EdDriscoll.com

Posted 10/10/2003 01:41:08 PM by Edward Driscoll
IDIOTARIAN OF THE YEAR FRONT RUNNER: Geez, did Pat Robertson really say, "If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer"?? Congrats Pat. That line has just advanced you to pole position in the idiotarian of the year race. Admittedly, the State Department has serious problems. And yes, complaining about Pat falls into the comments that James Bowman made yesterday. But what a fine Christian Robertson is, for wanting to see hundreds of innocent staffers killed. Unbelievable. UPDATE (10/13/03): Glenn Reynolds has some thoughts.

Posted 10/10/2003 12:44:34 PM by Edward Driscoll
AXIS OF EVIL, ATLANTIC DIVISION: If I was Castro, I would not be happy seeing headlines that read, "Bush Seeks Ideas for Cuban Regime Change". UPDATE: Kathryn Jean Lopez spots the bias in the above story's lead.

Posted 10/10/2003 12:37:47 PM by Edward Driscoll
TELLING GAFFE made by Howard Dean in the debate last night.

Posted 10/10/2003 12:33:50 PM by Edward Driscoll
RUSH GOING INTO REHAB: Rush Limbaugh has issued a press release on his addiction to prescription pain medication. He's going into a 30 day rehab program. The left has been extremely tolerant of drug abusers (how many people in Hollywood, athletics and the music industry have gone to Betty Ford or Hazelden, and still enjoy enormously successful careers?), and of course, still reveres JFK, even though he's since been reported to have spent a lifetime addicted to pain killers. The double standard that Limbaugh is about to face when he's damned for his failings should be pretty blatant. UPDATE: Fellow radio man Hugh Hewitt also has some thoughts. ANOTHER UPDATE: As does John Hawkins.

Posted 10/10/2003 11:20:50 AM by Edward Driscoll
SCHWARZENEGGER'S POLICY COMPASS: Larry Kudlow says that when it comes to economics, it's clear, and conservative. There's too much from this article to quote from, so if you're at all interested in Schwarzenegger's economic policies, read the whole thing. Arnold's got his work cut out for him, not the least of which is dealing with fiercely partisan bureaucracy in Sacramento. But having a moral compass pointing in the right direction (pun intended) isn't a bad place to start.

Posted 10/10/2003 12:52:59 AM by Edward Driscoll
TEMPER TANTRUM: Vote for Schwarzenegger? Voted for any of the Republicans when they regained the House and Senate in '94, during the landmark "Contract With America" election? Either way, you had a temper tantrum, according to ABC News. Now that's chutzpah: a television network that literally tells the majority of its viewers that they're being childish, instead of trying to provide them with a service and earn their respect. No wonder people are increasingly tuning out the big three networks and CNN. UPDATE: Here's more, from Brent Bozell.

Posted 10/9/2003 07:32:34 PM by Edward Driscoll
"THE INVASION OF THE DUH PEOPLE" was a very funny Florence King essay from a couple of years ago (that fortunately is still online). James Bowman picks up its theme, and elaborates on how the media and politicians cater to them, in his post today.

Posted 10/9/2003 07:08:56 PM by Edward Driscoll
LIFE'S TOUGH: "Schwarzenegger' Hard on Headline Writers". The article quotes Dave Tepps, deputy managing editor of the San Jose Mercury News, as saying that the paper is opposed to just calling Schwarzenegger "Arnold", because the first-name reference is not appropriate for a serious story, in Tepps' opinion. I'm pretty sure that it was the Merc that I'd pass by on the newstands during the recall election, that often referred to Arnold as "The Actor" in their headlines, as in "ACTOR SAYS DAVIS CAR TAX TOO HIGH", or whatever. I can only assume they were trying to tie him in with another fellow from Hollywood who won two terms as California's governor--and then another two terms of elected office somewhere else. Like I said, I'm pretty sure that was the Merc, but it may have been the San Francisco Chronicle. In either case though, I'm sure they thought of it as a pejorative title for Schwarzenegger, though.

