Let's go article by article in its first issue of the year.
In Sarah Higley's "350 Protest Rove's Speech, Conduct Citizen's Arrest," the errors are truly egregious.
Even if one takes the position that a citizen's arrest is proper, the title alone is misleading. They "attempted to conduct" rather than conducted a citizen's arrest.
If they had checked with the Claremont police department or basically any introductory constitutional law book, they would know what Claremont Police Lieutenant Shelly Vander Veen described in the Claremont Courier.“This knowledge [must] come by means of being a witness immediately present during the acts or a victim and this knowledge cannot come from browsing the Internet, watching television, or reading books. No such evidence was presented to the police.”
If Higley were an actual reporter, she'd contact someone with knowledge about the law rather than taking the disreputable Paul Waters-Smith at his word.
Ms. Higley continues by failing to note that the pepper spray is alleged. She reports it as if it were true. She finds that supposed objectivity when she says incredulously that the "bomb threat may or may not have been related to the protest."
She fails to critical ask what Darryl Smith, a professor at Pomona, was doing at the protest in the first place. It is assumed that it is both appropriate and normal for a Pomona professor to lecture at the protest.
She also uncritically examines the question of whether or not the group organized in just six days when documents they have released online suggests otherwise.
If that article were poor, "Karl Rove Speaks at CMC's Athenaeum," by Rio Bauce and Leah Wald, News Associate and Staff Writer, is even more inaccurate.
September 16 WAS NOT the date of the talk as the lede indicates.
The authors write that "Rove criticized the Barack Obama and John McCain for what he called improper vice-presidential selection." Rove did no such thing. He simply commented that this election may be the first since 1960 in which the choice of a vice presidential pick matters.
They also write, that "Rove said that Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, and to a lesser extent Virginia are the battleground states." On the contrary, Rove said that those initial three states were NOT swing states at all. Even the most basic check on the polls would show that this statement could not have been true.
The article also quotes a random protestor from Ontario, CA instead of a single Claremont conservative.
The debate in Mississippi will occur tonight, according to Politico.com. As always, you can expect yours truly to attend both the debate watching session and to enter the quiz bowl session immediately after.
I promise not to heckle too loudly, but I may have to make an exception for the student supporters of Barack Obama, who I am told had to be pressured by the Claremont Democrats to watch the debate with us, the college Republicans. So much for the kind of bipartisan unity that their deified candidate seems to hold out as America's salvation.
Before I weigh in to discussing debates, I might first make a few observations on the role of debates generally and this debate in particular.
Might I first say that I am happy that such a debate is occurring at Ole Miss for two reasons.
The first reason is that it won't be held in a swing state and so you can expect little of the usual pandering the goes on about how great the people of Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin are. Having visited every swing state in contention save Colorado, I must say that the supposed ordinary folk of these places seem like any other ordinary folk throughout our great country and are probably embarrassed by the level of pandering that goes on for their much coveted vote.
The second and far more important consideration is the question of race and politics. Though the race question has all but been eliminated in modern contemporary life, at least as far as black Americans are concerned, it gives me special glee to see Barack Obama, the child of a union between a black African and a white Kansas speaking at the same university that 46 years ago rioted over the attendance of James Meredith, a black undergraduate. Now I happen to believe that the bag of political goodies that Obama promises with our wallets will ultimately end up hurting all Americans, I enjoy the idea of a university that once barred a black student from accepting a black presidential candidate on its campus. Indeed, a high-ranking Democratic Senator and later governor, Theodore Bilbo, once said on the Senate floor an anti-lynching bill he held up,
If you succeed in the passage of this bill, you will open the floodgates of hell in the South. Raping, mobbing, lynching, race riots, and crime will be increased a thousandfold; and upon your garments and the garments of those who are responsible for the passage of the measure will be the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie, as well as the blood of the perpetrators of these crimes that the red-blooded Anglo-Saxon white Southern men will not tolerate.
Bilbo was a Klansman and a Democrat and his brand of racism all but surely disqualified him of all the honor and nobility that national office affords, just as I hope Obama's fascination with racist rhetoric and successful and attempted use of the race card against Bill Clinton and John McCain, respectively stops his political ambition short. In part, I sincerely hope and pray that Obama is unmasked to the American public tonight.
Debate often has a way of showing the faultiness of the other side, as Professor Kesler makes clear in his recent Claremont Review of Books's editor's note, "A Righteous Wind." Professor Kesler rightly notes that the debate format has gotten a bit tired as of late and the sorts of debates between Douglas and Lincoln seem unlikely in our sound bite culture.
You learn something from watching debates, of course, though the point of diminishing returns sets in well short of the 50th encounter, much less the thousandth. The irony is that Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were not running for president. They were pursuing a Senate seat from Illinois (though, thanks in part to their debates, each became a nominee for president two years later). Forensic skill is an asset for a senator, who debates with his colleagues on the Senate floor. The president never has to debate anyone.
Kesler continues,
These forums may prove important, but as a general rule you learn more from listening to and—especially—from reading the contenders' major speeches than from tuning in to the debates. Presidents do have to give speeches, so there is a vocational relevance; and the format is conducive to extended argument and cultivated style, which modern press-conference-style debates manifestly are not.
Kesler turns to an analysis of the speech giving styles and content of the two presidential candidates, which is interesting, but makes me long for the better days of Reagan-esque pronouncements. As if to read my mind, I noticed that Professor Pitney has said what both candidates can learn from Reagan. (h/t: Chris Jones of The Rose Report.)
He says that Reagan's take down of Carter can give Obama direction, but here I would have to disagree. The reason Reagan appealed to Main Street was that he was a product of it. He fundamentally understood and loved America -- the idea and the people. Simply listen to this speech.
The American people do not want giant government programs that reduce them to numbers or empty their wallets, while sparing them temporary pain. They know that times are tough, but a quiet honor compels them to look askance at those who offer them panaceas for contrived ailments. As such, they will reject Obama and tonight will be the turning point.
