I'm willing to believe that Sandy Berger had no nefarious motives when he walked out of a secure reading room with "highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes" on the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda threats, as the A.P. is reporting. But could we please hear a little less about how the Bush administration's foreign policy advisers are incompetent? This guy was National Security Adviser. Yikes.
-- Virginia Postrel
Talking Points Memo seems to have the right take, including the resigned expectation of the Republican tactics involved, about the whole Sandy Berger matter. The cynical "concerned comments" by the leadership of the House of Representatives are especially depressing.
I want to compliment Postrel though -- I felt the above quote was a cheap shot (and emailed her to say so) because the two situations aren't really connected. She didn't deny it, just said she thought Berger was a lousy National Security Adviser. Thanks ... and I still think your blog is pretty kewl, even if you go off the deep end sometimes.
---
False advertising is not the same as bias. The former is subject to testing; the latter can only be judged subjectively. That's why it's crucial to keep the state and the courts out of this area. Not that anyone is likely to sue the libertarian journal Reason for being irrational, but what goes around often comes around where censorship is concerned. Today, "fair and balanced"; tomorrow, "Bush is a liar."
-- warning against an attempt to force Fox to remove their slogan, an effort not quite as stupid as the lawsuit against Al Franken, but not too smart either
---
Whiskey Bar discusses Ralph Nader's latest "end justifies the means" shenanigans, assisted by Republicans, Reformites, and whomever would get him on the ballot. I know the guy should be ignored, but the principle holds -- if you are going to support Nader or someone else out of principle, such actions really tosses that out as a reason. "But, how else would I get on the ballot?" Oh please. I'm sure for the states you aren't on the ballot, there is some third party candidate (e.g. The Working Family Party, etc.) that fits your basic principles. Just endorse the candidate for that state. Unless it isn't just principle, but egotism.
WB links to a previous explanation concerning why a united front in needed this time around. It has a good comments section, including someone who puts forth a pretty good principled reason to vote "Anybody But Bush" -- a libertarian, preventing harm principle. He would be loathe to believe a candidate would do as much good as s/he promises, but finds it easier to know what not to support. I find merit to this argument, since sometimes (unless the alternative is lousy) it is clear that you have to get rid of someone or make sure one person isn't chosen. And, since we basically have a two party system for President ...