Friday, March 05, 2004

Of Note: National

Peggy Noonan seems to find most politicians weird. Not that I can blame her. Here’s a snippet from her most recent op-ed, in which she notes the odd mimicry of JFK by many Democrats:

"If you saw a generation of Republican candidates doing a physical imitation of Ronald Reagan or George Bush the elder, would you find it weird? I think you would. The only person in politics who has ever tried to morph himself into Ronald Reagan was Al Gore in his first debate with George W. Bush. He even wore makeup that echoed the heightened color of Mr. Reagan's cheeks. He wound up looking not like Mr. Reagan but like a turn-of-the-century madam in a San Francisco whorehouse, but that's not important. What's important is the jarring weirdness of seeing one politician trying to make you unconsciously experience him as another politician."

And her weirdness analysis isn’t limited to the candidates:

Mark Leibovich of the Washington Post did a brilliant and rather too detail-rich profile of [Teresa Heinz] last summer [linked to here; more discussion of Heinz here]. People didn't know she considered her late husband, John Heinz, to be her real husband until then. It was startling, and delightful. She hasn't given an indiscreet interview since. But she will. Before that, however, there will be a series of long and glowing interviews from big media reporters who a) need to foster a relationship with a possible future first lady, and b) want to be the first to change the narrative line from "known crazy woman" to "colorful, earthy and authentic presence--and secret power in the campaign."

Much has been written about the fascinating insights coming from Justice Blackmun’s papers. But particularly wonderful are Harold Koh’s interviews, excerpts of which can be viewed in the “oral history” section of this Washington Post article.

There’s been a slight rumbling about Bill Clinton as the next vice president, spawned from this NY Times op-ed by NYU professor Stephen Gillers. However, John Eastman of Chapman Law (and a U of C Law alum, my pride demands me to add) provides a quick smack-down of this possibility. Eastman's argument isn't based on politics, but on the Constitution. What a concept.

Speaking of the Constitution, if you don’t like the current marriage amendment, consider this alternative, proposed by Senator Hatch.

And lastly, both Maureen Dowd at the NY Times and Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic seem to think that calling an op-ed “See Dick Run” is clever, even if they're talking about two different people. This serves as a reminder that there are Dicks in both parties. I leave you with that to ponder.

No comments:

Blog Archive