November 2004 Archive

People often ask me why President Bush inspires such passionate support. My brother Kevin, a salesman who lives in Montgomery County, Md., can answer that; here is a recent e-mail message, trimmed for space, he sent to friends:

"Ladies and Gentlemen,

Now, just as four years ago, I breathe a huge sigh of relief and rejoice in the common sense of the American voting public. Congratulations to President Bush for winning re-election in a poker game played with a stacked deck. No candidate, including Richard Nixon, ever had to endure the biased and unfair tactics of our major media in their attempt to influence the outcome of an election. ... He never complained, just systematically set about delivering the same consistent message. You may remember that four years ago, I felt physically ill watching the Democrats try to legislate their way to the presidency. ...

Can you imagine Ann Coulter or Paul Krugman doing something like that? I can't.

[permanent link]

Again, I don't want to psychoanalyze. But by constantly calling himself a contrarian or -- as he often did when convenient -- a "libertarian," by going for the pun rather than the punch, for bending-over backward to appear "reasonable" and nonpartisan, Safire at times gave the impression that he wasn't comfortable calling himself a conservative. He endorsed Bill Clinton in 1992 (no doubt in part because he wanted a Pulitzer for his unending BCCI columns) on the grounds that George H. W. Bush was a liar. This was a bit like courting Helen Thomas because Cameron Diaz has bad skin some mornings. Safire was a godsend for conservatives when he was originally hired by the Times -- which happened, ironically enough, in part because Safire had written Vice President Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" speech. And he has done heroic service. But he is a hero of an old war.

In large part because of his occasional unpredictability and his lively writing, Safire has won admiration from readers across the political spectrum. "I think Bill has been one of the best columnists in the last 20 to 30 years," Haynes Johnson, former liberal columnist for the Washington Post. "He's a bright, challenging, stimulating columnist."

He is also respected by many readers for his entertaining and erudite weekly column about language, which runs in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, and which Safire will continue to pen.

Yet for all of his talents, over the years Safire has clearly abused the column -- by presenting highly questionable propositions as if they were accepted facts, making baseless accusations against public figures (often with the insinuation of criminality), and wielding the column with alarming transparency as a blunt instrument to settle personal scores and prop up his allies, both here and abroad.

Here at Lying in Ponds, I've documented William Safire's relative lack of partisanship (although he ramped it up this year). He writes with independence and style, but an outstanding columnist should also be factual, and humble enough to admit to errors.

Mr. Boehlert catalogs Mr. Safire's many accusations of both Democrats (Bert Lance, the Clintons) and Republicans (George H.W. Bush) over the years. Although many of these accusations have not survived further scrutiny, Mr. Safire has rarely issued a correction or apologized.

[permanent link]

ANARCHISTS ON HILLSBOROUGH STREET: I've been following the strange local story of a group of apparent anarchists who attacked the state Republican headquarters in Raleigh a few days after the election. Now the local IndyMedia affiliate is referring to those arrested as the Raleigh Three.

[permanent link]

Courtesy of Romensko, here is more reaction from Howard Kurtz, The New York Daily News and The Boston Globe.

[permanent link]

Mr. Safire, 74, will continue to write his Sunday column, "On Language," which has appeared in The New York Times Magazine since 1979 and has led to the publication of 15 books on the English language.

No successor to Mr. Safire as an Op-Ed columnist has been chosen yet.

"After more than three decades of opinionated reporting on the world's first and foremost political battle page, it's time to hang up my hatchet," Mr. Safire said in the statement. "The Times said at the start of this run that it wanted 'another point of view,' which was what it surely got, and its editors did not wince nor cry aloud. In my more scholarly persona, I couldn't resist continuing as Sunday language maven, so although Mr. Hyde will close up shop, Dr. Jekyll will carry on."

Top bloggers announce new association to create resource for journalists and others covering blogging on the media

Media Bloggers Association launched at BloggerCon III

Palo Alto, CaliforniaNovember 3, 2004 -- Twenty-eight of the top media bloggers have joined together to found the Media Bloggers Association (MBA), a non-partisan organization for bloggers who cover various aspects of news and political media. The MBA web site at http://www.mediabloggers.org launched today at the BloggerCon III event at Stanford University Law School.
. . .

The entire press release is here. Lying in Ponds is proud to be one of the founding members.

Many thanks to Robert Cox of The National Debate for the work he's done to get this off the ground. We're looking for new members:

The MBA is now actively seeking new members. The only requirements for membership are actively blogging on the topic of news and political media and displaying the MBA logo-hyperlink on the home page of member blogs. In order to be considered for membership, applicicants must submit a brief essay and pay a small application fee. The MBA believes in the independence and freedom of expression of its members and is not concerned with issues of editorial integrity, journalistic fairness or objectivity of members nor in resolving disputes between members. The MBA creates an opportunity for members to leverage a network of media bloggers, to more widely disseminate information and original reporting done by member blogs and bring members a wider audience.

Kerry did say that "what we are doing" was the "best way to protect our troops" and minimize their proximity to hostile forces. But he was speaking generally about tactics used to clear tunnels and caves; it's not clear that he was endorsing the decision to conduct the Tora Bora operation using Afghan troops working with US special forces.

However, several politicians and commentators have suggested that Kerry's statement explicitly endorsed the tactics used at Tora Bora.
. . .
Brooks wrote Saturday that Kerry "supported the strategy of using Afghans to hunt him down," citing the quote in question as evidence. And Krauthammer made a similar claim on Oct. 29.

What happened at Tora Bora is still not totally clear. But what Kerry said on "Larry King" can easily be checked by any journalist who cares to investigate.

WHAT ASTONISHING TIRADE?: Glenn Reynolds linked to what he called an "astonishing anti-Bush tirade" by E.J. Dionne on NPR's All Things Considered. Well, I listened to the audio clip of the post-election discussion with Robert Siegel and David Brooks. Maybe it's because I've had to read hundreds of Paul Krugman columns, but it didn't seem like much of a tirade to me, although Mr. Brooks did compare Mr. Dionne to Rush Limbaugh.

[permanent link]

George W. Bush won North Carolina easily, but our precinct, which is fairly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, gave John Kerry a narrow win.

[permanent link]

FREE YOUR MIND: Romenesko pointed to a CNN transcript which had Howard Kurtz talking with David Brooks, among others:

KURTZ: Quick question, David Brooks. There's a poll coming out tomorrow that will show that the overwhelming number of Fox viewers, Fox News viewers are Bush supporters, and an overwhelming majority of CNN viewers are Kerry supporters. Do we now have red and blue media in this country?

BROOKS: I think we do. I think that's why people see the reality they want to see, because it's very easy to pick the media outlet that supports your point of view, that tells you how comfortable you can be, and believing what you believe, because you're right, you're right, you're right, you're right.

I'm always disappointed when I see weblogs which link only to one side of the blogosphere. If you only get information about conservatives from Atrios, or if you only get information about liberals from Power Line, then you're not very well-informed. If you're genuinely interested in the truth, you'll need to read from left to right, including some great non-partisan sources like Spinsanity, Rhetorica, PressThink, and FactCheck.

O'REILLY SETTLEMENT: Howard Kurtz has a summary of the end of the sexual harassment lawsuit against Bill O'Reilly.

[permanent link]