« Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead! | Main | Debate Open Thread »

February 26, 2008

Comments

The upside, presumably, is that it takes a bunch of bigoted, xenophobic attacks, complete with their connections to genuinely ugly lines of attack, and gets them printed in a mainstream mass-media publication.

Moving this sort of slime from the cesspool of whispering campaigns and extremist message boards up into the mainstream is a multistage process. Halperin is acting as one more link in the chain.

"There are all kinds of things that Halperin could do against Obama that Clinton could not do. He could run on the idea that JM is a peculiarly presidential set of initials."

That would be an unusually abstract tactic, unless Mark Halperin's initials were JM. In any case I'm glad Halperin isn't running - thank God for small favors.

And behold, they shall be hoist, yea, by their own most noisome petard.
And that’s just for starters.
They shall be shameless, for their heedless hatred for life and light will surely thrust them into the Pit of Shame, nor shall they be able to put all the pieces together again nor shall they rise from that pit for its slope is too slippery for ascent,
I heard a voice from the throne of Justice, and it said, “They shall dive headlong into deep deep doo-doo, where they shall recline drooling down their bibs.
And my soul rejoiced that justice was both seen done and done indeed. And those that were with me raised a mighty voice of rejoicing. And for a time and half a time, peace and liberty walked the land.

And behold, hope stood before us beckoning. And a great throng turned toward her to hear her words. But some drew back in horror, muttering and cursing to one another. These were the lost souls who had lost all sense of direction. They beheld their dream dissolve in the grater light.

Perhaps our grandchildren will read about the Re-publicans and ask us if there were dinosaurs back then and we will say yes, a horde of terrible lizards. But they don’t exist anymore.

If McCain does do those things, he might just corner and isolate himself to those whose brains actually can't comprehend that there are two options on a ballot. Which would indeed be a gift from God.

Here's hoping he gets all those who answer "Yes" to Bush approval polls! He can have 'em.

I await the outrage from those bloggers who were up in arms about David Shuster's ill-chosen words. Oh wait.

A related point: "How Do We Defeat Obama / Help Clinton?" lists have been cropping up everywhere, often soliciting readers' suggestions. Is this something unique to this election cycle, or am I just being paranoid?

Hob: eep. Thanks. Corrected.

I just assumed Halperin was working for Obama. If McCain actually used those ideas, the blowback would make Katrina look like a spring breeze.

"He could run on the idea that JM is a peculiarly presidential set of initials."


Actually, I find that to be an extremely persuasive argument.

I'm running on the idea that MH is a peculiarly McCain-supporting set of initials.

"6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama."

Look! It works!

I think his basic point is that he thinks Obama is more vulnerable to attack from the Republicans than Clinton is.
Lets make no mistake about it: the attacks that we have seen from the Clintons are pretty weak tea compared with what the Repubs will come up with .
And yes, they will be racist and xenophobic and dishonest. That certainly doesn't mean that they will not work. See Kerry, Swift Boat.
Obama has to be ready to face these attacks and more from the Repubs. Fortunately, so far he seems ready for it.

Didn't Halperin get the memo that the RNC is working on this already--trying to figure out just how racist they can get without getting blowback? Or maybe he's one of the test subjects, along with this guy.

Brian: Didn't Halperin get the memo that the RNC is working on this already--trying to figure out just how racist they can get without getting blowback?

It certainly did not strike me as “how racist can we be and still get away with it”. They’re going to be tagged with that no matter what line of attack they take. Different groups may take different statements to be racist when there was no such intent to start with.

GOP officials are certain their words will be scrutinized ever more aggressively. They anticipate a regular media barrage of accusations of intolerance – or much worse.

Well yeah – that seems obvious IMO. They are going to have to be a lot more aware of every word they say and how it can be interpreted. As an example, I busted on publius a bit a few weeks ago because he used the words “he did so in spades” when writing about Obama. Now there is no way I believe publius meant it as a racist remark. As derogatory slang it is old and seems to be no longer used (which is a good thing). Publius was just not aware how it could sound in a historical context.

But consider what would happen in late October with this splashed all over the front pages:

Senator McCain, while complimenting his rival Senator Obama on winning a tough primary contest against his opponent Senator Clinton mentioned that “he did so in spades”. The NAACP immediately issued a press release condemning Senator McCain’s usage of the word “spade” which was historically a derogatory slang word for African Americans.

