|
Media Infiltrations: Deadly Rescue  National Review November 17, 2008 Krugman’s Posthumous Nobel National Review Online October 14, 2008
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 A Bound Man Shelby Steele What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  There Will Be Blood What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor. Some of the sites
|
The Conspiracy Letters
Join the fray! Email us at letters@poorandstupid.com. We reserve the right to publish all letters with authors' names, unless specified as not for publication or for publication anonymously. Letters may be edited for clarity and brevity.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
DEWEY'S PULLED KNOCK-OUT BLOW As to the Paul Krugman column about the Presidential election of 1944 ["Support the Troops!" 8/27/2004], Mr. Krugman stated that the "oppostion didn't pull any punches" and that Dewy's greatest criticism of Roosevelt was that he was a tired old man. Was Mr. Krugman implying that this was the most serious criticism of President Roosevelt that Mr. Dewy could have made doing the campaign, or am I making an erroneous inference?Mr. Krugman's field is economics, not history.
As recounted by Steven Den Beste in the blog U.S.S. Clueless, Dewey was aware that the United States military had broken the Japanese code prior to the Pearl Harbor attack and he, Dewey, was planning to make this fact known to the general public. That this never became an issue was due to the efforts of General George C. Marshall to convince Mr. Dewey that it would be detrimental to the war effort to disclose this information before victory could be achieved in the Pacific.
The choice given to Mr. Dewey was clear, he could either be a good American or a successful politician. Mr. Dewey chose country over ambition.
Mr. Dewey chose to remain silent about one of the greatest intelligence failures in WWII. This issue could have been the "knock-out blow" to a fourth term. Dewey's silence on this issue probably cost him the election and saved many lives on the battlefield.
I guess in the world of Krugman, this would not disprove the Krugman story because Dewey's silence would not count as a "pulled" punch because it was the "knock-out" blow that was never thrown.
Today, I can only imagine a few members of the oppostion party would would keep such a secret knowing that it would mean giving up a huge political advantage. Sadly, none of them as considereed to be among the most likely contenders for the 2008 nomination in the event of a Bush re-election.
Donald Poole
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:17 PM | link
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
A LEGITIMATE QUESTION You hit on something too little remarked-upon, when you wrote:Before [Bush's] second term even begins, Krugman -- acting as the primary mainstream-media mouthpiece for the Left -- has created the conceptual structure for denying Bush’s fundamental legitimacy.This has been something of a problem for some time,but it has been hitting crisis levels since election night in 2000. A certain subset of leftists/Democrats -- an increasingly large and influential subset -- is simply unprepared to observe the most fundamental obligations and norms of political actors in a democracy. To wit:That liberal game-plan amounts to nothing less than an attack on the fundamental processes by which collective decisions are made, and are given legitimacy once they are made. It’s an attack on the rule of law."
a) It is not automatically "unfair" or illegitimate or illegal for someone to offer vigorous opposition to Democrats in an election. The Republicans do not owe it to Democrats to lose gracefully and without trying too hard (see "Dole, Bob"), refrain from running any ads that drive Democratsncrazy, and scrupulously avoiding talking about anything that Democrats don't wish to talk about or defend. They have every right to fight hard, and may actually win from time to time. Get over it.
b) When the Republican does win, realize that the fact that you hate him does not thereby make him "illegitimate."
c) Even Republicans have a certain right to govern once they have won, even if Democrats hate many decisions they happen to make.
d) There are limits to when it is appropriate, and to how far it is appropriate to go, in doing things that undermine an administration specifically and the credibility and authority of the United States generally.
This is not to say that one has no right to dissent and oppose. Of course one does. But that must be exercised in full acknowledgement of our democratic processes and the legitimacy of decisions made pursuant thereto. And, just as a practical matter, if you expect to be shown even a minimal amount of respect and courtesy when you win, you've got to return the favor when you lose. Not even the senate Republicans will forever continue to roll over and play dead when Democrats, say, nominate someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Not if they keep this up.
Whether it is Florida, or judicial nominations, or what-have-you, this is really starting to poison our political process, and I am glad to see you hit it on the head today. As for me, I am just praying that W gets at least 320-330 electoral votes, and an outright popular majority, because otherwise we'll have an even uglier and longer post-election phase than we've had this time.
Kevin M. James
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:08 PM | link