the Republican Party may no longer be a normal party. Over the past few years, it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative.
The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise, no matter how sweet the terms. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch in order to cut government by a foot, they will say no. If you ask them to raise taxes by an inch to cut government by a yard, they will still say no.
Yet today, Brooks is calling Obama a “sap” for not trying harder to win over the party that Brooks just a few months ago said would not compromise, “no matter how sweet the terms.”
I’m not sure if today’s column is pure chutzpa or just Brooks attempting to get back in good favor with Republican party brokers.
Either way, Andrew Sullivan is all over it.
Reuters reports on the latest bone-headed idea from PETA:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, no stranger to attention-grabbing campaigns featuring nude women, plans to launch a pornography website in the name of animal rights.
The nonprofit organization, whose controversial campaigns draw criticism from women’s rights groups, said it hopes to raise awareness of veganism through a mix of pornography and graphic footage of animal suffering.
“We’re hoping to reach a whole new audience of people, some of whom will be shocked by graphic images that maybe they didn’t anticipate seeing when they went to the PETA triple-X site,” said Lindsay Rajt, PETA’s associate director of campaigns.
That leads PZ Myers to wonder:
I am trying to visualize the kind of people who would be drawn to a site featuring naked women and tortured animals”¦and no, those aren’t the people I’d want to associate with. It sounds like it might be popular with serial killers, anyway. Is that the audience they want?
Will PETA’s latest stunt disprove the bad publicity is better than no publicity axiom?
First of all, Bill Clinton knew how to win the big prize (twice). He also knew how to let his adversaries beat themselves. (Think Gingrich.) True, Clinton was his own worst enemy, as the Monica episode demonstrated. But there’s no disputing his “intellectual and tactical nimbleness,” which Joe Klein wrote about in this 2003 Time column.
So the climate concerned community might want to think about Bubba’s recent advice on how to win the climate battle.
During a debate last week for Republican presidential candidates and in interviews after it, Representative Michele Bachmann called the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer “dangerous.” Medical experts fired back quickly. Her statements were false, they said, emphasizing that the vaccine is safe and can save lives. Mrs. Bachmann was soon on the defensive, acknowledging that she was not a doctor or a scientist
But the harm to public health may have already been done. When politicians or celebrities raise alarms about vaccines, even false alarms, vaccination rates drop.
“These things always set you back about three years, which is exactly what we can’t afford,” said Dr. Rodney E. Willoughby, a professor of pediatrics at the Medical College of Wisconsin and a member of the committee oninfectious diseases of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The academy favors use of the vaccine, as do other medical groups and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Denise Grady in today’s NYT, on what will be the defining legacy of Bachmann’s 2012 run for the Republican Presidential nomination.
I’m already having flashbacks to the angry shouting matches Nader’s nihilism triggered between editors (including myself) at Audubon magazine, where I worked at the time of the 2000 election.