYE TIME’s cover story this week, “Breaking Point,” explores the roots of the murderous rage in Iraq following the bombing of the al-Askari shrine and looks at why the U.S. may be powerless to stop it.”
But of course, a civil war is exactly what we’re not seeing, based on reports of the past few days. Captain Ed points out that even Moqtada al-Sadr, of all people, is encouraging calm and helping to keep the peace. And Omar at Iraq the Model notes that initial reports of the violence were dramatically overstated.
At times like these, it really sucks to be a weekly, doesn’t it? Faster, please…
Update: It’s murderous rage, I tell you, all of it!

Nicole is obviously jealous that Paris has been getting all the attention lately.

The Majority Leader race is done, and Republicans have chosen John Boehner as their new leader. Congratulations to Representative Boehner and his team.
While the first choice of many of us in the blogosphere, Representative Shadegg, did not win the election, his impact on the race cannot be denied. His candidacy reminded his fellow Representatives that real reform, and real change in the leadership, was not simply the right thing to do, but utterly necessary to ensure the success of the GOP in November.
It is my sincere hope that Representative Boehner takes this message to heart, and takes up the banner of real reform with enthusiasm and commitment. And his past statements give reason for optimism. In our blogger conference call, and in his interview with Hugh Hewitt, Rep. Boehner reiterated his strong commitment against earmarks, and expressed support for the idea of posting legislation online for 72 hours prior to any vote. Limited government fans will be pleased with his direct and positive answer when asked if he’d support rules requiring legislation to contain statements identifying the authority within the Constitution that grants the Congress to legislate in that area (“That’d be fine with me.”), and his even more direct answer to concerns about McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform (“We ought to blow the whole bill up.”).
It is a critical time for the House GOP, and Boehner’s leadership will be essential in bringing the party out from the cloud of corruption scandals. He has the opportunity to make this not simply a defensive measure, but a truly positive one that will lead to victory in November — and not incidentally, real reform in the way that our Congress does business. I’m hopeful he will seize the opportunity…

Tomorrow, the House GOP will meet to elect their next majority leader. And so, one last time, I’d urge anyone concerned with the need for reform in Congress, or with the success of the Republican party, to contact your Representative and urge them to support a candidate who will commit to real reforms. (The House switchboard is (202) 224-3121 ).
I have endorsed John Shadegg as the man I see as best suited to driving real change in the House. But this is a three way race, and one which requires that the winning candidate receive 50% of the votes. Should none of the candidates meet this bar, a second ballot will be held between the two front-runners.
It is my sincere hope that Shadegg is one of the two candidates in the run-off. But politics is the art of considering all the possibilities, and so I think it is important to not just endorse Shadegg, but also to state clearly that, should the runoff come down to John Boehner vs. Roy Blunt, my clear preference would be for Representative Boehner.
I believe Shadegg is the right choice for the GOP at this pivotal moment. But I also am impressed with Boehner’s anti-earmarks stance, and he definitely conveys his interest in genuine reform more convincingly than Rep. Blunt.
So I would encourage you not just to let your Representative know that Shadegg should be the first choice, but also make clear that if it can’t be Shadegg, it has to be Boehner.
Less than 48 hours left. Make those calls now…