Boom. Game over.

And as a white man, it doesn’t matter what I do. If I don’t vote for Obama, it must be because I’m racist. But if I do vote for Obama, it’s because I’m racist!

Some critics who directly acknowledge the racial nature of Obama's appeal have argued that the wave of white support for Obama bespeaks not a genuine desire to bridge the racial divide but a bad-faith attempt to escape into some post-racial never-never land.

All of these criticisms, whether they acknowledge it or not, are based on the fact that Obama's blackness is his indispensable asset. Without it, he would not have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president.

But if Obama were a white junior senator from Illinois with the same impressive personal and professional qualities -- the same intelligence, empathy, speaking skills, legislative tenure and life story -- there'd be no way he'd have the name recognition to mount a major campaign in the first place. And if he did manage to run, it's unlikely he would have inspired such a passionate and widespread following.

His story and personality resonate with whites. Obama has been able to bridge the gap between white America and black America because figuratively and literally, he's both black and white. Because of his personality, he's the perfect racial go-between: His nonthreatening demeanor allows him to connect with whites, while the fact that he's black -- and proudly and avowedly so -- makes that connection feel racially redemptive.

They’re going to be tagged with that no matter what line of attack they take.

I refer you to my previous comment.

But if Obama were a white junior senator from Illinois with the same impressive personal and professional qualities -- the same intelligence, empathy, speaking skills, legislative tenure and life story -- there'd be no way he'd have the name recognition to mount a major campaign in the first place.

What it sounds like this person is saying (and note: I'm not saying you're saying this) is: "Obama isn't that good! He's just black!"

OCSteve:

I'm curious as to how you derive the formulation "But if I do vote for Obama, it's because I'm a racist" (even if meant sarcastically) from Gary Kamiya's Salon piece. I read the whole thing - twice, just to be sure; and while I don't agree with everything he says - especially the bits about Sen. Obama's chances if he weren't black - I saw nothing in the column to support an interpretation of even oblique "racism"-baiting of the sort you seem to see.

And Jes: You too ought to re-read Kamiya's piece: He really doesn't say "Obama isn't that good! He's just black!" - It's more like "Obama IS good - his blackness is just a bonus". As in his closing para:

"Of course, Obama-mania can be accompanied by lightheadedness, irrational euphoria and giddiness. The post-racial sky will not open. There are limits to charismatic politics. And there will no doubt be an Obama hangover if he is elected.

"Barack Obama is not a savior. But there's every reason to believe that if elected he will be a good president -- and maybe a great one. And every day that Obama is in office, even the bad ones, we'll be able to tell ourselves: We elected a black man president of this country. That thought, with all that it says about where we came from as a nation and where we hope to be going, will be a light that no one can put out."

Kamiya's point may be a little too convoluted and overdrawn, IMO: but it's not, I think, the interpretation you've both put on it.

2. Talk about the Iraq War without apologies or perceived contradiction"

So this is #2? (Actually, it being "number two" is rather ironic.)

There's a HUGE problem with this tactic. McCain has contradicted himself on Iraq horrendously, and has been horribly wrong. In this video you can compare his bashing of the handling of Iraq to his Rummy-esque statements that we'd be greeted like liberators, the war would be short, and there would be no house to house fighting.

He blew it on Iraq in the beginning as bad as Rumsfeld did, which is pretty bad. He may have come around quicker, but his initial judgment was still awful. This is not a man who is "ready from Day 1".

And don't forget his stroll through the Baghdad market with 100 heavily armed troops and 5 helicopters, after which he declared it "safe". Ridiculous. And then the next day, over 20 people who worked in that "safe" market were killed in an act of retaliation.

Maybe John can try this slogan:

McCain: He thinks he has it right on Iraq THIS time!

Jay C: You too ought to re-read Kamiya's piece

I should read it, period. To clarify: I was responding only to the paragraphs OCSteve had quoted, I had not clicked the link and read the entire piece. I will do so.

I have to ask: why publish it? What, exactly, is the point?

The idiot promised his kids new flat-screen TV.
Have to make extra money somehow, even by showing his personal unmitigated stupidity....

