In a recent post, Ross Douthat at The American Scene asks his readers to accept (without evidence) his characterization of the new book by Ramesh Ponnuru as smart and worthy of serious debate.
Douthat begins his post with a series of questionable presumptions about people who disagree with him. He distorts Jon Stewart's interview of Ponnuru. He expresses his "genuine curiosity" about the views of people he insults and belittles throughout his post.
All of which makes me wonder why I should accept Douthat's word about what is smart and serious.
The book itself? It was written by a writer for the National Review (granted, he is their best writer) and is published by Regnery Publishing. The book's jacket copy begins with:
Is the Democratic Party the "Party of Death"?
If you look at their agenda they are.
In any given year, more than 100,000 titles are published in the English language. If I were to read two books a week, and limited my reading to books published within the year, I would be able to read only 1 in 1,000 of those titles.
Why in the world would I waste my time with a book that seems so unpromising?
Sorry, Ross. I think I'll pass.
From an analysis by cbsnews.com:
But what is apparent, is that George Bush has at his disposal none — none — of the tools presidents have used to turn bad situations around: public support, party support or skilled statecraft. He's a lame duck less than two years in to his second term. You are not being governed.
(Link courtesy of Political Wire.)
If a library were going to stock this book, wouldn't it be wrong somehow to charge an overdue fee on someone who returned it late?
Forty-six years before John Negroponte forced Porter Goss out as DCI, the two were fraternity brothers at Yale.
I enjoy Stephen Colbert's work, but I was ambivalent about his appearance this weekend at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
On the one hand, Noam Scheiber is right to note that much of Colbert's talk was repeated from old Colbert Report episodes and that much of it just wasn't funny.
On the other hand, Steve Gilliard is right to say that it was refreshing to see the President confronted with real satire.
Colbert's presentation was worth watching, and I compliment him on his huevos grandes, but the insincerity of his professed admiration of Bush was too transparent. Of course everyone knew the admiration was a put-on, but we usually know that about acting. Colbert's irony needed a plausible actor to deliver it, and Colbert didn't come through.