Posted 10/9/2003 10:51:23 AM by Edward Driscoll
SPIN CITY: Last month, Democrats told everyone who could listen that the recall movement in California was another sign of a vast right wing conspiracy gone overboard. Beginning on Tuesday night, the party line is that it's sending a statement--to George Bush! Byron York and Hugh Hewitt each have takes on the DNC spinning out of control. UPDATE: There's no bias in the media of course (just ask 'em!), but the networks have picked up on this spin as well. ANOTHER UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan notes that the rinse cycle of the spin machine began on the weekend before Tuesday's election.

Posted 10/9/2003 01:38:33 AM by Edward Driscoll
QUOTE OF THE DAY:

On TV, CNN reports from Austria that a young Arnold predicted he would be a world champion body-builder and a movie star. That he would marry a beautiful woman and achieve great wealth. Finally, claims CNN, Arnold said he would be the most powerful man in the world. For now, how about worker's comp reform?

--Arnold Steinberg, on Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Posted 10/8/2003 10:49:39 PM by Edward Driscoll
UPDATES: There's a bunch of them scattered throughout the last two day's worth of posts. We do update breaking stories during the day, so stop back often--and if you can't, be sure to look for "UPDATE:"--it's our symbol of fine bloggidity goodness in every bite. Err, byte! Umm, bite. Or something like that.

Posted 10/8/2003 10:26:44 PM by Edward Driscoll
GUESS HE'S LISTENING TO FRIEDMAN, NOT BUFFETT: Arnold vows not to raise taxes.

Posted 10/8/2003 07:42:03 PM by Edward Driscoll
ARNOLD WAS A FLUKE, NOT THE START OF A TREND: There's bi-partisan support for that opinion from both John Hawkins and Gregg Easterbrook. UPDATE: On the other hand...

Posted 10/8/2003 06:42:11 PM by Edward Driscoll
JOHN LEO ON THE PRESS: About the double play by the media against Schwarzenegger and Limbaugh last week, Leo writes that high-profile figures are increasingly under media attack:

We seem to be in the midst of a campaign to take down high-profile conservatives. The gay lobby did a job on Dr. Laura, in effect getting her new TV show canceled and portraying her as a hater for holding the traditional Judeo-Christian view of homosexuality. She is brusque and blunt, but no hater. There is plenty of testimony on the record about her kindness to gays and the help she gave to PFLAG, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. But the gay lobby took her down anyway. William Bennett went down too, for his over-the-top slot-machine gambling. He did it himself, of course, but the only moral rule always observed in Las Vegas casinos is Thou Shalt Never Reveal How Much the Heavy Roller Hath Lost. That rule was somehow suspended in Bennett's case. The total amount of his losses, $8 million, was somehow fed to the media. Curious, no? John Fund, the very talented conservative journalist, got the treatment as well. He was smeared as a wife-beater. Eric Alterman, the liberal commentator, helped clear the air with a piece in the Nation headlined, 'Who Framed John Fund?' Alterman's question for the left was this: Who do we want to be, people who try to destroy opponents or people who act on principle? It's a good question for the right, too, and for everyone now poised to jump into the Limbaugh case.

Perhaps, having gotten a taste of the politics of personal destruction in Washington, the press need fresh kills, and are expanding their hunting grounds to include any figure whose opinions they disagree with. UPDATE: Steven Den Beste also has some thoughts on the press, in a typically detailed and fascinating essay.

Posted 10/8/2003 05:10:45 PM by Edward Driscoll
WHAT'S NEXT FOR GRAY DAVIS? Scott Ott checks in with the soon-to-be-ex-governor. UPDATE: On a more serious note, I could see this one happening.

Posted 10/8/2003 02:23:07 PM by Edward Driscoll
POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE: David Horowitz writes that the California recall election "is already shaping the political future not only in California but nationwide":

The big losers in this election were California liberals, feminists, the politics of personal destruction, the myth that the press is not in bed with the Democrats and the image of Republicans as mean-spirited morality police. The Republican Party has suddenly become the big tent it has aspired to be but never quite achieved until now. According to exit polls 55 percent of independents and 18 percent of Democrats voted for Schwarzenegger � despite the fact that the Democratic Party threw all its big guns into the state including all its presidential candidates, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson. Thirty-nine percent of union households voted for the Republican and thirty percent of Hispanics � despite the fact the Democrat Bustamante would have been the first Hispanic governor in history if he had won. Moreover, the turnout of Republicans themselves was also obviously large with the overwhelming majority of conservatives and an even larger majority of moderate Republicans coming out to vote for him. In short, the new governor inspires passion in the Republican base and yet hope among those who are often put off by that base. In California, Arnold has created a new Republican coalition that has raised the Republican Party from the dead and produced an electoral landslide in the process. In a state which Republicans lost by a million votes in the last presidential election (without the Democrats having to spend a penny in the state) the combined Republican vote may have exceeded 60 percent -- an electoral landslide. This is what is meant by a political earthquake.

