Tag: Chris Suellentrop

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.“

So Help Me God.

As the Bushies warm up the teleprompter, the Washington Post attempts to explain why most inaugural addresses are boring, Chris Suellentrop surveys some of the lousier efforts over the years (with help from this Library of Congress exhibit), and David Greenberg looks back at the last great one (Kennedy, 1961). Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion that Dubya’s evocation tomorrow of “The Ownership Society” isn’t going to make the A-list.

Stuck in the Middle With You.

“If establishment Democrats still fear Howard Dean, they ought to elect him chairman of the Democratic National Committee…” Following in the footsteps of such insightful political blogs as Value Judgment, Slate‘s Chris Suellentrop warns Dean to stay away from the DNC. “Ed Rendell was so frustrated with his job as DNC chairman during Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign that he complained to the New Republic, ‘I basically take orders from 27-year-old guys in Nashville who have virtually no real-life experience. All they’ve done is been political consultants living in an artificial world, and basically their opinion counts more than mine.’” Heh.

The Doctor is Out.


After a long, slow, and dismal post-Iowa slide (which, as Chris Suellentrop waggishly put it, wound up “with the leisurely pace of the interminable conclusion of The Return of the King“), Dr. Dean calls it quits, leaving basically a two-man field for the nomination. (Early scuttlebutt had Dean possibly endorsing Edwards, but, although Edwards sent the right signals, Dean instead asked his supporters, strangely enough, to vote his name despite his leaving the race.)

Well, I guess it’ll probably take some time to put Dean’s swift rise and swifter fall in perspective (Is this Goldwater, McCarthy, Muskie, or something altogether new?) To be honest, I was always a bit surprised by the furor surrounding Dean, given that he was neither as lefty nor as populist as many of his followers seemed to think. I know many found him inspiring, but, even after tentatively getting behind him, I never really saw it or felt it…in fact, quite the contrary. So, while it’s always a bit disconcerting to see something that started so well end so badly, I’m can’t say I’m overly aggrieved by this turn of events. As I said before, if the nominee is Kerry, so be it.

Of course, there’s still the matter of John Edwards, whose surprise showing in Wisconsin definitely keeps him viable for at least one more round. Kerry’s overwhelming lead aside, I’ve been quite enthused by the rise of Edwards since Iowa, who seems like the type of fresh and viable new face the Democratic Party’s been needing for some time. Whether or not he has a chance of coming back to win it all this year, I’m inclined to vote for him, if only to show he’s got some legs outside the South. At any rate, he’ll be speaking on campus early this morning so, if all goes well, I may get a chance to see how he comes off in person.

Howard’s End?

So…New Hampshire has spoken, and John Kerry wins by 12 over fellow New Englander Howard Dean, Clark and Edwards tie for a distant third, and Lieberman falls to fifth. The game now shifts to the South and Midwest, including South Carolina.

Well, while it’s a bit off-putting to put this race in the fridge after only two states have spoken, I say it’s now definitely looking to be John Kerry’s year. That is, barring a strong showing by John Edwards on more favorable terrain, who has to win South Carolina convincingly next week to stay alive. As everyone’s known for months, Lieberman is clearly done, despite his ridiculous talk of a three-way tie for third in NH. (So much for the vote-swinging ability of the New Republic.) Wesley Clark may be able to pick up Oklahoma, but momentum counts for a lot, and he was fading fast all last week. So, barring something crazy happening, I’d say the general is also on his way out.

And Dean? Well, obviously he’s still got a large war chest and the frenzy of the Deaniacs to fall back on…but where does he go from here? The pre-NH polls have him dropping to fourth or fifth in every one of the polled February 3rd states, except New Mexico (and even that’s based on pre-Iowa numbers.) It’d be one thing if he had pulled closer to Kerry in New Hampshire, or even to within ten points, but a twelve-point loss is pretty decisive in terms of being a momentum-killer. (Consider in 2000 that Bradley got to within four points (52%-48%) of Gore in NH, something that was also spun by the pundit class as a “still-kicking” comeback after Iowa, and he got hammered in all 15 states the Tuesday next.) As Chris Suellentrop notes, Dean’s only hope may be to go “underground” for awhile, but it’s hard to see how a hail-mary play like that will have generated much mojo once the big states actually vote. It’s remarkable how Dean and Kerry switched places so quickly, but they did…and just as Kerry would be toast had he not won New Hampshire, the same now looks true for the governor of Vermont.

Jefferson, he thinks they’re lost.

Chris Suellentrop ponders R.E.M. at the crossroads. From the concert the other night, it’s plainly evident that many people do see R.E.M. as a nostalgia act these days [A good two-thirds of the Garden crowd got up twice – for Losing My Religion and ITEOTWAWKI (AIFF).] Still, I thought Up — their album before last — was brilliant stuff (with a lousy single, “Daysleeper.”) I’d much rather hear Stipe, Buck, Mills continue to play with their sound than to churn out instant-classic-REM stuff like “Imitation of Life” and “Bad Day.” More Bowie, less Eagles.