This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Friday, November 08, 2002

Hanna Rosin on whether the divestment movement is anti-Semitic,makes a wholly non-compelling case. She simply assumes that the movers and shakers behind the movement are anti-Semites, without a serious attempt to prove her point; her main point comes in this description of moderate Palestinian students being railroaded by Berkeley types:
The Palestinians, meanwhile, were more diplomatic, trying to keep out any mention of Zionism or specific "tactics adopted by the Palestinian people" from the movement's guiding principles. But in the end, they turned out to be no models of restraint. When conference participants offered a resolution saying that the divestment movement's vision of "true peace" included "coexistence" with a "transformed and democratized" Israel and a renunciation of Palestinian claims on cities inside Israel, such as Haifa and Jaffa, none of the Palestinian leaders voted for it, according to a report in the school paper and the Jewish Forward.
What is undeniable is that the divestment movement will always be targeted at Jews; what is further undeniable is that the divestment movement cannot be meant to target Jews who do not participate in Israel's endeavors. There are two groups of Jews here, one that will be affected by the divestment campaign, and one that will be imposed upon only in the sympathetic sense that Jews in America care about Jews in Israel.

Thursday, November 07, 2002

Byron York pushes the South Dakota voter fraud allegations to new levels of irrationality by positing that the seemingly late return for several pro-Johson precincts indicates some kind of foul action. This is ridiculous in so many ways. Firstly, he emphasizes that Dems put in a huge amount of effort in the area of those precincts, and then wonders why the Dems' margin was greater this year than in 1998, when there was half the voter turnout in that area -- if you double the turnout by using the Dem machine, it's entirely predictable that you'll have a greater margin of victory. In the last precinct counted, which supposedly handed Johnson the victory, Johnson actually lost to Thune, 247 to 229, according to York's numbers. You can't claim a fix in the last precinct if he didn't even win there!
He brings in voter fraud allegations, but doesn't actually pin them as the reason that Thune lost -- perhaps because they've been discredited over and over again.
Ryan Karben heads to the Assembly.<

Wednesday, November 06, 2002

A Columbia genius argues against negative campaigning, why is this kid going negative on negativity?
Orthodox Union advocates tourists' donating blood in Israel as part of a new initiative...proposed slogan: "You haven't hiked up Masada until you've hiked it with one less pint of blood".
Al Sharpton's website is down, having beentemporarily disabled; due to non-payment? Technical problems?
"Next Time"? Goodbye, Joe Glass.

Tuesday, November 05, 2002

Two posts in one day for Democrat. Bravo, Pinchas, Bravo!

Monday, November 04, 2002

Hasidim misinterpret social mores, launder money instead of clothes.
John Leo is wrong again, this time in saying that the search for the Search for the Snipers Was "too PC". He forgets that profiling in the first place is what threw cops astray and the likely reality that it was the hope for a white car -- not a white criminal -- that was undoubtedly the major evidence being sought. A big point here is how much racial profiling must actually be going on in that area: these guys were checked out numerous times based on no substantiable evidence whatever -- how many other black men in that are questioned for Driving While Black?
Black vote suppression, ostensibly by Republicans, as reported by John Judis in TNR and in a document posted by Talking Points here. Does this possibly border on criminal behavior anywhere? Does anyone out there know?
Mondale/Coleman: Who Won? Josh Chafetz at OxBlog seems to think Mondale won, as did the larger part of C-SPAN's call-ins. Poweline is disappointed in Coleman, though he cites RealClearPolitics saying Coleman did well(though RCP brings the caveat that, apparently, pundits at Fox & CNN think Mondale did well).
I thought Mondale did a poor job for the first seven minutes, but then broke out of his slump when he hurled his first invective; several other times he took Coleman to task
On the whole, I thought Coleman did a far better job. By far the most incredible manipulation of this debate was how Coleman was able to repeatedly cite his experience as a mayor as something that made him the elder statesman in the debate -- he made Mayor of Saint Paul trump Vice President of the United States!
Coleman won far more talking time thanks to overwhelmed moderators, a big victory.
Mondale beat Coleman on the issues, but in a way that wasn't readily apparent. Coleman flip-flopped all over ANWR and other environmental issues within the debate -- not a good sign, but you have to wonder how many people noticed.
But Mondale's presentation might be what sticks with Minnesota voters -- assumedly, he'd know. Coleman seemed to adopt an accent that at various times sounded either New York-ish or Massachusetts-esque -- that probably doesn't serve him well with Minnesota voters.
Most of the calls in to C-SPAN were likely Dem/Rep operatives(one, in particular, sounded like he was reading from a script), so you get a sense of how they'll spin it: the Dems, and even one Rep, thought Mondale kicked ass; meantime, the Republican hit on Mondale was that he wasn't respecting Coleman enough; firstly, given that one was VP and one was mayor, the imbalance is understandable; more importantly, if that's the best hit you've got, you're admitting defeat.
BASICALLY: Coleman tried to act like Bush, and Mondale tried to act like himself; Coleman came off as stupid and savvy, Mondale came off as slow but biting. Mondale won on the issues, Coleman won the debate.
The AP adds its analysis(which everybody fronts), which is essentially that Coleman talked about the "tone in Washington", while Mondale attacked Coleman for his stances on the issues.

Sunday, November 03, 2002

Golisano refuses to give up and proposes nothing new. The statement offered nothing, said nothing...we have the same race we did yesterday or a week ago.
As Golisano's two-minute extravaganza approaches, the Dicker acknowledges that a drop-out and endorsement won't do diddly for McCall -- nifty note at the bottom of the article, in which State Senate Minortiy Leader Martin Connor is said to be serving as an election lawyer for Golisano;how many major Democrats has McCall failed to keep connected to his campaign?
Then, in a triple-byline Post story, it looks increasingly likely that Golisano's is pulling a last-ditch campaign move out of his hat. Likely, a smart idea, and the only chance he's got.
Talking Points sponsors a national prediction contest. My bet? No Iatriber will win this thing; prove me wrong.
Felix Rohatyn discusses the future of NYC relative to national political occurrences in the most recent New York Review of Books...