Tin ear?

Let's move political news to the Style section, how 'bout it? That's what we're getting, anyway. I guess the New York Times feels it has to keep up with Robin Givhan's vacuous pieces in the Washington Post. It's a race to the bottom all right, but who's bottom?

I suppose it's possible that Mark Leibovich has a pitch-perfect ear for politics and that everything he writes about the atmospheres of the Democrats' rallies provides us with deep insight into their meaning. I suppose it's possible that the Beltway conventional wisdom reflected by his story is 100% spot on.

Possible, but not likely. Here's the last paragraph, in regard to a conversation with Pervez Musharraf:

“We also talked about the importance of the upcoming elections,” Mr. Edwards said, meaning, presumably, in Pakistan, not Iowa.

Why would anyone presume that? Wouldn't it make more sense to think that Edwards was talking about both elections, that he was talking about change coming and telling Musharraf that he had better be on the democratic side of that change?

Or is that just too damn complicated?

Duhbya "truly is somebody who believes in democracy"

Pervez Musharraf believes in democracy, just not for Pakistanis. Like our Dear Leader.

What they do, not what they say

Sheryl Gay Stolberg is completely captive of the Bushist narrative. She starts out with the assumption that their propaganda is unassailable fact.

Duhbya is not interested in democracy, not in the Middle East, not in Russia, not in Pakistan, and not even at home. He never has been interested beyond his own and Karl Rove's ability to manipulate democratic institutions. The voters are onto him now. Who knows whether the press will ever come along.

Duhbya's use of democracy is as propaganda for the consumption of voters and the press. Like the flag, democracy is popular as a slogan. Duhbya used it that way as a pretext for accretion of power through war.

I'm sure Karl Rove will take this to his grave, and we won't get confirmation, but I believe that Rove's shallow analysis of history convinced him that WWII was the tipping point that made FDR's majority permanent. He thought that Iraq would finally reverse the New Deal and what came after once and for all.