Fundies will forgive Romney

Here. What did I tell you?

Dumb reasons

I wanted Jim Webb to prevail, but this was a dumb reason for Allen to concede (and not just because the math is ridiculous):

There's no question what the will of the American people is with respect to
the Senate: a big majority of the popular vote went to the Dems.

The "will of the American people"? They don't vote for Senators. The voters of individual states vote for Senators. If the nationwide popular vote is your yardstick, you should be demanding that Dems get a lot more than 51 seats.

The voters of Virginia get to decide who represents them in the Senate, not Andrew Sullivan and not the voters of the rest of the country. This from a self-professed federalist?

This kind of argument was pernicious in 2000 -- when Republicans repeated ad nauseam that Bush had won 'a majority of voters in a majority of states', and that if you set up-in-the-air Florida aside Bush had clearly won, so Gore should step aside -- and it's pernicious now. You don't let national CW decide individual local races. Otherwise why have individual local races? Insane.

Sullivan's come around to smart positions lately, but somehow he's about the only blogger who riles me up enough to make a separate post. Probably because he doesn't allow comments.

So learn, you clown

Trent Lott:

'It's hard for Americans, all of us, including me, to understand what's wrong with these people,' he said. 'Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion? Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me.'

Trent Lott has been a U.S. Senator for how many years? He's got a certain access to information -- books (I hear the Library of Congress has a few), government-produced studies and reports, interns to do research, etc. This war in Iraq has been going on for a while now, and the leader of his party says it's the Most Important Thing Ever. You'd think, then, that Trent Lott might feel some inclination -- dare I say some duty, as a public servant? -- to, you know, learn about that country and the political and religious forces at work in it, the better to do his job of crafting and voting on legislation related to it.

But no, Trent Lott's idea of serving the public is to tell Americans he's ignorant but that it's OK, because in so being he's just like them.

UPDATE: The Carpetbagger echoes my point.

Conrad Burns

This guy sure likes the ethnic humor.

Whether he intends insult or not, there's just something deeply creepy about a guy for whom ethnic quips slide off the tongue as easily as they do for Conrad Burns. It doesn't mean he's necessarily mean or hateful, it just suggests that the first thing he sees about a person he meets is their ethnicity. And that he's deeply familiar and comfortable with stereotypes about, apparently, every ethnic or national group there is. That's creepy. I've known people like that, as have most people I suspect. I don't necessarily think they're racists or what have you. Just a little simple-minded and petty-mean, too enamored of the cheap shot.

Conservatives like to toss around the "political correctness has run amok" line, but when liberals (for whom I nominate myself spokesperson for purposes of this paragraph) highlight comments like Burns', it's not because we think he's violated some iron rule that should instantly disqualify him from anything. It's just because it reveals something about the guy, something about his character that might make you not want to have him, you know, representing you in the United States Senate.

It's OK if you're Chris Hitchens

Andrew Sullivan, earlier today, responding to a John Derbyshire piece on Bush's incuriousness:

This is the Tory version of the left's obsession with Bush's "stupidity."

Andrew Sullivan, later today, endorsing the use of the 's' word by his friend Christopher Hitchens:

Out of a thesaurus of possible nominations, one would have to select George Bush's remarks about Vladimir Putin as the stupidest utterance of his entire presidency.

Calling Bush stupid: Brilliant if you're Hitchens. A mark of "obsession" if you're on "the left".

Sigh.

Andrew Sullivan can't help himself

He's allowed himself to be grudgingly persuaded that the President he once worshipped has made a hash of the Iraq war, but he'll still grasp eagerly at any evidence which discredits prewar antiwar arguments -- even when said evidence doesn't, you know, actually do that:

"[N]ew documents", he writes, "seem to me to blow a big hole through the arguments of those who believe that "secular" Saddam would never cooperate with Osama bin Laden's Jihadists[.]"

What those documents say:

Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation.

Surely we're past the point where speculations on what Saddam Hussein, if left in power long enough, might someday, conceivably, hypothetically done in concert with Al Qaeda matter at all. The fact (according to our current state of knowledge) is that all tentative probing efforts toward such collaborative actions had fizzled out long before the U.S. decided to depose Hussein -- something like 1999, I believe. That there were feelers sent out in 1995 is not news.

Too bad

Wow, again with the wishing bodily harm on opposing politicians' children.

Larry Johnson at TPM Cafe says it's "Too bad" Bush's daughters aren't serving "on the frontlines"; "Perhaps if one ... had died in Iraq or lost their legs" he'd see his own folly and we'd all be better off.

I realize we're all supposed to love Larry Johnson now, because he's a Republican ex-CIA agent who's now holding Bush's feet to the fire, but this sort of thing is why he's always creeped me out a little.

History News Network

This so-called review of David Horowitz's The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America is a shining example of why History News Network is an embarassment to the profession.

Look, I haven't read the book, and you can color me agnostic on the larger question which I gather it raises: namely, whether higher education in the U.S. is dominated by some America-hating, left-wing clique more interested in political indoctrination of students than in honest instruction and scholarly inquiry. I suspect I'd paint the picture quite differently, but I haven't done anything like a careful study. Got more important things to do.

But come on, have you ever seen a more substance-less review of a book? There's no judgment whatsoever. We're simply given a capsule version of Horowitz's argument, liberally sprinkled with long quotations.

At the very end, this is the closest we get to evaluation of the book's worth:

It seems increasingly unlikely, however, that the critiques leveled by Dr. Horowitz will simply go away. The book is endorsed by Rep. Jerry Lewis (chairman of the House Appropriations Committee), Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom (Professors at Harvard University), Laura Ingraham (host of the Laura Ingraham Show), and a slew of state senators and representatives. With such politically and intellectually powerful backers, and a public increasingly aware of issues relating to academic freedom (a number of court cases and legislative acts have recently captured media attention), it appears possible that academia may soon be forced to take David Horowitz as seriously as he would like.

Yes, but does he deserve to be taken seriously, on the merits of his case? That's the question that needs answering. On this, though, the HNN reviewer punts. Moreover, in a review of a book which apparently purports to expose the real, hidden motives of dozens of academics, and attacks their credentials, the writer appears utterly uninterested in Horowitz's own motives or credentials.

Oh, and by the way, on the latter score, unless all of the on-line bios of Horowitz I found chose to omit it, he hasn't earned the title of "Dr." Sounds to me like he wouldn't want it.

UPDATE: HNN confirms my suspicion, and says it will remove the "Dr." references.