A modest proposal...

...that we all stop frothing at the mouth over the cover of the latest The New Yorker. I'm with Jack Shafer on this one:

Calling on the press to protect the common man from the potential corruptions of satire is a strange, paternalistic assignment for any journalist to give his peers, but that appears to be what The New Yorker's detractors desire. I don't know whether to be crushed by that realization or elated by the notion that one of the most elite journals in the land has faith that Joe Sixpack can figure out a damned picture for himself.

Yes, I understand why some people are taking offense, and as an Obama supporter I certainly understand the danger the cartoon poses. Satire can be easily misinterpreted or taken at face value. My grandmother, I'm sorry to say, was one of the most bigoted people I've ever known (rest her soul), yet she loved "All in the Family." And I'm sure she wasn't the only one. That doesn't mean that Norman Lear or Carol O'Connor should have been pilloried for lampooning racism.

What I find depressing about this episode is that it reinforces the stereotype that liberals are humorless, politically correct scolds. Some have even gone as far as to call The New Yorker "gutless" for failing, on its cover, to criticize John McCain for benefitting from the ugly rumors being floated about Obama.

Come on. Few mainstream media outlets have been as aggressive in covering the Bush administration as The New Yorker. They don't have to prove their chops to anyone. Besides, the Internet echo chamber aside, if Obama needs to rely on a magazine whose readers probably already support him, then he's got problems.

Not in his lifetime

I'm sad that Jesse Helms is dead. Had he hung on for a few more months, he might have witnessed the election of the first black president -- and he would have gone to his grave realizing that much of his life's work had been for naught.

It's worth noting that a White House spokesman called Helms "a great public servant and true patriot" and Bob Dole called him a "good, decent human being." I understand that it's bad form to speak ill of the dead, but perhaps a more appropriate, yet tasteful statement, would have gone like this:

"We extend our sympathies to the family of Jesse Helms. We understand that Jesse did what he believed was right, but it is tragic that he wasted so much time, talent and energy toward dividing Americans, and to denying African-Americans the liberties guaranteed them under the U.S. Constitution. His death should not make us forget that much of what he stood for was wrong. "

One nation, under God

The New York Times reports that conservative 527 groups are having trouble raising money to defame Barack Obama. The Times cites as an example a group dedicated to unmasking Obama as a Muslim:

The second spot highlights a Roman Catholic elementary school roster from Indonesia showing that Mr. Obama registered as a Muslim. The campaign said that the notation was probably made because Mr. Obama’s stepfather was nominally a Muslim but that the candidate had never been a Muslim. He is a committed Christian. (link)

I'd like to think I'm a pragmatist, so I understand that given the political climate in the U.S. since 2001, Obama has to quash the rumor that he is a Muslim. But wouldn't it be nice if instead he could engage his opponents in a debate over whether we really want to live in a nation in which a candidate for office, or any person, has to prove what his or her religion is, or isn't. Isn't a religious test contrary to just about everything we are supposed to stand for as Americans?

Some people would answer that question differently than I would. But I think the debate would do us all good.

Mister we could use a man like Jimmy Carter again

Smarter people than I have already weighed in on how ill-advised it would be to suspend the federal gasoline tax, as John McCain has proposed. Let me add my own voice nonetheless: This is a really, really, stupid idea. Our so-called leaders should be telling us to consume less fuel, not giving us license to use more. (Not to mention the loss of funds for road and bridge repair.)

And I'm not letting the Democratic candidates off the hook. They can spar all they want over oil company profits, or who did or didn't vote for the Bush administration energy proposal, but I don't hear either one of them giving the hard truth to the American people: The age of cheap energy is gone, probably for good, and neither technology nor alternative fuels will save us unless we make fundamental changes in the way we live.

What's the matter with conventional wisdom

Paul Krugman challenges, as he has before, the entire bitter/What's the Matter with Kansas thesis:

It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.

So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story. (link)

Context? We don't need no stinkin' context

Bram posts Obama's "bitter" remarks in their entirety. He could have chosen his words better, but it's nowhere near the condescending tripe it's made out to be.

Someone needs to take away his copy of "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Cling to guns? Really?

At issue are comments Obama made privately at a fundraising gathering in San Francisco last Sunday. He explained his troubles winning over working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The comments, posted on the Huffington Post political Web site Friday, set off a storm of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and a number of other GOP officials. (link)

So much for narrowing Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania.

This is your hometown

The New York Times visits the birthplace of yours truly and allows readers to draw thei own conclusions.

With superdelegates like these...

Ed Rendell doesn't think white Pennslyvanians are ready to vote for a black candidate for president, but Tony Norman would like to think otherwise. Congrats to Tony for getting linked by The New Republic.

Zing!

George Will won't make too many friends among Christian conservatives with this passage about Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf?

Should someone so delusional control nuclear weapons? (link)

Will is conservative, of course, but this is one of several columns in which he heaps praise on Barack Obama:

Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country.

Double Talk Express

I hate to get all South Carolina on John McCain, but is it really right for his aides to be making not-so-vieled references to Barack Obama's past drug use, given that McCain's wife was once addicted to pain killers?

You'll note that the writer of the blog to which I linked interpreted McCain's correction of Obama's spelling of "flak jacket" as a jab at Obama for having not served in the military. I certainly hope that's not how McCain meant it. Because John Kerry served in combat during Vietnam, and George W. Bush avoided combat by serving in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guards.

Which candidate did McCain support in 2004?