I call myself a blogger, but I’m more like an essayist who uses blogging software.
Many of my posts start out as a simple idea and end up as 600-800 words.Â (Except when they end up as 2,000 words.)Â I think it’s a self-esteem issue — I’m concerned that someone will mock me, and have the facts on their side.Â So I research and try to substantiate every nuance, and the word count grows. (I’m up to 77 so far!)Â Then I run out of time or energy, resulting in no posts at all for a week at a time.
So let’s try a classic quickie blog post — little or no analysis from me, just recent quotes from three of my favorite pundits.Â Krauthammer:
Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: â€œLots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obamaâ€™s (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces.Â .Â .Â .Â But in this case thereâ€™s a simpler explanation: Barack Obamaâ€™s job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed.â€
He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise â€” expanded coverage at lower cost â€” led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes, and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them a political mandate and a legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public-opinion polls, then in elections â€” Virginia, New Jersey, and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.
Thatâ€™s not a structural defect. Thatâ€™s a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself â€” despite the special interests â€” through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.
Those who accuse former Bush administration officials of criminality for having supported enhanced interrogation techniques are nearly silent about the ongoing and vastly increased targeted assassinations ordered by the Obama administration, and I for one am confused by this standard of attack.
If a suspected jihadist on the Afghan Pakistan border were to be asked his choice, he might very well prefer to be apprehended, transported to Guantanamo, and harshly interrogated rather than blown to bits along with any family and friends who happen to be in his vicinity.
To make things simpler, water-boarding the confessed architect of the murder of 3,000 innocents, on a moral scale, seems less atrocious than executing suspected terrorists, as we are now doing. Since the easy denunciations of criminality are moral rather than legal â€” no one has actually convicted a John Yoo or a Dick Cheney of anything â€” surely we should hear something about these capital sentences handed down from the sky on those who, quite unlike KSM, are suspected, rather than confessed, killers.
And Andrew McCarthy (profiled in the New York Times):
â€œA war is a war,â€ Mr. McCarthy declared. â€œA war is not a crime, and you donâ€™t bring your enemies to a courthouse.â€
In the debate over how and where to prosecute Mr. Mohammed and other Sept. 11 cases, few critics of the Obama administration have been more fervent in their opposition than Mr. McCarthy, a 50-year-old lawyer from the Bronx who had built a reputation as one of the countryâ€™s formidable terrorism prosecutors.
Now he has a different reputation: harsh critic of the system in which he had his greatest legal triumph.
Mr. McCarthy has relentlessly attacked the administration for supporting civilian justice for terrorism suspects. He has criticized the military commissions system and called for creation of a national security court. After the arrest of the suspect in the Christmas bomb plot, he wrote, â€œWill Americans finally grasp how insane it is to regard counterterrorism as a law-enforcement project rather than a matter of national security?â€
Argghh… 659 words.Â But I only had to write about 150 of them!