OT (sort of - it's Obama bashing related) - this article in the Washington Times really makes me want to retch.

Dear Mr. Halprin:
Please write another book as beautiful as 'A Winter's Tale.'
Otherwise, shut up.
Thank you.

Uh...hopefully that last was a joke.

If not, "Helprin" and "Halperin" are two different people.

"Dear Mr. Halprin"

Mark Halperin.

Mark Helprin.

People tend to read what they expect, rather than what the words say.

"Helprin" and "Halperin" are two different people.

something which always makes me do a double-take when i read a bit of wingnutty propaganda and see what could be the name of a wonderful author in the by-line.

oc steve,

this whole idea that you are a racist if you take race into account is based on the right-wing construct of color blindness, where any reference to race is a bad thing. most people I know don't have a problem with acknowledging racial divisions and the power of race, and they think taking race into account is sometime an important corrective.
Since the whole premise of color blindness is that racism is a thing of the past and that recognizing race gives an unfair advantage, I would think it would have been rendered unsellable after Katrina, the racial attacks on Harold Ford, the nooses all over the place. But these are people who think climate change is a hoax, so I guess it's no problem thinking true racism is too.

Here’s mine:

1. If active, appear inactive;
2. If near, appear far;
3. If they are strong, avoid them;
4. If they are angry, disturb them;
5. If they are humble, make them haughty;
6. If they are relaxed, toil them;
7. When doing battle, seek a quick victory;
8. Do not stay on open ground;
9. Do not swallow the enemy's bait;
10. A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor;
11. If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation’s resources will not suffice;
12. When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications;
13. Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue;
14. Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted;
15. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare;
16. “Lucky Girl”; by Meghan McCain

http://www.mccainblogette.com/arcs/022008.shtml

The Editors speak for me.

I see the Editors are having problems with teh speling to.

"...this whole idea that you are a racist if you take race into account is based [on the false idea that there are biologically discrete human 'races,' based on racist nonsensical theories of the 17th century and 18th century; 'race' is a lot of nonsense, and a form of essentialism.]"

Fixed.

"I see the Editors are having problems with teh speling to."

To be boringly literal, either I'm missing the joke again, or perhaps you are.

Are you suggesting that "Journamalism" is a typo, and thus am I missing the joke?

Incidentally, Bill, do you really think Sun Tzu is some kinda revelation everyone but you needs to find out about?

Just drawing some modern parallels Gary. McCain was supposed to have studied this kind of stuff at the Naval Academy. “The Long War” and all that. Glad you’ve heard of him too, he was pretty sharp in my opinion.

But Number Sixteen really provides the best insight.

To be boringly literal, either I'm missing the joke again, or perhaps you are.

Gary, click the link and compare to your 11:54am comment.

Jay C: I'm curious as to how you derive the formulation "But if I do vote for Obama, it's because I'm a racist" (even if meant sarcastically) from Gary Kamiya's Salon piece. I read the whole thing - twice, just to be sure; and while I don't agree with everything he says - especially the bits about Sen. Obama's chances if he weren't black - I saw nothing in the column to support an interpretation of even oblique "racism"-baiting of the sort you seem to see.

Some of it was others quoted in the piece rather than Kamiya’s comments:

David Ehrenstein, who is black, wrote a widely discussed column last year in the L.A. Times in which he argued that Obama's appeal derives from his role as the "Magic Negro," a benign, unthreatening figure who suddenly shows up to offer racial absolution to mildly guilty whites. "The less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes," Ehrenstein writes. "If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."

If I vote for him, it’s because I’m feeling guilty about racism and my vote would offer some absolution for that. But note that it only works because he is not a real black person – he’s benign and unthreatening and my fantasy of “curative black benevolence”.

Kamiya : Obama has been able to bridge the gap between white America and black America because figuratively and literally, he's both black and white. Because of his personality, he's the perfect racial go-between: His nonthreatening demeanor allows him to connect with whites, while the fact that he's black -- and proudly and avowedly so -- makes that connection feel racially redemptive.