Fair enough!

Posted 10/8/2003 01:56:00 PM by Edward Driscoll
15 MINUTES INTO THE FUTURE: David Letterman's Top Ten list last night was taped before the polls closed, so he simply took an amusing review of "Top Ten Possible California Newspaper Headlines for Tomorrow".

Posted 10/8/2003 01:48:14 PM by Edward Driscoll
THE POLITICALLY CORRECT GOOGLE: It accepts porn ads but refuses those for guns, according to CNSNews.

Posted 10/8/2003 01:45:32 PM by Edward Driscoll
FLASHBACK: For a quick history of the recall Davis movement, Robert B. Bluey has a look at how it got started--and how it snowballed.

Posted 10/8/2003 01:18:07 PM by Edward Driscoll
BEAT THE PRESS: Tim Graham looks at how the media covered Schwarzenegger, and quips, "The sum-up headline for the California recall could be 'Schwarzenegger Wins, Media Lose'. As Jonah Goldberg writes, "For a Republican of any flavor � including, in this case, California Alpine � to be elected in such a liberal state with that kind of baggage is a serious feat." UPDATE: It's about the media and Iraq, but Ralph Peters' comments also apply to California:

One of the whopping lies of our time is that journalists are simply innocent bystanders with no responsibility for the outcome of events...The truth is that today's media shape reality - often for the worse. The media form a powerful strategic factor. They're actors, not merely observers. The media are not detached from all responsibility for the events they cover. A journalist will tell you - sometimes sincerely - that he or she only reports the facts. That's never quite the truth. And it's often an outright lie. Even the best journalists must choose among the facts to form their reports. Ethical reporters do strive for accuracy. But phony efforts to provide "balanced coverage" - to report the mass-murderer's side of the story with evenhanded sympathy - skew reality. Struggling to be fair to the viciously unfair is a sign of moral weakness, not objectivity. Still worse, the competition for headlines drives journalists to report only those tiny slivers of ground-truth that qualify as "news." Setbacks make the cut. Successes don't.

As I wrote on Monday, "Last week's carpet bombing of Rush and Schwarzenegger is proof that media bias is alive and well, if incredibly ham-handed and increasingly easier to spot." UPDATE: Oops, I didnt' realize that Glenn had also applied Peters' article towards the election. ANOTHER UPDATE: Lowell Ponte writes that the L.A. Times, "this once-great newspaper did worse than tilt its reporting to the Left. This newspaper betrayed its most fundamental role: to be an honest watchdog that warns the people of government wrongdoing. Instead, the Los Angeles Times reportedly became an attack dog working in conjunction with corrupt Democratic Party bosses who dominate both houses of the state legislature and control every statewide office in California."

Posted 10/8/2003 01:13:54 PM by Edward Driscoll
THE TREND IS HIS FRIEND: Late last night, I was talking to a friend about Schwarzenegger's chances of getting reelected in 2006. My take? The trend is his friend. California's economy was already showing some signs of life even before Arnold got elected. And it should benefit from the strengthening economy throughout the country. If it does, Arnold can take the credit for it. If it doesn't well... I realize that California's economy is much more than Silicon Valley. But the end of the Internet boom makes a good starting point to track California's recession. Considering that dotcoms started going bust around 1999 or 2000, and the NASDAQ cratered in April of 2000, back when Clinton was still in power, and their anti-trust rulings against Microsoft were certified by a judge, that will be six years of recession for the Golden State. That doesn't seem possible--but if that's the case, whoever's in charge should get the blame at that point. Along similar lines, Jay Bryant writes:

