TORA BOREALIS! Novak played the Tora card too. But the whole thing began with George Bush:
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2004
PART 4B STILL COMING: Its still coming. But other matters intrude.
THE WAY WE ARE: Incredible. We agree with Salons Farhad Manjoo on one point; we think John Kerry was a poor candidate. But in a dangerous world, a democratic nation that reasons this poorly is a nation in ultimate peril:
MANJOO (11/4/04): The flip-flop charge wasn't a mere political slogan, it was real. Who knows where Kerry stood on what? To me it's clear that's what did him in. Was he a hawk or a dove? If he was a hawk, why did he vote against the first Gulf War? If he was a dove, why did he vote for the second?Lets just say it again—incredible. According to Manjoo, if you vote for one war in some way, you have to vote for them all! A nation that descends to this level of reasoning is a nation that has almost ceased to function
For the record, we have often wondered if Kerrys 1991 vote against the Gulf War forced his vote for the 2002 resolution. But put those factual questions aside and revisit Manjoos basic reasoning. According to Manjoo, you can only be a hawk or a dove in our dawning, bizarre, bumper-sticker, brainless world. A pol must support all wars—or none. Our question: In a world where liberal elites can reason so poorly, are you really surprised that the Bush campaign could peddle that flip-flopper charge?
TORA BOREALIS: Some e-mailers complain that we were too hard on Bob Kerrey—that there was no way he could have anticipated Tim Russerts question about Tora Bora (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/3/04). Wrong again, Spin-Breath! For the record, our complaint is with the Kerry campaign for not preparing its surrogates and spokesmen—but Russerts fact-challenged question was completely predictable. Indeed, the claim that Kerry had flipped on Tora was a staple of the campaigns final week. For example, on the night before Kerrey got waylaid by Russert, Bob Novak made John Kerrys Bora behavior his Outrage of the Week on the Capital Gang. But alas! Novaks presentation was factually bogus, just as Russerts would be:
NOVAK (10/30/04): John Kerry keeps attacking George W. Bush for outsourcing to Afghan warlords the hunt for Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora. Never mind that the whole successful Afghan campaign was outsourced. Never mind that a frontal American assault at—would have been bloody. Just listen to Senator Kerry on Larry King Live two weeks after, after Tora Bora.For the record, Novaks facts were even more bogus than Russerts. He claimed that Kerry made his statement on Larry King Live two weeks after Tora Bora. Speaking of outrages of the week, Novaks statement is politically potent but blatantly false, as we explained in yesterdays report.
In fairness, Russert wasnt the only Sunday host peddling the bogus charge against Kerry. George Stephanopoulos peddled it too. When he did, Nancy Pelosi was—what else?—unprepared:
STEPHANOPOULOS (10/31/04): Congresswoman Pelosi, let me bring you in here, because one of the other points the Bush campaign has made is that this is another John Kerry flip-flop. They point to an appearance he made in December 2001, on Larry King Live, where he was asked by a viewer if US troops should go in more directly with napalm and flame- throwers, and here's what he had to say.Indeed, Kerry was responding to a question about flame-throwers; the issue of surrogates never came up. And bin Ladens escape was still days away when Kerry made his comment. But Pelosi hedged, hemmed-and-hawed and evaded, just as Bob Kerrey did on Meet the Press (text of Pelosis reply below). But then, its endlessly amazing—but quite routine—to see Dem spokes-folk completely unprepared.
At least Stephanopoulos sourced his charge to the Bush campaign, whose cant he was helpfully mouthing. Indeed, as John Kerry began his final-week attack on those missing al Qaqaa explosives, the Bush camp had countered with this pleasing but bogus story. Here was the candidate himself last Monday, on the trail in Greeley, Colorado. We reproduce the transcript of the Federal News Service, including the inserts on audience reaction:
BUSH (10/25/04): Now my opponent is throwing out the wild claim that he knows where bin Laden was in the fall of 2001 and that our military had a chance to get him in Tora Bora. This is—this is an unjustified and harsh criticism of our military commanders in the field.Quoting Kerry on Larry King Live, Bush was fooling the rubes once again—and the rubes were happily cheering him for it. (Again, Bush was citing Kerrys quote about the use of flame-throwers!) But so what? Six days later, Russert and Stephanopoulos peddled Bushs message, even though it was factually bogus. And Bob Kerrey and Pelosi were unprepared to respond. By the way, those cheering-but-misled Bush voters later told exit pollsters that they were voting on the basis of moral values.
One final irony—two days after Bush made that speech, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column in which he explained that Bush isnt a liar (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/27/04). Kristof proved his point with a meaningless story about a stuffed animal, a story from Bushs autobiography. Like President Ronald Reagan, reality to [Bush] is not about facts, but about higher meta-truths, the pensive pundit explained. To clarify those overarching realities, Mr. Bush harnesses facts, both true and false.
Two days earlier, Bush had harnessed one of those facts that are actually false, eliciting cheers from an audience in the red-state lands that Kristof so publicly adores. And on the Sunday before the election, Tim and George repeated Bushs false fact, with Russert flatly misstating chronology. Say hello to the worthless men who are paid millions to steward your discourse.
PARTIAL-TRUTH PUNDITRY: But then, the Kristofs are endlessly weak and compliant. Consider the pundits groaning column in yesterdays New York Times.
As he wrote, Kristof didnt know who had won the election. But he knew what the Dem Party needed to do. [T]he Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland, he wrote. John Kerry's supporters...should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factory workers and waitresses who ended up voting—utterly against their own interests—for Republican candidates.