More of the same. He’s not really black, he’s white as well. It’s only his “nonthreatening demeanor” that let’s me connect, yet its still “racially redemptive” (whatever the heck that means). The overall tone IMO is that whites can manage to vote for him because he’s not real. Apparently if he was real I’d find him not benign and threatening. His role is kind of a “starter” black. Not being 100% the real thing, he’s not going to freak us whites out too badly. We can kind of ease into it. Then who knows – once we get used to that maybe a real black person can run.

Serious Journalist Mark “Just The Facts” Halprin:
Things McCain can do when running against Obama that Clinton has been unable to do well or at all: […]

6. Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama. […]

11. Emphasize Barack Hussein Obama’s unusual name and exotic background through a Manchurian Candidate prism.

Mark Kleiman:

Referring to how McCain should treat Michelle Obama’s gaffes, Halperin calls for “unrestricted censure.”

Sauce. Goose. Gander. A little unrestricted censure is probably just what Halperin’s little soul could use right now.

Seems to me like Halperin needs a trip to Shusterville. Two weeks should be just about long enough to remind him, and others, not to go there again.

Update from Halprin and/or Time:

I'm beginning to think that absolutely none of my kidding is funny, given how often I have to explain myself.

I get you Slarti!

"I think he said the sheriff is near!"

"Gary, click the link and compare to your 11:54am comment."

Ah, it's that The Editors did the Halprin/Halperin mistake.

Hmm, I don't think of that as a "spelling" error, since that would mean that the person perfectly well knows who the two different people are, but merely is confused about how to spell one of them; I doubt that's the case most of the time, though I'm sure it's so some of the time. I'm apt to think, having observed innumerable people make this error over the years, that a lot of people simply don't realize they are two different people, and that a lot of other people simply read quickly, and project what they think they should be reading, and read that instead.

But that explains why I didn't understand the reference to "spelling." Thanks.

"I'm beginning to think that absolutely none of my kidding is funny, given how often I have to explain myself."

If you simply quoted what you were responding to, like people have been doing as SOP since the beginning of the ARPAnet, rather than simply linking to an entire piece of writing, it would be perfectly clear what you were responding to. I didn't express my puzzlement to reiterate this thought, but since you seem to think this is an insoluable problem, I suggest it isn't remotely.

In this case, if you'd simply pasted:

Serious Journalist Mark “Just The Facts” Halprin
And then given your response, it would be perfectly clear what you were responding to. Is that sort of thing either an unreasonable practice, or difficult?

That is, if you wish to not be frustrated at my stupid inability to read your mind, and my therefore occasionally expressing bafflement at what you are referring to. It's not a plot by me to annoy you. It's the fact that you, for some reason, choose to never ever quote, to identify what you're responding to. Am I actually the only person who has ever been puzzled by your referenceless responses? If so, apologies.

But why do you think the practice of quoting enough of what one is responding to, to make it clear what one is responding to, was created, and became standard netiquette? Pointless frill?

"Then who knows – once we get used to that maybe a real black person can run."

Man, I wish Richard Pryor were around, so I could hear his take on this.

Hillary Contra Obama, in five acts: http://ketchupandcaviar.com/2008/02/25/hillary-clintons-rhetorical-offenses-and-why-words-matter/#play

Act I, Scene I: Enter Clinton, stage right, wearing coronation robes—grand, radiant, inevitable. In the beginning the thought of not winning no more occurs to her than the thought of being a peasant occurs to a queen. The audience knows as soon as she walks onto stage how brittle these great expectations can be—that she’s set up for a fall, that the tragic seed of the unraveling exists in the rigidity of the expectations. When there is just the slightest hint of resistance to these expectations, things do indeed begin to unravel.

Off topic, slightly, but this transcript of Obama's remarks on Israel and the Middle East is very interesting. I had mixed feelings about it, but going into that would be veering way OT--

Link

To be boringly literal, either I'm missing the joke again, or perhaps you are.

It looks like it was fixed in between Slarti's post and Gary's. The last few comments capture the error.

Thanks, Gary. I did think that two of the four sentences actually written (as opposed to quoted) in that link having spelling errors might have been a sufficient clue.

However, as usual, I don't care in the slightest about what's considered proper netiquette by folks who have been around since ARPAnet (which, actually, includes me; unfortunately I've made long and steady use out of the various evolutionary phases of the internet to move data to and fro, rather than to simply converse), and I continue to reserve the right to blow my nose on my dinner napkin, so to speak. If that continues to upset you, you're just going to have to learn to live with it, or at least learn to live with having to complain about it.

