mickey's assignment desk



Hit Parade Archive
September, 2001

Click here to read current items

Psst: It sure looks as if the San Fernando Valley will succeed in seceding from Los Angeles. The Valley has 1.4 million people, and is generally whiter and more conservative than the rest of L.A.. What remains of L.A. will be even more liberal and Democratic than it is now. ... This is roughly the equivalent of the borough of Queens seceding from New York City. ... (9/30)

"I don't begrudge non-Muslims their suspicions right now." A Muslim-American voice of sanity. ... (9/29)

Excellent David Plotz article on the (public) evidence against Iraq, and why there's not quite enough of it, yet. ... (9/29)

The Israel-Doesn't-Make-A-Difference brigade used the word "appease" once too often, and something snapped! The result is here, on Slate's "Breakfast Table." ... From now on, kausfiles will retaliate at a time and place and in a manner of its own choosing! ... (9/29)

Maxima Feasible Misunderstanding? Nissan has announced that it will move production of its flagship Maxima sedan to Smyrna, Tennessee. The company had already begun expanding an engine and transaxle plant nearby. Two points: a) Isn't Nissan putting a lot of eggs in a basket that's about to be organized by the UAW? The highly significant Smyrna certification vote is scheduled for next Wednesday. Moving the Maxima seems to be an attempt by Nissan to somehow win over Smyrna workers. But what if Nissan loses the vote anyway? Won't the UAW then have it over more of a barrel? b) Whatever happens with the UAW, don't expect Maxima quality to improve. It's an open secret that, despite the large strides made in American factories over the past two decades, the most reliable cars on the planet are not those made by Japanese manufacturers such as Nissan and Toyota. The most reliable cars are those made in Japan by these Japanese manufacturers.. Buy a copy of Consumer Reports and you'll see what I mean. Nissan's Altima, built in Smyrna, has a fine record -- about 35 percent better reliability than average. But the Maxima, assembled in Nissan's "antiquated, expensive plants in Japan," (as the LAT calls them) has exceptional quality, about 60 percent better than average. The same goes for several other fabulously well-built cars -- the Honda CR-V, the Toyota RAV4, the Mazda Miata, and various Lexuses and Infintis -- that are actually assembled in Japan, as opposed to the Japanese carmakers' U.S. "transplant" factories. ... (9/28)

It's all going according to plan: Kausfiles's sole advertiser, Contentville, has shifted into nonexistent mode. [It worked for me!--D. Manning] ... They were pleasant to deal with and actually paid their bills. Maybe that's where they went wrong! ... Attention, P.R. Men and Women: Fridays are the traditional days to put out bad or embarrassing news -- because it then gets buried in the little-read Saturday papers. And if ever there was a Friday to put out bad news, this is it. ...

Bid farewell to the political career of New York City Comptroller Alan Hevesi (12% in Tuesday's mayoral primary) who -- with the help of the New York Times -- attempted to smear Mayor Giuliani's welfare-to-work program by making charges of favoritism for which a unanimous appeals court later found "no evidence." ... (9/28)

Never trust content from Robert Scheer! You know the 9/11 angle that implicitly criticizes the U.S. government because earlier this year it "gave the Taliban a forty-three-million-dollar grant for banning poppy cultivation," as a New Yorker lead editorial put it? It turns out to have been too good to check. Dan Kennedy has what seems to be the real story (which is that the money was Afghan relief aid specifically not given to the Taliban). ... The main culprit in fathering the falsehood seems to have been the LAT's Robert Scheer, who apparently misread a NYT story when writing a column back in May. (Scheer didn't respond when asked to comment, Kennedy reports.) Scheer tried to discreetly clean up his mess in a post-9/11 column, but too late to stop the mostly-bogus angle from being prominently recycled, in the New Yorker and elsewhere. ... (9/27)

John McCain's eulogy for Mark Bingham, gay McCainite rugby player, PR man, and Flight 93 hero, really is quite moving, if ever-so-slightly egocentric. Try to get through it without crying. (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing it out.) ... (9/26)

Kausfiles Under Attack ... Sunday's item on Israel has come in for criticism from Slate's Jodi Kantor and Emily Yoffe here. A response to them has now been posted here. ... (9/26)

In his very useful 9/19 interview with Terry Gross of "Fresh Air," a somewhat breathless Thomas Friedman says:

