You could double Kristol's intelligence without Mr. Fish even noticing. You could extract a teaspoon or so...so small an amount that you could do it on an outpatient basis...and double Kristol's brain capacity.
The demand that Barack Obama denounce and renounce his pastor, who delivered himself of sentiments a million miles from anything Obama has ever said, is only the latest and most publicized example. In previous little dust-ups Obama has had to distance himself from Louis Farrakhan (after Hillary Clinton demanded that he both denounce and renounce) and from his own middle name....
The odd thing is that the press that produces these distractions and the populace that consumes them really believe they are discussing issues and participating in genuine political dialogue. But in fact they have abandoned genuine political dialogue and have committed themselves to a conversation that differs only in subject matter from conversations about Eliot Spitzer’s and David Paterson’s sex lives. It’s not politics; it’s titillation clothed in political garb.
Some years ago when a high ranking official of the Nation of Islam was being interviewed on TV, he was challenged to denounce another prominent member of the Nation who had called Jews “bagel-eating vermin who had escaped from the caves of Europe to pollute the world.” He replied, “I’m not in the denouncing business.” He did not elaborate further, but I understood him to be saying, It is not my job either to defend or repudiate every statement made by someone I know. Neither my integrity nor my life’s work depend on my clearing myself of suspicions provoked by the words of others.
At least I hope that’s what he was saying, because it is definitely what I want to say.
In politics, and in much of the rest of life, being held responsible for your own words comes with the territory. Once you’ve opened your big mouth, others have a perfect right to ask, “Do you really mean that?” or “What did you mean by that?” or “If you say that, would you also say…?” (a question that usually has you frantically disassociating yourself from Hitler). But why should you be held responsible for words spoken by someone else, even if that someone else is a person you work with or share a bed with? I frequently say things that make my wife cringe, but whatever blame attaches to my utterances certainly should not be extended to her, and it would be entirely inappropriate to ask her to denounce me or to fault her if she didn’t.
Yet this is the position we routinely place our public figures in. The demand that Barack Obama denounce and renounce his pastor, who delivered himself of sentiments a million miles from anything Obama has ever said, is only the latest and most publicized example. In previous little dust-ups Obama has had to distance himself from Louis Farrakhan (after Hillary Clinton demanded that he both denounce and renounce) and from his own middle name. Clinton, in her turn, has been called on the journalistic carpet because of remarks made by Robert Johnson, Geraldine Ferraro, a campaign manager and her husband. John McCain has had to repudiate a talk show host who introduced him and a minister who embraced him. And it’s only March. What do we have to look forward to? Denunciations of grade-school friends who grew up to become neo-Nazis or sub-prime lenders?
This denouncing and renouncing game is simply not serious. It is a media-staged theater, produced not in response to genuine concerns – no one thinks that Obama is unpatriotic or that Clinton is a racist or that McCain is a right-wing bigot – but in response to the needs of a news cycle. First you do the outrage (did you see what X said?), then you put the question to the candidate (do you hereby denounce and renounce?), then you have a debate on the answer (Did he go far enough? Has she shut her husband up?), and then you do endless polls that quickly become the basis of a new round.
Meanwhile, the things the candidates themselves are saying about really important matters – war, the economy, health care, the environment – are put on the back-burner until the side show is over, though the odds are that a new one will start up immediately.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
I think reminding people how
I think reminding people how this all began with the Farrakhan litmus test helps dispense with the nonsense that it's excusable for the media to give McCain a pass because of the difference between Obama's long term relationship with Rev. Wright which McCain supposedly does not have with Hagee or Parsley. Of course, Obama didn't have to have any relationship with Farrakhan to be questioned, put on front street, in terms of what he thinks about Farrakhan.
Note: Obama didn't accept the endorsement of Farrakhan or the New BPP. McCain, however, made a public affair in the public square when he accepted the endorsement of Hagee. I won't hold my breath waiting for Fox News to report on that double standard.
no one thinks that Obama is
You mean no one in the media stirring up these controversies?
It would take some convincing for me to believe the whole purpose of the "theater" is to create the former. The latter is a product of connecting a series of dots laid out by Clinton by campaign choice. The problem with this kind of journalism is trying to group dissimilar occurences into the same group because of some superficial similarities. Unlike Clinton, Obama has said nothing worthy of calling his patriotism into question nor has his campaign repeatedly found itself making "unpatriotic" statements.
With Obama, "unpatriotic" is the assumption people started with. With Clinton, "racism" was the conclusion drawn when she personally and collective via her campaign left few if any other choices.
The point on the typical media circus over bs is well-taken though.
Even before that.
Oh no, nquest. It started even before that. Way back last year, Tim Russert confronted Mr. Obama with something Harry Belafonte had said (something bad about George Bush or something good about Castro, I forget). And it was also Mr. Russert who ambushed Mr. Obama with the Farrakhan test. (Ms. Clinton stupidly played along. She, of all people, should know better, having been the victim of Mr. Russert's brand of gotcha journalism many times.)
Mr. Russert didn't bother to try to explain why he expected Mr. Obama to disown someone else's words. But then, that has been Mr. Russert's practice for many long years. Oddly, however, he only plays this game against Democrats.