Just as I've got to put up with you blowing up at me for not having read a link that occurred on an earlier thread, and then failing to either explain yourself, or apologize, or otherwise acknowledge that maybe you overreacted. Or any number of other things that you do that annoy me.

As a postscript, the above doesn't constitute a guarantee that I'll never, ever quote what I'm responding to, just that I may occasionally forget to. Just as I forgot to in that post, and in this one.

See what I did, there?

Slart, I couldn't care less what your practices are. I'll just go on as always, responding substantively when I can, and asking you what you mean when I don't understand, just like I do with everyone. If you want to waste your time having to explain yourself, it's no skin off my back.

And if you complain in public about the problems that result, people may respond. Complaining about that, too, also appears to be something you want to spend time on.

But you won't really get anywhere until you complain about responses to that.

See what I did there?

"Just as I've got to put up with you blowing up at me"

"Blowing up at you"?

Blowing up would be saying something unpleasant, or even faintly angry, wouldn't it?

I pointed out that you missed the discussion on another thread. That's "blowing up"? What were the precise words that constituted the "blowing up" part that I need to apologize for, exactly?

Here's what I take to be the entire relevant portion:

It was the entire point of the Kevin Drum link I gave, and all of the multitude of other stories linked therein, in which thousands of words and further links were given about the lacunae in the story, the timing, the triggers, and so on. It's not exactly an original theory; it's the foundation for all the endless discussion that has gone on last night, all of which you clearly missed. It's why I posted it last night.
I'd say that I was a little impatient, but I don't see where I said anything out of line, or untoward. "Blowing up"? Am I missing something? Did I call you a name, or say something unpleasant, or characterize you in any way at all?

I'm a little puzzled.

Is anyone actually interested in this non-substantive tedium? I suggest you take it up in e-mail with me, Slarti; you know the address.

I'm in a beard growing contest right now and it's hard work.
Funny enough we talked this weekend and decided Obama would probably win. Click on my name (clame) for the link.

"I'd say that I was a little impatient, but I don't see where I said anything out of line, or untoward."

To be clear, I'm happy to apologize for perhaps being a bit overly impatient, but "blowing up"?

Isn't this setting the bar a tad low for that description? What's left if I call you a poopie-head?

Well, everyone agrees it will be appallingly ugly. The schadenfreudians will roll around ecstatically in the ugliness, not unlike pigs in poo, just as they do now.
Parenthetically, it’s clear I lack integration into the loop; McCain’s deformities and deceptions are unavoidable and multiplying in the public eye, yet there he is; the presumptive candidate still in stately, if incoherent, procession toward the ultimate contest, threatening to perpetuate and intensify the depth and stink of the fecal pool into which America continues to sink. I fail to grasp how such a tarnished figure is able to maintain his status of hero of those facing the loss of their franchise. Truly a Teflon™ candidate for our times. How is this possible?
Back OT; the onslaught of viciousness, there is good reason to hope, will show Obama to excellent advantage as someone standing immovably on higher ground, able to calmly demonstrate thoughtful command of the field. By such circumstances he will prove himself the steadier hand at the helm, a vividly superior captain to guide the ship of state. By such means he will prove himself a trustworthy leader.

Donald Johnson: "I had mixed feelings about it"

We have somewhat different perspectives, of course, but keeping in mind that he's addressing a Jewish audience, and trying to reassure them, rather than delivering a formal policy address, and, frankly, that campaigning and governing are different things, the only part that bothered me much was as regards Hamas.

It's not entirely clear what question he was responding to, but I take it to be something about talking to Hamas:

[...] OBAMA: And the answer is no. The answer is no and the distinction would be that Hamas is represented in the Palestinian legislature, or it was before the current rift, but they're not the head of state. They are not a recognized government. So I think there is a distinction to be drawn there and a legitimate distinction to be drawn. Now again, going back to my experiences in Israel and the discussions I've had with security officials there, I think that there are communications between the Israeli government and Hamas that may be two or three degrees removed, but people know what Hamas is thinking and what's going on and the point is that with respect to Hamas, you can't have a conversation with somebody who doesn't think you should be on the other side of the table. At the point where they recognize Israel and its right to exist, at the point where they recognize that they are not going to be able to shove their world view down the throats of others but are going to have to sit down and negotiate without resort to violence, then I think that will be a different circumstance.
As I said here the other day, I agree with Efraim Halevy.