[T]he failure here, Terry, was not one of intelligence. It was of imagination. Who could have imagined this? You could have laid out all the data in front of the most, you know, sophisticated CIA analyst, and he would simply -- it would have been almost inhuman for him to stand back and say "I see it. ..."
Huh? I know this is hindsight, but even an unsophisticated CIA analyst might have been able to "see it," given that one Abdul Hakim Murad, a pilot now serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison for Bin-Laden-linked terrorist acitivities, confessed that he had planned to crash a plane into, yes, the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Phillipine authorities say they also told the FBI about other potential targets, including the Pentagon, according to CNN. ... See also this WaPo story and the discussion in OpinionJournal. ... Also: Newsweek's extensive report, which discusses a 1994 hijacking in which an Algerian Islamic terror group attempted to crash an Airbus into the Eiffel Tower. ... (9/24)

MSNBC's Brock Meeks rails against the proposed Mobilization Against Terrorism Act, which he considers a "reactionary" infringement of individual liberties. You can check out the list of wiretapping and eavesdropping provisions yourself. I must admit that none of them gives me the creeps -- not even the controversial Echelon listening network -- at least in the nation's current situation. ... Well, OK, I don't see why state attorneys general, the biggest showboaters in American politics, need to be given the power to employ the FBI's "Carnivore" email-tapping program without a court order. They'll probably use it to ferret out tobacco users and sue them! ... There may be some sort of surveillance pork-barreling at work here -- as if spreading the snooping power around to all 50 states will gain the bill more support. ... (9/22)

Giuliani doesn't rule out staying on as N.Y. mayor, even as the city prepares to vote Tuesday in the terrorism-delayed primary to pick his successor. Meanwhile, City Council speaker Peter Vallone, reportedly Giuliani's preferred Democrat, positions himself as the continuity candidate by stressing the need to avoid "dramatic changes." ... (9/19)

Mezine Melee! Josh Marshall bashes Andrew Sullivan's "wild-eyed" attacks "on anyone who is even slightly off-message about this tragedy." (9/19)

Pointillism: You know kausfiles is disoriented when it turns to Daniel Patrick Moynihan for wisdom. In this case, Moynihan actually provides some, pointing out a) that in the fight against terrorism "you often have more friends than you think. The terrorists terrify them!" and b) that America's "vibrant Islamic community" can and should help by speaking out on behalf of their country so they "will be heard in those parts of the world they come from." ... Jonah Goldberg also makes a good point: that America has so far avoided wallowing in grief, Oklahoma City style, and should keep avoiding it. ... And Reuel M. Gerecht, writing on jewishworldreview.com, makes several persuasive points: a) When it comes to breaking the spirit of a violent jihad, demonstrating the "indefatigability of the triumphant power" is a key. (Scary role model: Saddam's grinding down of revolutionary Iran, World-War-I style.) b) Making Bin Laden dead would probably help rather than hurt. When Khomeini died in 1989, "the truly violent spiritual furnace of Iran's Islamic revolution went out." (Of course, Khomeini wasn't killed. Still, Gerecht argues, charisma and awe are important, and "martyrs in the Middle East are a dime a dozen.") c) "Better intelligence" "isn't going to save us now." A good intelligence service "takes years to build," and some people -- e.g. Bin Laden -- are very difficult to track. ... I'm less persuaded by Gerecht's argument that Israel's concessions in various peace talks (and American pressure on Israel to make those concessions) helped produce Bin Laden's campaign by demonstrating a "loss of nerve" and awe-inspiring power. But this is as clear a statement of that position as I've found. (And the position is, oddly, not incompatible with the idea that actually achieving an Israeli-PLO peace would eventually take the steam out of the jihad by reducing the martyr supply. Both propositions could be true.) ... (9/19)

Mistakes were made: An early version of kf's 9/17 Jonathan Turley item (below) incorrectly attributed his identification as a "terrorism expert" to Roll Call. In fact, as the corrected item now states, the culprit was a competing publication, The Hill. The mistaken kf item was up for several hours. My complete apologies to Roll Call, which had nothing to do with the Turley business. ... (9/18)