Politically, of course, that point is obvious; in this past election, millions of people voted against their (economic) interests in casting their votes for Bush. And obviously, thats bad political news for Dems. But Kristof lavishes moral blame on Democrats for this situation:
KRISTOF (11/3/04): One-third of Americans are evangelical Christians, and many of them perceive Democrats as often contemptuous of their faith. And, frankly, they're often right. Some evangelicals take revenge by smiting Democratic candidates.Dems are often contemptuous of evangelical Christians, although no specific example is cited. Sensibly enough, evangelicals take revenge on Dems for this conduct. Earlier, Kristof quotes Thomas Frank on this general matter—offering one of the most selective quotes of this or any season:
KRISTOF (11/3/04): One problem is the yuppification of the Democratic Party. Thomas Frank, author of the best political book of the year, ''What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,'' says that Democratic leaders have been so eager to win over suburban professionals that they have lost touch with blue-collar America.Some of that may even be true, depending on how you well you can stomach Kristofs loaded language. But what a way to explain Franks book! Youd never know it from Kristofs column, but Franks book savages Republicans and conservatives for ginning up those content-free issues—fake issues invented to stir the rubes, even though the Republicans who invent them have no intention of acting on their professed values. But whenever Kristof types on these topics, we Democrats (his phrase) are at moral fault—and George Bush is pleasingly honest, a man whose interest in meta-truths leads him to use those false facts.
We agree with Kristof on one point—Dems shouldnt be contemptuous of religious faith or of associated political values. (Again—he gives no examples.) But we also think this—Big Pundits shouldnt roll over and die when faced with a political establishment which invents those content-free issues and uses them to stir up decent, sincere people who dont know how badly theyre being played. And Big Pundits should have the courage to confront the reasoning of religious voters, just as theyd do with anyone else. But Kristof is simply too weak to do this. Just watch as his bowdlerized reasoning unfolds:
KRISTOF: To put it another way, Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies...Thats probably true—most Americans probably do support some kind of civil unions. And most Americans probably do oppose partial birth abortions but don't want teenage girls to die from coat-hanger abortions. But wedge-issue politics isnt aimed at most Americans—its generally aimed at a narrower band of truer believers who can be enlisted to swing an election. We hear from Kristof about Dems who are contemptuous of religion, but not about the ugly gay-hating that was used to swing this past election. When Kristof writes, we Democrats are full of contempt. And George Bush? His love of meta-truths leads him to use those false facts.
Religious voters shouldnt be held up to contempt (Kristof gives no examples). But if people are going to vote their religion, their religion can no longer get a free ride. For ourselves, were sick of religious people who make a joke of their sacred texts by picking-and-choosing among the passages, scavenging for bits of scripture which support their personal biases. And were doubly sick of Democrat writers who are too weak and afraid to challenge these voters. Meanwhile, do most Americans oppose partial birth abortion? Probably, which makes it a great wedge issue—but how much do they know about the issue? In June 2003, for example, did they know the things Ruth Marcus cited in a Washington Post op-ed piece?
MARCUS (6/4/03): The poisonous national debate over what's known as partial-birth abortion resumes this week, and this time for real: The House is expected to handily approve a prohibition on the procedure, and the Senate has already passed its version. While his predecessor twice vetoed bills outlawing partial-birth abortion, President Bush is eager to sign legislation that he says will protect infants at the very hour of their birth.Nor should they have to. But in June 2003, did voters out in Yamhill, Oregon know that Bushs legislation would not prevent any abortions, before viability or after? That the law would only replace one procedure with another? That it's already legal for states to prohibit abortions once a fetus is viable, at about 24 weeks? That more than 40 states have such bans? And when religious voters stood in line this Tuesday, were they among the most Americans who don't want teenage girls to die from coat-hanger abortions? Or were they the people whom Marcus cited—people who don't seem to be doing anything to make it easier for women to obtain abortions earlier? Wed guess that the answers to these questions are obvious. But you wont hear them asked by Kristof.
Lets state the obvious—voters are entitled to their beliefs. And this too: An American voter can cast his vote on any basis he or she chooses. Nor should religious people be held up to contempt for their views, on abortion or anything else. But its hard for pols to tackle religion, and it should be easier for pundits to do so. Too bad were overrun with weakling pundits who are eager to accuse we Democrats of contemptuous conduct while telling us that Bush is honest because he only uses false facts in pursuit of meta-truths. Spare us from weak-kneed, Dem-bashing Dems—from weak-kneed, faux Dems like Nick Kristof.
Dems are contemptuous, we are told. Today, these Dems should be feeling wretched. But are Republicans fake? Should they feel wretched? And are religious voters often clueless? Those are the basic claims in Franks best political book of the year. But go ahead and find a hint of these notions in Kristofs new weak-kneed column.
PELOSI UNPREPARED: Even by Sunday, Pelosi was unprepared to respond to Bushs false fact:
KERRY (videotape): For the moment what we're doing, I think, is having its impact, and it's the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimize the proximity, if you will. I think we've been doing this pretty effectively, and we should continue to do it that way.Kerrys comment had nothing to do with the use of surrogates instead of US forces. And events at Tora Bora were still unfolding when he made this statement, in response to a question about use of napalm and flame-throwers. But Pelosi seemed unaware of these facts. Result? Every voter who watched the show could see that Pelosi hemmed and hawed—that she failed to defend her Dem hopeful.