But it's not as if many other mainstream U.S. politicians, that I've noticed, are willing to publically agree for now.

Ironically, just today at TPM it was reported that McCain publicly repudiated to the press someone at his rally who kept saying "Barack Hussein Obama!" when talking about him.

He said it was probably coordinated by his campaign and though he didn't personally know the guy, he won't allow it in the future.

There was much in the speech that I liked. What I disliked included the part you quote, and where he defends Israel's response in 2006 and one or two other portions. On Lebanon, he should have said something like "Israel had the right to respond to Hezbollah's attack, but should have taken care not to bomb innocent civilians" or, given that this is an election campaign, at least given some hint that he wasn't totally comfortable with the nature of the response. He does hint that there may be some criticisms of Israel he'd like to make, but he does this by pointing out that the debate is much more open in Israel than here. Does he wait until after he's President before he says what he means?

I'm not sure what sort of sanctions he'd impose on Iran if carrots didn't work--I don't want a repeat of what was done to Iraq. (I'm guessing nothing that harsh would be favored by the UN anyway, but that's just a guess.)

Cleek (12:02): Unfortunately, Mark Helprin the novelist has turned out to be a bit of a wingnut, too. He's more in the Victor Davis Hanson tradition than Mark Halperin, though.

Gary, I don't think Obama necessarily disagreed with Halevy's views as quoted in the article you linked to. Halevy says that Hamas doesn't want direct talks, it wants indirect talks through unofficial agents, probably covert, maybe leading to more down the road. Presumably something like Halevy's successful covert peace talks with Jordan. Obama's remarks, I think, were about direct & open negotiations like the ill-fated Rabin-Arafat talks.

If Halevy is right that even Hamas does not want those, then Obama's remarks have little practical import except to reassure people that he's not actively pro-Arab - which is what he was there to show.

"Unfortunately, Mark Helprin the novelist has turned out to be a bit of a wingnut, too."

"Has turned out"? Like it's some recent surprise? He served in the Israel Defence Forces as a kid, is a life-long conservative, and was a famous speech writer for Bob Dole in 1996. He's been famously writing for conservative publications like , Commentary, National REview, and a fellow at conservative institutes, for more than thirty years.

Some of his political writings:

“What Israel Must Now Do to Survive.” Commentary, November 2001: 25-29.

“What to Do in Afghanistan, and Why.” Wall Street Journal, 3 October 2001: a22.

“We Beat Hitler, We Can Vanquish This Foe Too.” Wall Street Journal, 12 September 2001: a18.

“The Fire Next Time.” Wall Street Journal, 24 April 2001: a24.

“A Way Out of the Wilderness.” Imprimus, January 2001.

“If Bush Wins, Probity Must Win As Well“. OpinionJournal.com, 7 November 2000.

“Renaissance of the Homeless.” OpinionJournal.com, 31 October 2000.

“Tactical Illumination, Middle East.” OpinionJournal.com, 24 October 2000.
“Memos from POTUS.” OpinionJournal.com, 17 October 2000.

“Mr. Clinton’s Army.” Wall Street Journal, 10 October 2000: a26.
“Riderless Horse.” OpinionJournal.com, 3 October 2000.

“New South, New Symbol.” OpinionJournal.com, 26 September 2000.

“Terrorism in the New Century.” OpinionJournal.com, 19 September 2000.
“Touched With Fire.” OpinionJournal.com, 12 September 2000.

“A Compromise on Guns.” OpinionJournal.com, 5 September 2000.

“The Internet’s Inventor Speaks to the VFW.” OpinionJournal.com, 29 August 2000.
“The Death of the Kursk.” OpinionJournal.com, 22 August 2000.

“Democrats’ Dangerous Weakness.” OpinionJournal.com, 15 August 2000.

“A Question for George W. Bush.” OpinionJournal.com, 8 August 2000.
“Defense of the Realm.” Wall Street Journal, 1 August 2000: a23.

