A blast from the past.1:32 PM, Jan 6, 2010 • By MATTHEW CONTINETTI
Earlier this week, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb sent a letter to the Democratic leadership asking them to "open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage." No word from the Democrats on whether they'll accept Lamb's offer--stranger things have happened, I suppose.
From the July 28, 2003 issue: Anatomy of a scandal that wasn't.Jul 28, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 44 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL
KARL ROVE is a genius. No--Rove probably gets more credit than he deserves for political smarts, and the president gets too little, so let's rephrase that: George W. Bush is a genius.
Almost two weeks ago, the president ordered his White House staff to bollix up its explanation of that now-infamous 16-word "uranium from Africa" sentence in his State of the Union address.
Why an economic study of cab drivers and incentive structures suggests that economists may be obsolete.12:00 AM, Jun 27, 2003 • By DAVID BROOKS
TWO VERY INTERESTING economics pieces (yes, it is possible) in the New York Times yesterday. The first is a front page piece headlined Very Richest's Share of Income Grew Even Bigger, Data Show. The average income of the 400 richest taxpayers in the U.S. grew to $174 million, up from an annual $46 million in 1992.
From the June 30, 2003 issue: Powerlessness corrupts.Jun 30, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 41 • By DAVID BROOKS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY Republicans and conservatives are asking each other the same basic question: Has the other side gone crazy? Have the Democrats totally flipped their lids?
Jun 2, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 37 • By DAVID BROOKS, FOR THE EDITORS
GEORGE W. BUSH is astoundingly popular with the American people. His approval ratings have hovered around the mid-60s or above for nearly two years--a phenomenon whose staying power cannot be explained by an initial reaction of support for the president after September 11. He has singlehandedly unified the Republican party--a party that seemed to be splitting at the seams before Bush's ascendance. He is even surprisingly popular in Democratic areas. In New Jersey he is more popular than the Democratic governor. In California he is winning support among Hispanics.
From the May 19, 2003 issue: The first 90 years of Arnold Beichman.May 19, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 35 • By DAVID BROOKS
IN 1927, young Arnold Beichman went to Yankee Stadium to see Babe Ruth play. After the game, Beichman hung around the players' exit to get another glimpse of the Babe, who eventually emerged from the clubhouse, resplendent in a belted camel-hair coat, and climbed into the driver's seat of his big Packard touring car. Young Arnold surged from the crowd, held up a program, and asked for an autograph. Babe Ruth turned and barked: "Get the hell off the running board, kid." Immediately, Beichman became the celebrity of his neighborhood. He was the kid the Babe had spoken to.
Australians, Red Sox fans, Jim Sleeper comes back for seconds, and more.12:00 AM, May 5, 2003 • By
THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.
Here he goes again--a second, more desperate Hugh Hewitt column referring to me, the supposed antiwar, leftist professor who bullied two freshmen (Blacklist Envy). And the second he has written without calling me first to ask whether anything he was writing was true.
The pundits are so sophisticated that they see the Abraham Lincoln speech as nothing more than a campaign stump.5:00 AM, May 2, 2003 • By DAVID BROOKS
BOY AM I in a terrible mood. I watched and listened to the punditry on President Bush's speech on the USS Lincoln. The people he was standing before have been away from their families for ten months. That's mothers away from their kids, fathers away from their kids, men an women away from their spouses, their mothers, fathers, and siblings. One hundred and fifty fathers on the Abraham Lincoln missed the birth of their child.
That's called sacrifice. Most of us are basket cases if we're on a business trip away from our families for four days. These people were gone nearly a year.
From the April 28, 2003 issue: Mass destruction of mistaken ideas.Apr 28, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 32 • By DAVID BROOKS
GEORGE ORWELL was a genuinely modest man. But he knew he had a talent for facing unpleasant facts. That doesn't seem at first glance like much of a gift. But when one looks around the world, one quickly sees how rare it is. Most people nurture the facts that confirm their worldview and ignore or marginalize the ones that don't, unable to achieve enough emotional detachment from their own political passions to see the world as it really is.
Now that the war in Iraq is over, we'll find out how many people around the world are capable of facing unpleasant facts.
The scenes in Baghdad flow from understandings realized at the American founding.1:00 PM, Apr 9, 2003 • By DAVID BROOKS
I WISH MICHAEL KELLY were alive to see this day. He would have known how to savor it. I wish Ronald Reagan could be aware of the scenes being played out in Baghdad. He would know that the liberationist sentiment he rekindled in the American heart didn't die out with the liberation of eastern and central Europe.
With his optimism, Reagan revived the progressive spirit that courses through our founding Declaration, that all human beings are created equal and all are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
From the April 4, 2003 London Times: Suddenly, things don't look so grim.10:25 AM, Apr 6, 2003 • By DAVID BROOKS
LET THE over-exuberance recommence! Washington is in the grip of a series of mood swings. An insanely negative tone prevailed in the war coverage here at the beginning of this week, but now it is the hawks who feel justified in gloating.
If you had read the American press last Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, you would have thought the media analysts were covering Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. There were ludicrous Vietnam comparisons, rampant quagmire forebodings and learned deconstructions of What Went Wrong.
From the March 31, 2003 issue: The pundits are arguing about everything except what's interesting.Mar 31, 2003, Vol. 8, No. 28 • By DAVID BROOKS
A S I WRITE, a couple of days into the war, the hawks are optimistic and the liberals are bracing to get beaten about with sticks. The hawks are optimistic because the Iraqi regime seems to be crumbling. None of the terrible things the doves predicted has yet come to pass: no mass riots on the Arab street, no coup in Pakistan or Jordan, no Scuds landing on Tel Aviv, no surge in oil prices, no fierce resistance from the Iraqis, either from the soldiers or the men in the streets.
The president addresses the nation; the debate on Iraq ends; and the future of two countries now lies just over the horizon.10:00 PM, Mar 17, 2003 • By DAVID BROOKS
I DIDN'T THINK the president was at his best tonight. His reading was not smooth. I'm sure that many French, British, and high-toned American viewers will have their opinion confirmed that George W. Bush simply hasn't read enough books to be president, let alone lead the nation into war.
The speech was simple, unremarkable, and direct; more Karen Hughes, I'm guessing, than Mike Gerson. And that is appropriate. For America is not going to war in a moment of high passion, as we did, say, in December of 1941. We're going to war after a long debate and in a moment of sober judgment.
From the March 7, 2003 London Times: George W. Bush's waffle-free directness alarms the fashionably doubtful commentariat.11:00 PM, Mar 9, 2003 • By DAVID BROOKS
THE AMERICAN COMMENTARIAT is gravely concerned. Over the past week, George W. Bush has shown a disturbing tendency not to waffle when it comes to Iraq. There has been an appalling clarity and coherence to his position. There has been a reckless tendency not to be murky, hesitant, or evasive. Naturally, questions are being raised about President Bush's leadership skills.
The United States is in the midst of the certainty crisis. Time magazine is disturbed by "The blinding glare of his certainty," as one headline referred to Bush's unwillingness to go wobbly on Iraq.
George W. Bush tells the United Nations that he's going with or without them--but he wants to see their cards anyway.11:00 PM, Mar 6, 2003 • By DAVID BROOKS
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING President Bush said during his press conference--just about the only significant thing he said--is that regardless of the whip count, he will put a second resolution up for a vote in the U.N. Security Council.
This is remarkably bold. The normal thing to do, especially if three of the major powers are threatening vetoes, is to withdraw the resolution, and thereby try to diffuse the showdown. But Bush has chosen the path of maximum confrontation. So imagine this scenario: The United States puts forward its resolution.