If he goes against the lessons he supposedly has learned from Friedman and raises taxes, Schwarzenegger may balance next year's budget on paper, but he will doom the state to an ongoing downward spiral in which each year's budget will be harder and harder to balance, as businesses, people, and tax revenues suffer. A Friedmanesque fiscal policy is the best way to restore budgetary sanity in Sacramento. Combined with an improving economy (likely nationally in 2004, and in which California will share to the extent its business climate improves, something the Governor can impact directly), such reforms could indeed mean that Californians could, within the next year, feel they were distinctly better off. These actions, however, will also trigger an unending spate of "ketchup as a vegetable" stories about the heartlessness of the new regime. Either Schwarzenegger has the courage to put up with such criticism or he doesn't. A popular and successful Schwarzenegger can be a huge boost to the California GOP, raising unprecedented money for its local candidates; he could even possibly put it into the Bush column in 2004, although this is far less certain. At least the Democratic candidate will have to spend some money there, unlike Gore in 2000. Conservatives need to forget about social issue criticisms of the new Governor and keep the pressure on for him to follow his Friedman instincts on fiscal policy.

Exactly. Of course, having Warren Buffett on his team will be worrisome.

Posted 10/8/2003 12:31:55 PM by Edward Driscoll
GUANTANAMO BAY: Could it become the next theater in the war on terror? James S. Robbins has some thoughts.

Posted 10/8/2003 01:31:12 AM by Edward Driscoll
ON THE OTHER HAND: Despite Arnold's landslide, don't count out the California Democrats just yet, Stephen Green writes. UPDATE: John Hawkins rounds up what the far left is saying about Schwarzenegger's win. And it's not pretty. ANOTHER UPDATE: Neither is this LA Times editorial, which dubs Arnold--in the headline!--"Der Gropenfuhrer". Classy, guys. Really classy.

Posted 10/8/2003 01:23:08 AM by Edward Driscoll
DEMOCRATIC CONTRADICTIONS: Rich Lowry opines. Steven Den Beste fleshes things out. Ed Driscoll probably shouldn't be posting this late at night.

Posted 10/8/2003 01:15:54 AM by Edward Driscoll
FLASHBACK: Man, did Lileks nail Schwarzenegger's campaign and appeal, or what? Of course, he got to observe the prototype up close, having lived in Minnesota when Arnold's "John the Baptist" (as Lileks described him) was governor. UPDATE: Mark Steyn did a pretty good job as well.

Posted 10/8/2003 01:09:10 AM by Edward Driscoll
RULES OF THUMB: John Hawkins is some spot-on when it comes to the inner workings of American politics.

Posted 10/7/2003 11:16:38 PM by Edward Driscoll
GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER! Andrew Sullivan has some links, but Glenn really sums it up:

Congrats, Arnold. Now all you have to do is govern the most ungovernable state in America!

(Understatement alert): He's got his work cut out for him, but I don't think Arnold is a Ventura-like poseur. I've read profiles of Schwarzenegger from the 1980s that discussed his running for governor of California. So there's no doubt that he's thought long and hard about becoming governer of CA. Now we'll see what he does with the job. And the state.

Posted 10/7/2003 11:02:40 PM by Edward Driscoll
SHADES OF THE BLUE STATE/RED STATE MAP: Check out this map to see which counties voted to recall Gray Davis. Liberalism is increasingly consigned to urban areas, as the 2000 USA Today map proved. Incidentally, and not surprisingly, county for county in California, the exact same counties that voted for Gore in 2000 voted to keep Davis in power today. UPDATE: InstaPundit also has some thoughts on this map, and its implications.

Posted 10/7/2003 02:12:49 PM by Edward Driscoll
PAST ITS SHELF LIFE: During my numerous trips to the dentist this past month, I paged through the waiting room copy of the 70th anniversary issue of Esquire and thought I was reading something so lame, so one-sided in its left-wing slant, and so tired in its choices of subject matter, that it was sad to see a once great--and fun--magazine become sclerotic with age. The Wall Street Journal agrees:

In the '60s, the monthly, known for its earlier star writers like Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Salinger, became a laboratory for what was then called "the new journalism." The rat-a-tat-tat burst of vibrant stories by Tom Wolfe, Gay Talese, Michael Herr, Philip Roth, Terry Southern, Norman Mailer (before he went batty) and Gore Vidal, in addition to Diane Arbus's photography and Mr. Lois's provocative covers, made Esquire the "must-read" of that era. These days, however, there's nothing biting in Esquire's editorial content--not a single story that would be considered, to use the parlance of years past, "hip" or "edgy." One feature in the current issue shows just how "nerdy" it has become: "The Esquire 70: As in, The Seventy Things That Make Us Very Happy to Be Alive Today." Included on this list are iTunes, Altoids Tangerine Sours, Canada, creamed spinach, the actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, JetBlue, outdoor showers, Jennifer Coolidge, the New York Times, "the revenge (if there's even a shred of justice in the world) of Howell Raines," Sarah Silverman, "the nooner," Maura Tierney, deflation and Kleenex Cottonelle.

