Here it is Halloween and time for some October odds and ends. Let’s all breathe a long sigh of relief that the seemingly endless election campaign will be over on Tuesday. I suppose we’ll have to endure the post election evaluations, conclusions, predictions, explanations, and excuses from self-styled experts and Fox news blowhards, but, given time, even they’ll move on to other juicier and more immediately pressing issues.
We are already being treated to some wild 2012 predictions from David Broder in Sunday’s Washington Post. Broder spins off his predictions that the economy will not improve substantially, but since Obama is smarter than anyone else, he will recognize that WWII helped FDR get us out of the Depression and so... Let’s have Broder speak for himself. [Here]
...With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.”
Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy pointedly titled a reply “What was David Broder Smoking?” [Here]
Let’s leave Broder with his fantasies and move on.
Do you remember Shirley Sherrod, the splendid Department of Agriculture official, who was forced to resign when a doctored video of a speech that she had given before an NAACP meeting appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s website? That same Breitbart recently announced on his website, which was confirmed by the network, that he (and his editor) have been invited by ABC to provide expert commentary on election night. [Here]
As you can imagine, the progressive blogosphere erupted in outrage. We have also read that the regular ABC news division is not at all happy, either. [Here] ABC has done flipflops to explain away its decision to give him a voice over their airwaves, but try as they might, the bad taste and smell is still in the air. Breitbart will be in your face if you visit ABC on Tuesday night. Browsers beware. Channel surfing may be dangerous to your health on Tuesday night.
I have not yet seen CNN’s new Eliot Spitzer/Kathleen Parker spot, but if this Parker column in Wednesday’s Washington Post is any indication of the intellectual level that Ms. Parker brings to the show, poor, poor Eliot. Parker titled her most recent piece “For Clarence Thomas, an ordeal is renewed.” (I’m not making this up.) Parker was referring to two recent stories involving Thomas, viz. the phone call Ginni Thomas made to Anita Hill inviting Hill to apologize for nailing her husband in his confirmation hearings, and the recent statements from Lillian McEwen, an ex-Thomas girl friend who confirmed Hill’s allegations concerning Thomas’s sexual obsessions.
Parker’s column made me wince. If you are a feminist, it makes your hand curl into a fist. She obviously has no understanding of what sexual harrassment is all about or how demeaning and power-driven it is. Here‘s Parker’s opening: [Here]
In 1991, the world divided itself into two camps: those who believed Anita Hill and those who didn't. I fell somewhere in the middle: She may have told the truth, but so what?
SO WHAT??? Kathleen Parker just threw the entire Women’s Movement and its feminists (including me), right out the window.
Is she utterly clueless or bone stupid? She's probably a combination, don't you think?
Poor, poor Eliot...