“East Wind.” National Review, 20March 2000: 36-43.

“The Uses of Honor.” Wall Street Journal, (6 March 2000: a30.

“Cape and Sword.” Wall Street Journal, 17 December 1999: a14.
“A Fog that Descends from Above.” National Review, 3 May 1999: 41-44.

“The Lesson of the Century.” American Heritage, February/March 1999: 19 (2 pages).
“The War of the Lights.” National Review, 22 February 1999: 34.

“The Soldiers of Calais.” Wall Street Journal, 16 February 1999: a22.

“The Millennium­­­–Getting and Spending.” Wall Street Journal, 11 January 1999: r54.

“As the Military Dissolves.” The American Outlook, Winter 1998. [fusion of essays from www.intellectualcapital.com]

“To the Wavering Republicans.” Wall Street Journal, 11 December 1998: a14.
“God's Eye View.” Forbes ASAP, 30 November 1998: 121.

“A Marshall Plan for Russia.” Wall Street Journal, 9 September 1998: a22.

“My Dear Mr. President.” Wall Street Journal, 25 August 1998: a14.
“Turbulence.” The Jerusalem Report, May 1998: 16.

“Statesmanship and its Betrayal.” Imprimis, April 1998: 1-5.

“Revolution or Dissolution?” Forbes ASAP, 24 February 1998: 87 (16 pages).

“The War of Lights.” National Review, 22 February 1998: 34 (5 pages).

“Even Houdini.” Wall Street Journal, 23 January 1998: a16.

“On The Future of Conservatism.” [Contributor] Commentary, February1997: 27-28.

“Saddam Hussein's Day Off.” Wall Street Journal, 26 November 1997: a14.
“Impeach.” Wall Street Journal, 10 October 1997: a22.

“Crimson Tide. Wall Street Journal, 17 March 1997: a18.

“To Fight for Principle.” Wall Street Journal, 15 January 1997: a16.

“Table of Inflation.” (Poem) Wall Street Journal, 29 November 1996: a6.

“Mr. Clinton's Foreign Policy.” Wall Street Journal, 12 August 1996: a10.
A Spinner of Myths.” Newsweek, 27 May 1996: 37.

“Mr. Vistica's Navy.” Weekly Standard, 25 March 1996: 30-33.
“The Defense of Taiwan.” Wall Street Journal, 7 March 1996: a20.

“GOP Should Beware This Bomb.” Wall Street Journal, 28 February 1996: a15.

“Let Dole Lead.” Wall Street Journal, 2February 1996: a10.

“For A New Concert of Europe.” Commentary, January 1996: 30-46.

“Enchantment in Statist Economics.” Wall Street Journal, 15 January 1996: a12.

“Diversity is Not a Virtue.” In Reinventing The American People: Unity And Diversity Today, ed. Robert Royal (Ethics And Public Policy Center; William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995), 71-75.

“The National Prospect: a Symposium.” (Contributor) Commentary, November 1995: 23 (3 pages).

“What To Do About Terrorism, Really.” Wall Street Journal, 10 May 1995: a14.

“To the New Congressional Majority.” Wall Street Journal, 3 January 1995: a8.

“Diversity is Not a Virtue.” Wall Street Journal, (25 November 1994: a8.

“A Soldier of the Not Great War.” Wall Street Journal, 20 September 1994: a22.

“My Brilliant Korea.” Wall Street Journal, 25July 1994: a14.

“ School for Scandal.” Wall Street Journal, 25 March 1994: a8.

“Stay Out of Bosnia.” Wall Street Journal, 9September 1993: a20.

“Rodney Dangerfield Meets I-601.” Wall Street Journal, 9 July 1993. [unsigned editorial]

“Military Reality in Yugoslavia.” Wall Street Journal, 6 May 1993: a10.

“My Wife as Attorney General. ” Wall Street Journal, (9 February 1993: a16.

“At Rest Between the Wars.” The Congressional Record, 28 January 1993: S881-S885. [speech originally delivered at the United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, October 15, 1992]

“The Way Out of the Wilderness.” Wall Street Journal, 11 November 1992: a10.

“Why Bush Will Win.” Wall Street Journal, 27 October 1992: a16.