Tiny mummies--not just for the New Yorker any more!

Posted 10/7/2003 01:53:54 PM by Edward Driscoll
MODERNITY WITHOUT MODERNISM: Interesting essay by Robert Locke that I tripped over while doing a Google search for God-knows-what. I'm not sure if I agree with all of the points the author makes, but there's some interesting stuff going on here.

Posted 10/7/2003 01:43:28 PM by Edward Driscoll
SEEING GREENPEACE: Could the IRS soon be investigating them? Deroy Murdock has some thoughts.

Posted 10/7/2003 12:39:09 PM by Edward Driscoll
MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL: Two thoughts: was that a great game last night, or what?? And Snoop Doggy Dog should never be allowed to "sing" the Monday Night Football theme song. I'm not qualified to judge his rapping, but his singing voice was weak, thin and awful--I'd have been embarrassed to have cut those tracks. This year's theme of having young pop stars duet with Hank Williams Jr. is a big, big mistake--they've been uniformly pathetic so far.

Posted 10/7/2003 12:27:47 PM by Edward Driscoll
JUST BACK FROM VOTING, which took place in a local kindergarten/pre-school sort of center. The Romper Room atmosphere of the class of five year olds that was visible in the hall as we were waiting to vote certainly seemed appropriate to the events at hand.

Posted 10/6/2003 07:01:00 PM by Edward Driscoll
EASTERBROOK HAS A NIFTY HYPOTHESIS, THOUGH: "Did Arnold Schwarzenegger plant the woman-groping rumors against himself?", Easterbrook asks, and then answers his own question:

That Schwarzenegger admitted the incidents so quickly after the Los Angeles Times report was released, with such confident delivery and such rehearsed language, makes me think his own camp had a hand in events. The whole groping business may end up helping him at the polls. How very current.

Indeed. UPDATE: In a related story, LA Weekly reports, "Senior Democratic strategists knew the particulars of last Thursday�s L.A. Times expos� on Arnold Schwarzenegger well in advance of the story�s publication". Gee, what a shocker.

Posted 10/6/2003 06:53:41 PM by Edward Driscoll
RACIAL DISCUSSION FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE: About Rush Limbaugh, Greg Easterbrook writes:

Limbaugh was wrong about the football. Was he wrong to be discussing race? Limbaugh's background is political commentary, and in politics, race should be discussed frankly regardless of where it leads you. If some person or group is being unfairly harmed because of race, or some person or group unfairly benefiting because of race, this should be said: and the more forthright the language the better, since in the political sphere we need to talk about race in open, candid terms. Plus, political opinions receive what judges call "absolute" protection under the First Amendment. If, say, Limbaugh wanted to call Al Sharpton an idiot or a fraud or anything else related to Sharpton's politics, no one would argue with Limbaugh's right to such opinions. Note: Sharpton would make a lousy quarterback. But sports is primarily a form of entertainment, so the equation there is different. The first goal of the NFL, and of ESPN, is to entertain. The league and the networks want people to have fun when they watch football or think about football. If fans aren't having fun--if Rush says things that make the audience squirm--this backfires on the league and on ESPN. Racial commentary may be necessary and even healthy in some aspects of life, but it is no one's idea of fun, and so antithetical to the first purpose of the NFL and of ESPN. Thus the sorts of comments that might be absolutely protected when the subject is politics might be verboten when the subject is entertainment.

If Limbaugh was wrong to be discussing race on ESPN, why is it OK for Easterbrook to continually harp on his beef with the Washington Redskins' name in his column...on ESPN's Website?? As I said last week, Amon's law rules the land. UPDATE: On the other hand, this isn't exactly the best defense of Limbaugh's comments!