|
![]() |
|
|
January 19, 2004,
8:20 a.m. Friends, I took a little shot (another one) at Wesley Clark in this column Thursday. I noted his endorsement by Michael Moore the crackpot, hard-Left documentarian and suggested that some "independent-minded journalist" confront Clark with Moore's views and ask whether, really, this was the kind of support he desired.
Well, well, well. It seems that Clark is not exactly keeping his distance from Moore. Moore spoke at a rally for him, and delivered his usual line that the '04 race should be between "the general" (that would be Clark) and "the deserter" (that would be George W. Bush something about a gap in his National Guard record). Asked about this characterization of Bush as a deserter, the general (effectively) gave it credence and then praised Moore as "a fantastic leader." That's right, in Wesley Clark's view, Michael Moore as twisted and hateful a figure as there is in American public life is "a fantastic leader." Any more questions?
But, of course, that's starkly different from the Clark-Moore relationship. The general doesn't consider Moore an undesirable. On the contrary, "I'm delighted with Michael Moore. I really appreciate his support. He's a fantastic leader [did I mention that?]. I thank him tremendously for being here [at the rally]." Now, I'm sure that Clark who knows astonishingly little for a guy who wants to be president starting next year knows basically nothing about Michael Moore, and what he has written, and what he has said, and what he stands for. But Clark's, and his campaign's, lack of caution is stunning. Then again, they know they have to attract some hard-lefties in these primaries, so . . . perhaps they're crazy like foxes.
But I do not think we've absorbed how remarkable it is that Al Sharpton should be a mainstream, universally accepted Democratic presidential candidate. He is a vicious liar (Tawana Brawley) and arguably an inciter of murder (Freddy's Fashion Mart). He did all he could to destroy at least one good man's life (Steve Pagones, a victim of the Brawley hoax). He has devoted much of his career to making New York City as toxic and divided, racially, as possible. He is what the New York Post has dubbed a "racial arsonist" a guy who goes around setting, or pouring fuel on, fires, black-against-white. And this guy participates in all these presidential debates and instructs the Democratic front-runner Howard Dean in racial comportment. In proper racial behavior (even the phrase repulses me: "racial behavior"). And no one, apparently, thinks this is weird. No one certainly no Democrat, certainly no leading one says, "Hey, wait a minute. Al Sharpton delivering lectures on moral behavior? Go jump in a lake." As I've mentioned before, sometimes I fear I am too partisan, and too repelled by one of the two major parties in this country. But then I reflect on the fact that Al Sharpton can run for president in that party with hardly an eyebrow raised, by anybody and realize that disgust is all too reasonable a response.
A spokeswoman for Sweden's Foreign Ministry said, "We feel that it is unacceptable for him to destroy art in this way." True, true: and in this country, the artists (there were two) might well win government funding for their projects!
Or am I just paranoid? I believe, however, that New York Times judicial reporters are no longer permitted, by the paper, to march in pro-abortion rallies. At least, that's the policy, last I heard.
Oh, well. Tone and context mean a lot, don't they!
That was a note from a reader.
Yup, that's a good one. I'm not sure they wrote leads like that before the rise of journalism schools. Good thing we have 'em (j-schools, that is)!
Well, first, you can tell this reader's old-fashioned, because he says "girl" (and doesn't know that he can be shot for it). Second, one is perhaps safer saying, "If that's not the pot calling the kettle African-American . . ."
"Dear Mr. Nordlinger: The point of the star may be to represent the capital, but your readers can be forgiven for interpreting the star darkly. Their website features an animation in the upper left-hand corner that proclaims 'To uplift the people, the dialogue and the dreams' every few times you load the page. That seems to fit right in with their billboard." Uh-huh. How about this? "I'm a Wisconsin resident and was shocked to see that billboard. It reminds me of the signs I would see as a boy growing up in Yugoslavia." From another reader: "I was in Bologna several weeks ago, and was surprised to see a Stalingrad St. I can imagine how the name originally came to be in a [famously Red] university town, but that it is still Stalingrad is astounding. While I don't know this for a fact, I'm guessing that there is no Stalingrad Blvd. or something in Madison, Wis." I'm afraid to check. Another reader: "I moved to Madison this past year from California. So while I haven't experienced culture shock, I was surprised to see several of these posters by the highways around town. While they have a certain charm, one can only imagine the reaction if you replaced them with Nazi-style posters." A left-wing Madison defender (and Madisonian) sent me a long letter ripping me six ways to Sunday, and it included this delicious passage: "Unfortunately, Madison is becoming full of too many moderates and annoying National Review readers. I'd love to be able to say it's a liberal hotbed of sanity." All right! (And, incidentally, when I said "Madisonian," I wasn't talkin' James, as you know.) And how about this, to tickle you? "I have a cousin who lives in Seattle, and every Christmas he sends out a picture of himself. One year recently was with the Seattle Lenin statue. [I had mentioned that Seattle boasts a statue of the late but still on-view V. I.] My dad, the farthest thing from a conservative, still felt he had to respond. He lived in Orange County, Calif., at the time, so he went down to the airport, where they have a huge John Wayne statue, got a picture of himself with it, and sent it back to my cousin." Beautiful! Just beautiful!
Well, I personally think that Bach would have loved it perhaps after being startled, initially and that this testifies to his staying-power and universality. But then, I'm just a Pollyanna. You don't agree, do you, regular readers? * * * YOU’RE NOT A SUBSCRIBER TO NATIONAL REVIEW? Sign up right now! It’s easy: Subscribe to National Review here, or to the digital version of the magazine here. You can even order a subscription as a gift: print or digital! |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||