“I Dodged The Draft, and I Was Wrong.” Wall Street Journal, 16 October 1992: a14.

“I Dodged The Draft and I Was Wrong.” Human Events, 3 October 1992: 14.

“Of Conventions and Courage.” Wall Street Journal, 19 August 1992: a12.

“Green Eggs and Ham.” Wall Street Journal, 27 April 1992. [unsigned editorial]
“Baker Should Resign.” Wall Street Journal, 15 April 1992: a20.

“Mr. Dooley on New Hampshire.” Wall Street Journal, 18 February 1992: a20.

“This Cease-fire in Yugoslavia Has A Better Shot.” Wall Street Journal, 15 January 1992: a12.

“The Power of Russia Alone.” Wall Street Journal, 27 December 1991: a10.

“Inspectors vs. Epicures.” Wall Street Journal, 11 November 1991. [unsigned editorial]

“A Palestinian State With Full Israeli Security.” Wall Street Journal, 26 September 1991: a18.

“The Battle Won, The War Lost.” Wall Street Journal, 3 July 1991: a6.

“Europe Hasn't Seen The End Of War.” Wall Street Journal, 31 May 1991: a12.

“The One Great Lesson of The War.” Wall Street Journal, 26 February 1991: a14.

“Strategy for a Ground Attack.” Wall Street Journal, 18 January 1991: a8.

“Iraq: A Military Analysis.” Wall Street Journal, 7 December 1990: a14.

“Washington Lays a Budget Egg.” Wall Street Journal, 23 October 1990: a18.

“The Gulf as Prelude to a Soviet Coup.” Wall Street Journal, 2 October 1990: a26.

“Notice To Iraq: Hostage-taking is a War Crime.” Wall Street Journal, 23 August 1990: a14.

“Saddam In The Shadow of His Undoing.” Wall Street Journal, 6 August 1990: a12

“A Single Bullet.” Wall Street Journal, 12 January 1990: a12.

“The Russian Reformation.” Wall Street Journal, (28 April 1989: a14.

“Hypnotist Gorbachev Conjures an Arms Reduction.” Wall Street Journal, 13 December 1988: a20.

“War In Europe: Thinking the Unthinkable.” Wall Street Journal, 1 November 1988: a28.

“Dukakis and Deweyism.” Wall Street Journal, 1 August 1988: a16.

“American Jews and Israel: A Symposium.” [Contributor] Commentary, February 1988.

“The Imperial Congress.” Wall Street Journal, 9 April 1987: a32.

“Is Separate Stronger?” The New York Times Book Review, 9 November 1986: 11.

“Harvard's Point of Order.” Wall Street Journal, 12 March 1986: a34.

“The Centipede Primps for Geneva.” Wall Street Journal, 18 November 1985.

“Making Sense of Intelligence.” Wall Street Journal, 7 November 1985.

“Italy's No Less an Ally for Having Let Abbas Go.” Wall Street Journal, 17 October 1985.

“America as Hostage: Lessons from Iran.” Wall Street Journal, 1 July 1985.

“The Middle East: Polemic in a Peanut Shell.” Wall Street Journal, 15 April 1985.

“Drawing The Line In Europe: The Case For Missile Deployment.” New York Times Magazine, 4 December 1983: 52-64.

“American Jews & Israel: Seizing a New Opportunity.” The New York Times Magazine, 7 October 1982.

“What Transit Strike?” The New York Times, 21 March 1980.

When would you say people noticed that he "turned out" to hold these views?

Gary's bibliography is longer than anyone else's.

"Gary's bibliography is longer than anyone else's."

I figured I'd leave off the last seven years.

Uh, I think maybe cutting and pasting 20 years worth of references is perhaps a bit over the top and as annoying as hell to have to scroll past. The point could easily have been made with a few references and a link, no?

I figured I'd leave off the last seven years.

trans: Even if you think yours is longer, it's not.

Richard Pryor's joke about the two brothers peeing off a bridge comes to mind.

Deep, LJ

Gary, I was aware of that. "Has turned out" and "a bit of" were my poor attempts at wistful sarcasm... although I do think Helprin has gotten nuttier over time; at least I remember him pre-2001 having been more of a garden-variety conservative with an occasional Hansonian flight of rhetoric.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad