WaxWorks
|
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Serial Adulterer
James Taranto, the editor of the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal, sort of a type of on-line blog which has taken a shot at me on at least one occasion, has demonstrated a remarkable amount of message discipline when it comes to Paul Krugman, the distinguished NYT op-ed columnist. Whenever Taranto is forced to address one of Krugman's well-reasoned columns, Taranto never resists referring to Krugman as a "former Enron adviser." Yes, Krugman did work as a consultant for Enron at one point, but, no, Krugman had no involvement whatsoever in the accounting shenanigans that brought down Kenny Boy and Bush's other friends. But Taranto's unrelenting use of the phrase is a good lesson in message discipline, and an interesting way of defining your opponent, even with half-truths, just because of the connotations of the message itself.
To that end, I'd like to revive one of my own, brought back to life by the various stories concerning the multiple extramarital affairs carried on by Rudy Giuliani flack Bernie Kerik. And that is to never fail to point out, when referencing Giuliani, that he, in fact, is a serial adulterer.
He carried on not one, but two affairs, while Mayor of the City of New York, and while living with his wife in Gracie Mansion before she kicked him out. So, in the spirit of Christmas, I will hold off until 2005 (mostly because he's getting enough heat from this Kerik thing -- America is now seeing the Rudy that New Yorkers knew before 9/11.)
But, in the meantime, rather than raising cash for a 2008 run, Rudy, you might want to look at those 2004 exit polls again, you serial adulterer you.
Worth Mulling Over
I'm not a conspiracy theorist of any type and I'm loath to go there, without the most compelling of reasons. I'm also not the type of person who likes to blame the refs for calls when my teams lose games.
Now, in 2000, there was no need for a conspiracy theory: the theft was right out in the open. Gore was the winner in Florida, particularly when you consider what happened with the butterfly ballot, etc. But that, at least, was clear, and instead was stymied by the Supreme Court in an outrageously partisan fashion.
But Ohio this year is a bit foggier. The numbers are what they are. (Or are they?) When rumblings started on the Internet and in various e-mails about questionable things that went on in Ohio, I read them, but didn't put much weight in them. I knew a lot of people who were on the ground in Ohio on election day, and they seemed to be agreeing that we just got beat, plain and simple.
But more and more just doesn't make sense to me about the results. On the one hand, it seems to be indisputable that there were (intentionally or not) many fewer voting machines in core Democratic areas and cities than in Republican areas. This discrepency caused long lines to vote (up to 8 HOURS!) in some Democratic areas, leading countless Democrats to go home without voting. That, my friends, is pretty sophisticated voter suppression, without having to resort to "challenges" at the polls.
But beyond that, which is no doubt significant, read this letter by the House Judiciary Democrats to Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell, asking 36 critical questions about the integrity of the election in Ohio this year. Even if you are a skeptic concerning such allegations, you should read it, and judge for yourself. Personally, it raises some pretty serious questions that deserve to be answered, whatever the answer may be.
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that we're going to get those answers. Blackwell has refused to respond, claiming that the GAO and U.S. Department of Justice have sole jurisidiction in such matters. Rep. Conyers has written back, demonstrating why that's just hooey.
The unwillingness (or inability) to respond to these 36 questions may be more telling than any of the evidence that has been uncovered. But, as I said in my prior post, even if they stole it, there's not a damn thing we can do.