Even if you assume that Fiamma Nirenstein selected the best (i.e. worst) examples of hateful official and semi-official anti-Israel Arab rhetoric, her Commentary article, "How Suicide Bombers Are Made," is revelatory and suddenly relevant. A person might conceivably grow up to fly a 767 into a skyscraper if in his school system "textbooks at every grade level praise the young man who elects to become a shahid, a martyr for the cause of Palestine and Islam." ... Nirenstein's piece actually offers some small grounds for optimism, since it suggests that resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict might lead to a reduction in the number of people willing to blow themselves up. Yes, Osama bin Laden objects more generally to the penetration of the Arab world by Western culture -- but what is bin Laden without his martyrs? If an Israeli-Arab agreement deal ends the official pro-martyr propaganda, the supply of suicidal murderers should fall even if militant Arab rejectionists continue a terror campaign aimed at sabotaging the agreement. ... In the post-9/11 world, Nirenstein's article may actually encourage the conclusion that the U.S. should press Israel to do much more to make peace with the PLO -- probably not what the editors of Commentary had in mind. ... (9/18)

The 9/11 Attack presents a marketing challenge for journalists and commentators (like those on the staff of kausfiles) who have no special expertise in national security or the Middle East. But it's no problem for "terrorism expert Jonathan Turley." Josh Marshall pins the moth. ... Update: InstaPundit's Glenn Reynolds not implausibly suggests that Turley's billing as a "terrorism expert" might be the fault of his hosts at The Hilll. ... On The Hill's site, Turley's bio -- presumably supplied by Turley -- positions him cleverly as an "expert on constitutional law and national security." In the online discussion that follows, though, Turley gets hammered for self-promotion, and says "I have never claimed to be an expert on terrorism." (9/17)

Is that an ironic flag? Not! (9/17)

Items from the parallel universe (the one that would have existed ...):

"Mr. Welch is not a journalist, a news analyst, or a part of the NBC news division. His actions have little, if any, entitlement to the First Amendment protections belonging to the news media." -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has been trying to obtain a tape that allegedly shows Jack Welch, then president of NBC's owner, General Electric, pressuring the network's analyst to call the 2000 election for Bush.
Waxman (Juliet Eilperin's "reluctant warrior") seems to have come unhinged here. Welch's election-night interference was, from all appearances, arrogant, offensive and wrong -- and it's a worthy subject of investigation. But the First Amendment is exactly the thing that protects NBC's right to run its newsroom as badly as it wants to. If not, who hands out the licenses to be "journalists" and "news analysts"? Henry Waxman? Norman Ornstein? A Commission of Kalbs? ... I dream of an America where even the CEO of General Electric has as many First Amendment rights as the editor of kausfiles! (I am a journalist aren't I? Aren't I?) ... (9/16)

Today's Feedback from Our Readers!

Subject: You Are A Fucking Asshole

I am usually more articulate than the subject above implies, but your liberal, leftist attitude is totally out of place at this time in our history. I especially agree with one of the respondents that you should go to Afghanistan. Then you will be incinerated with the rest of the anti-American terrorists!

[Name Withheld by kf]

The Fast and the Furious: Thursday night, on PBS's Washington Week, Rick Berke of the NYT went on and on about President Bush's shaky public performance in the 9/11 crisis. Friday night, he couldn't say enough nice things about Bush. What happened in between? Well, Bush did much better on Friday, giving two moving speeches. But I'd also bet that Berke and Washington Week got a load of negative feedback for criticizing the President in a time of crisis. Why do I suspect this? Because even kausfiles' constructive criticism has provoked an abnormal volume of less-than-fully-supportive email. (Sample headings: "Treason!!"..."Your backstabbing article" ... "I want to feed your liberal ass to Bin Laden.")

Meanwhile, another phenomenon is at work, which is the application of the "Faster" principle of speeded up information-processing to the 9/11 story. In the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe, there were many obvious, true things that seemed highly inappropriate to discuss while the search for bodies continued. One of these taboo subjects was, it seemed to me, the implication of the World Trade Center attack for the missile defense debate. I strenuously argued against a friends' publishing an article on this subject, on the grounds that it was too early for this mass murder to become grist in a hoary old partisan argument. I was wrong.

By the time my friend published his piece (yesterday) it not only didn't seem inappropriate, it was almost too late. The battalion of op-edders -- swarming over the rubble of the 9/11 story looking for fresh angles -- had already processed many of the missile defense implications. Other potentially taboo subjects are also being discussed far earlier than you'd expect. Next up: Acknowledging the World Trade Center's glaring architectural flaws, as part of the debate -- already started! -- over what should be built to replace it.

Put these two phenomena together and, I think, you've got trouble. Elite pundit opinion races on from one angle to the next -- The nation unites! But Bush is doing badly! No, he's not! It will cause a recession! No, it won't! It's bad for missile defense! But good for the energy bill! -- while the mass of citizens, who mainly just want to rescue the living, mourn the dead, and defeat the enemy, are revolted by the spectacle.

