« May 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
September 15, 2007
"Suspension of Disbelief": What Did Hillary Mean, Exactly?
In a post at Right Wing Nuthouse Rick Moran misquotes, I believe, Hillary Clinton during her questioning of General Petraeus. Rick says (emphases mine):
There is very little disagreement that Moveon’s smear job against General Petraeus actually turned the tide and put the anti-war Democrats on the defensive while rallying and energizing the GOP base to support the General’s plan for Iraq. And Giuliani, seeing the opportunity to exploit that stupidity, emerged by week’s end as the General’s most visible champion by buying his own ad in the Times savaging both Moveon and Hillary Clinton, whose statement that in order to believe the General you would have to “suspend belief” seemed to dovetail with the anti-war group’s message.
But everywhere else I've seen Hillary quoted as mentioning the "the willing suspension of disbelief". Indeed, further down Rick's post he quotes Hillary using "disbelief". But I think Rick's first (erroneous) quotation was probably what Hillary meant to say: if one suspends disbelief, doesn't that leave only the opposite option, that is, to believe? I think he just reworded it subconsciously to read correctly.
The first time I read the "suspension of disbelief" line it sounded like a double negative, but no one else has commented on it.
September 04, 2007
Lanny Davis Endorses Ted Olsen For AG
The fact that Lanny Davis is a hyper-partisan liberal attack dog is widely know from his Clinton administration days. He is universally described as a smart guy, and so that's about where my opinion of him rested: a smart guy who's gone over to the dark side.
But his recent endorsement (from Kathy Lopez at The Corner) of Ted Olsen as a potential replacement for Alberto Gonzales has deepened my respect for him. One of the prime checkpoints for me granting a high level of respect is the ability for an opponent to acknowledge 1) his own side's failings or 2) the admirable qualities of his ideological opponents. Davis' endorsement of Olsen is an unselfish tribute to Olsen's intellectual honesty, and if we had more of that honesty we'd all be a lot better off.
There are three important reasons why I believe President Bush should nominate Ted Olson to be attorney general — despite my strong disagreements with him both politically and philosophically.First, based on my experience with him on the Civil Liberties and Privacy Board and my many conversations with him over the years, I believe he is 100 percent intellectually honest. By that I mean, he applies the same standards of analysis and applies the same set of principles to each issue, regardless of whether the outcome will be a liberal one or a conservative one. [...]
Second, he is extremely smart — and by smart, I mean the ability to pierce through the weeds, get to the core issues quickly, analyze first, second and third levels of issues to see the subtleties and nuances of complicated matters, and reach well-grounded conclusions. [...]
Third, while he feels strongly about his principles, I can say from personal experience that he is a good listener — and sometimes (though I must say rarely) even I was able to change his mind or slightly influence him to reassess his position. In short, while he is a strongly principled conservative, he is also intellectually open-minded and open to new ideas and new interpretations of the facts. [...]
Davis goes on to say that his fellow liberals should stand down with their partisan protests, because a president (Democrat or Republican) should be allowed to make his or her own choices for these kind of appointments.
I'll be extending Mr. Davis a little more respect in the future.
