Comments on: NSA Program Headed To Court

By: dmac

dmac — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 01:55:39 +0000

The story I’ve heard is that every time they did a readership survey, Hunt was ranked dead last on columnists who were read regularly – perhaps they gave up trying to replace that POV, since the guy before him was completely awful at times.

I actually prefer Brooks to Safire’s hot air, though – and I still miss Russell Baker and Anthony Lewis from the left tilt at the NYT.

By: peter

peter — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 18:41:55 +0000

True — just as David Brooks gets op-ed space in the Times — however the logical question is why the Journal never replaced Al Hunt with someone of a similar viewpoint –

By: dmac

dmac — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:06:07 +0000

Don’t forget the many years that they gave a leftward – leaning column on the inside cover of the back page of the edit section, which Al Hunt appeared in every week. Major exposure for that type of viewpoint.

By: peter

peter — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 02:04:05 +0000

I’ve read the Journal (including the editorial page) nearly every day for the past twenty years — and I think it is as good a newspaper as any (including the Times, although it has a much different mission than the Times) — but I think the editorial page is pretty shrill. I went to today’s paper for examples, but the three editorials are about the Republicans and K Street, Hillary Clinton, and George Pataki. So editorials one and three did not concern Democrats or the left, and the Clinton piece was blunt but not especially shrill. This could be an eye of the beholder thing — you may find the Times editorial page shrill, while I think it is eminently reasonable.

As for the rest of the Journal: always first-rate, always well-written, always compelling. Can’t live without it.

As for Bob Novak: this guy is just full of bile. My guess is that even people in his own family don’t like him.

By: dmac

dmac — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:44:47 +0000

Peter – there’s no way that you could have been a regular reader of the WSJ edit page, if you honestly believe that the content entails as such. If not, please give examples to the contrary.

Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O’Reilly are idiots, but no one here takes them seriously. But Novak? The man’s got some serious props as a journalist over the years; I’ve been reading him for over 20 years now in the Sun -Times (quite a Lefty paper here for most of it’s ownership), and no matter what you may think of his politics, his record as a reporter is unmatched.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 01:10:04 +0000

peter, I don’t think the Wall Street Journal editorial page belongs in that group, nor Bob Novak, for that matter…it’s a long way down from those two to Coulter….

By: peter

peter — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:31:17 +0000

I think it is more than a little disingenuous to suggest that shrillness comes exclusively from the left – Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Bob Novak, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and most right wing blogs are nothing if not shrill – Karl Rove suggesting that conservatives reacted to 9/11 with manly assertiveness and liberals reacted with tea and sympathy is shrill – Dick Cheney suggesting that people who oppose his policies are unsupportive of the troops or treasonous is shrill – so there is plenty of shrillness to go around.

As for the suggestion that Democrats invariably place their political fortunes about national security: this is a proposition so absurd that no thinking person ever conceived it.

By: Clint

Clint — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:05:05 +0000

PMain-

What makes you think that a trial is going to “shut the shrillness of the left up”???

Every motion hearing in Ronny Earl’s case against Tom Delay has been met with a barage of shrillness… as, I expect, will every step in Fitzgerald’s case against Libby. I’d guess that this case will be much the same.

By: PMain

PMain — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:31:54 +0000

I wish I could share your optimism, but I have yet to see the Democrats apply the country’s need over their desire to regain political power in anything lately. So unless the Republicans actually start acting like they are the majority & authorize it so no vital intelligence is lost, the Liberals will use whatever means they can to halt something that seems like a common sense approach to National Security. I do however agree that I’d almost prefer to have it go to court & have it be defined as legal or not – just to shut the shrillness of the left up for a minute or 2.

By: Anonymous Liberal

Anonymous Liberal — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:43:57 +0000

I’m shocked. That’s about the most reasonable paragraph I’ve read from a conservative blogger on this issue since the story first broke. Good job. Just as legal matter, though, if this case gets to the SCOTUS, I think it’s unlikely the focus will be on any constitutional questions. The 4th amendment is only a secondary issue here (maybe not even an issue at all) and the administration’s Art. II/inherent authority argument is remarkably weak. The real issue here is whether the AUMF somehow authorized the president to conduct this program, and that’s an issue of pure statutory interpretation. I suspect that if SCOTUS is asked to address anything, that will be it.