Specifically, a complication of the "Faster" principle may be in order -- one that posits a difference in speed between elite (pundit-centric) opinion and mass opinion. Even mass opinion moves faster now than it once did (one reason administration planners are worried that support for military action may fade before any action can be undertaken). But elite opinion moves much faster, both a) because there are many more opinion journalists in the national dialogue and b) because they communicate much more quickly, reacting to each other and moving on to the next idea. The more powerful the general "Faster" trend, the bigger the differential between the elite and the mass -- and, in the same manner that tectonic plates sliding at different speeds produce earthquakes -- the greater the potential for mass revulsion and anti-journalistic revolt. Ask Rick Berke! (9/14)

Timothy Noah punctures another instant 9/11 cliche: that the terrorist attack will tip the U.S. economy into recession. Pundits said the same thing about California after the 1994 Northridge earthquake -- but all the reconstruction activity helped produce a boom. ... (9/12)

Media coverage of the 9/11 attack often emphasizes that it will be a "long time before America gets back to normal," etc. The opposite is likely to be closer to the truth -- we'll get back to normal all too quickly, in keeping with the tendency (often discussed in this space) for the population to process information much faster than in former, less wired times. (Don't you feel as if you've lived about a month in the past two days?) I suspect the story will be off the evening news by Thanksgiving -- a denial, in a warped way, of the attackers' disruptive goal. ... (9/12)

Would racial and ethnic profiling have saved many hundreds of lives if it had been employed by security personnel at Boston, Newark and Dulles airports? It's a legitimate question, and the answer is probably yes. I'm not for race profiling, but this at least severely tests the anti-race principle, no? ... See also this somewhat muddled but daring anti-identity-politics OpinionJournal piece by Tarek E. Masoud. ("How many thousands of lives would have been saved if people like me had been inconvenienced with having our bags searched and being made to answer questions?")... (9/12)

Emerging Dem Position Fails to Emerge: It looks as if Minority Leader Gephardt somehow ignored the emerging Democratic position recently discerned by WaPo's Sebastian Mallaby. In Mallaby's seemingly imminent "new project," Democrats were to stop making a fuss about the Social Security "lockbox" in the short term, clearing the way for more anti-recession spending. Twenty-four hours after Mallaby sketched out this "clever" Dem strategy, Gephardt seems to be doing more or less the opposite, according to Roll Call: He's not only basing his strategy on making a fuss about the lockbox -- he's citing the lockbox that as grounds for cutting, not increasing, short-term spending! ... (9/11)

WaPo's Sebastian Mallaby tries to get the Democrats to make sense on Social Security -- employing the time-honored technique of discerning an emerging party position (the Democrats "show signs of doing something clever," we're told) which just happens to be the position Mallaby wants them to take. According to Mallaby, the Democrats' "new project" would let Bush dip into the Social Security "lockbox" during the present bad economic times, but require that the government run a big budget surplus in the longer term ("over the next decade"). ... Problems:

1) Evidence that this is indeed the emerging Democratic position is thin, consisting of one responsible press conference by Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (who two weeks ago was demagoguing the "lockbox" raid along with everyone else) and a statement by Senator Kent Conrad (D.-N.D.) in which Conradadvocated an immediate big tax cut coupled with budget restraint in the long term. But advocates of tax cuts today always try to look responsible by calling for restraint tomorrow. That's not an emerging new anything.

2) There's also not that much evidence (yet) that Bush's budget will in fact eat up the Social Security surplus in the long term. It might, once you take into account all the new spending that's needed on defense, prescription drugs, Medicare, etc. WaPo's Charles Babington, like Slate's Jacob Weisberg, shows that Bush's assumptions are faulty, but not that reasonable, non-faulty assumptions wipe out the surplus.
If the problem is long-term, and the evidence is cloudy, isn't it sensible to wait and see what that new spending looks like? Repealing Bush's tax cuts now, while seemingy prudent, would in reality take the pressure off Congress to avoid non-essential spending today. ...

