The Corner

The View in Sullivan-Land

He gives the president better marks than in the last two debates. It’s a thoughtful and interesting set of posts. But he, along with most journalists, thinks that the president is doing something shady when he says that Kerry would let other countries veto our national-security policies. “Kerry has denied it a zillion times. Doesn’t the president at some point have to stop saying what is the opposite of the recorded truth?” I don’t think so. Sure, Kerry has denied the charge. But a lot of his multilateral rhetoric makes no sense unless there are circumstances in which he would let foreign opposition be a decisive reason not to do something he would otherwise want to do. Now at some abstract level, this has to be true for Bush as well. But Kerry would put a lot more weight on foreign opinion, and it strikes me as totally legitimate for Bush to say that the weight he would give to it amounts to an unacceptable foreign veto. Bush denies he would cut Social Security benefits all the time. If Kerry tried to point out, in an honest manner, that other things Bush wants would necessitate such cuts, that would be a legitimate hit too. (He has tried to make the case in a dishonest matter. Bush’s plans don’t have to result in benefit cuts of the type Kerry describes. The foreign-veto thing, on the other hand, is almost a logical necessity of Kerry’s stance.)

Also, Sullivan, who gives Kerry points for being more knowledgeable than Bush–a conclusion that can easily be drawn from the debates in general but not, I think, from this one–congratulates Kerry for “us[ing] the ban on AK-47s to buttress his tough stance on terrorism.” Shouldn’t Kerry at some point stop repeating, and journalists seconding, a talking point that is the opposite of the truth?

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

Immigration

Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More
Immigration

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More
Film & TV

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up

I  like Adam Sandler, and yet you may share the sense of trepidation I get when I see that another of his movies is out. He made some very funny manboy comedies (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy) followed by some not-so-funny manboy comedies, and when he went dark, in Reign over Me and Funny People, ... Read More