And instead of making the iffy case that some Bush tax cuts should be repealed in the name of protecting the surplus (as Mallaby seems to want the Democrats to do) why don't Democrats begin to make the case they eventually must make anyway -- that the tax cut money would be better spent on new programs to get everyone health insurance, etc. ... Maybe Mallaby's looking for a winning Dem position when there isn't one ... in the short term ... (9/10)

A Gallup poll shows only 20 percent support for allowing illegal aliens who've "worked and paid taxes" to become citizens. (There's only 6 percent support for a general amnesty for illegals.) I don't think even the numbers in favor of welfare reform in the mid-90s were that lopsided. ... Gallup nevertheless concludes that "it is not clear that the political costs involved in supporting [Mexican President Vicente Fox's] proposal are high." Gallup argues that "the roughly 40% of Americans who favor a decrease in immigration ... are nevertheless not highly interested in seeing Congress take action on immigration this year, suggesting it is a low salience issue for them." Huh? Sure, voters who oppose more immigration might not be interested in seeing Congress "take action on immigration," since the action that's being talked about these days is amnesty. These anti-immigrant voters are not so anti-immigrant that they are mad as hell about the status quo. That doesn't mean they won't get mad if Congress does grant some form of amnesty or allow increased immigration. ... (9/10)

Flight attendant Anne Marie Smith tells the Modesto Bee that [in the Bee's words] "about a month before Levy disappeared, the congressman tried to get her to participate in a sexual scenario."

She said he had mentioned it often, and she initially thought it was a joke. When she became convinced he was serious about the encounter, she got worried. 'I thought to myself, 'Oh, my God, I could have been hurt,'" she said.
Don't disbelieve Smith just because she's fallen into the clutches of Judicial Watch -- or because her own lawyer, James Robinson, comes across as a small-time publicity hound! ... [What 'scenario'?--ed. I have enough trouble with AOL ...] (9/7)

Harry Shearer's audio enactment of Larry King interviewing Gary Condit's mailman is very realistic and very funny. ... (9/6)

Clinton's is Bigger! David Broder thinks Bush's problem is his "overweight policy agenda," which Broder claims is "larger and more controversial than Clinton's." This would seem to contradict the previously-expressed position of Dick Morris and kausfiles, which holds that Bush's problem is that "he has, basically, nothing left to do." Who's right? Let's go to the policy agenda!

Specifically, here is what Broder claims constitutes Bush's "overambitious" list:

1. Education reform
2. Military reform
3. Faith-based services
4. Trade negotiating authority
5. An energy bill
6. An HMO reform bill
7. Social Security reform.
Of these, #3 is controversial but, in the larger scheme of things, trivial. If Bush loses it, so what? Privatization of Social Security (#7) is a big deal but isn't going to come close to happening, so it's only on the current "agenda" in a symbolic sense. #6, HMO reform, isn't on Bush's agenda at all -- it's on the Democrats' agenda. Bush is playing defense and might be perfectly happy to see all the HMO reform bills die. And #5, energy, is hardly a pick-breaker. Bush can happily compromise on "drilling rights in wilderness areas," or even lose them entirely. Who cares, outside the oil patch?

That leaves education reform (already in the endgame stage of bluff and veto threat) and trade. That's it on the domestic side.

In contrast, Clinton wanted to "reinvent government," rebuild the middle class, reverse two decades of rising income inequality, reform welfare, start a program of national service, and establish a massive system of worker retraining. Oh, yes -- also create a new national health care system covering all Americans, an FDR-scale reform on which he staked his, and his wife's, prestige. It's no contest.

Why do Washington columnists have to act as if something momentous is happening when it isn't? The whole point of having a veteran like David Broder is to provide some long-term perspective and calm judgment. Has "The Dean" been cadging some of Andrew Sullivan's testosterone? ... Broder-bashing bonus late hit: Two columns ago, Broder accused the press of covering up the truth that Jesse Helms is an "unabashed white racist politician." But Broder didn't offer much evidence to back up his charge. Helms opposed the MLK holiday, Broder tells us, attacked "homosexuals, the labor union bosses, and the crooks" (were they black crooks?) and said he feared the black vote (duh!). Basically, Broder rests his case on the famous Helms anti-preference ad showing a pair of white hands crumpling a rejection letter for a job that "went to a minority because of a racial quota." But why is this ad "racist?" Demagogic, inflammatory, divisive, sure. But racist? Is Broder denying that some people lose jobs because of racial preferences? (If they have no effect, then why have them?) Is he saying it's racist to believe preferences are unfair? ... I'm perfectly happy to believe Helms is an odious bigot. But if he's a racist, then Broder is lazy. ... Late-breaking research: This letter to the WSJ has at least some of the evidence Broder should have had. ... (9/6)

Sharks eat Florida ballots: The big media consortium's recount of the Florida presidential vote is scheduled for release Monday, September 17, according to kausfiles's sources. The word is it's an inconclusive, garbled mess, with various totals not adding up, etc. (9/5)

"CONGRESS GIRDS FOR BATTLE OF PRIORITIES" -- LAT hed. Are you as excited as I am? (9/4)

Seth Schiesel's NYT attack on the Congressional attempt to let the Baby Bells have a monopoly over the provision of DSL broadband was timely and informative, essential reading for all concerned citizens. But is there any sense in which this piece is distinguishable from opinion journalism -- except that a) it disingenuously trades on the added credibility that comes from being in the news pages of the NYT, and b) doesn't have to be as rigorous as a good opinion piece in defending its position and batting down counterarguments. (The unrebutted presumably bogus counterargument, in this case, is that Baby Bells would otherwise face "costs and regulatory hurdles" their competitors--cable providers--do not.) In a New Republic or National Review opinion piece--as opposed to a campaign speech-- you might not get away with simply asserting:

"The issue is really that simple: should the nation's broadband future be determined by a clean fight between two big combatants or by a messy battle among many potential competitors?"
A frank opinion piece might also have to consider possibilities that aren't even on the table -- such as requiring both cable and phone broadband systems to open themselves to competing providers. ... The subjectivity of opinion journalism without the standards of opinion journalism -- that's been the trend at the NYT for some time. It's not the worst of both worlds (Schiesel's piece is much more useful and readable than a standard, straight, objective account would be). But wouldn't it be better -- and more honest -- to go all the way? ... (9/4)

Massive Labor Day Upgrade: Hit Parade's subcontractor in Macao has finished keying in the archive for August, adding to the rich media experience available on kausfiles. To view all items from last month, click here. [July? June?--ed. Links to the archives for those months are further down this column, at the chronologically correct spots and at the end.] (9/2)

Democrats got only one (1) more Congressional seat out of the post-Census redistricting of California? Considering a) that the state was awarded an extra seat on the basis of population growth, giving the Dems 53 districts to play with; and b) the rising Latino presence, etc., isn't this, on balance, good news for Denny Hastert? Did the Dems make their incumbents' seats safer at the expense of expanding the number of less-safe districts they might win? The NYT's James Sterngold doesn't ask ... (9/1)

August 2001 archive

July 2001 archive

June 2001 archive

McCain-Feingold archive

Archives for September, 2001
Pre- and Post-9/11.
Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

No "Appease" Please! Why the Munich analogy is inapposite.

Would an Israel-PLO Deal Really Help Bin Laden? Kausfiles under attack.

Stating the Obvious Israel is partly the issue.

Bush Is No Giuliani; He Shouldn't Even Try Let the Cabinet carry the confidence-building load.

Sorry! The Budget Debate Really Isn't Exciting! OMB v. CBO = BFD.

Drudge Report
80% true. Close enough!
Main home page.
Formerly mediagossip.com.
Not always awful.
New Republic
Gore, now and forever!
What's left.
N.Y. Observer
That orange thing.
Page Six
Too good to check?
Goldberg File
Indulgent, but viciously funny.
John Leo
One anti-PC bullet a week.
Virginia Postrel
Friend of the future!
It's still there!
Fab bigthink on man's destiny.
Shake that ketchup bottle!
Daily horror stories.
John Podhoretz
He's one smart Pod.
Washington Monthly
Includes "Tilting at Windmills"
Jim Pinkerton
Quality ideas from quantity ideas.
Andrew Sullivan
He asks; he tells!
Dick Morris
Best thumbsucking toesucker.
Weekly Standard
See them snipe at Bush.
The Occasional
Bright young 'wingers.
Josh Marshall
Chandra Central.
Center on Budget & P.P.
Money Liberal Central
Rich Galen
Sophisticated GOP insider.
Ann Coulter
Leggy legal antiliberalism.
Steve Chapman
Ornery but lovable libertarian.
He still ain't got no transcripts.
Walter Shapiro
Politics and ... neoliberal humor!
Gone left, but good.
Lloyd Grove
Don't let him write about you.
Jeannette Walls
Her free newsletter's fun too.
John Tierney
NYT's non-lib metro columnist.
Harry Shearer
America's funniest man?
N.Y. Press
Good dirty Bushie tab.
NYT-Bashing Central.
Stirs the drink.
Bull Moose
National Greatness Central.

Copyright 2001 Mickey Kaus.