Why is Bob Novak allowed to write columns?

I've had it with Novak. Aside from being generally supportive of the administration and outing Valarie Plame, what function does Bob Novak serve? It's definitely not journalism. Check out this passage:

"I've got this down,'' Michael Chertoff boasted to aides last weekend as he staved off questions on television about handling the Katrina disaster. It turned out that the secretary of Homeland Security did not begin to have it ''down'' when he subsequently was interrogated by Tim Russert on NBC's ''Meet the Press.'' Chertoff's miserable performance on the air reflected a fiasco at all levels of government.

Novak may have a point somewhere, but this is the most ass-backwards way of coming around to it I've ever seen. You're drawing our attention to a television interview to point out a problem? Hey here's a thought: watch any coverage actually coming out of the Gulf Coast. The story is in New Orleans. Chertoff's trouble stonewalling Russert is not the story. I can see making a case that Chertoff looked like an imbicile (I don't know, I never saw the interview in question) who was insufficiently prepared for disasters, but if that's your point, then just say it. What is this beating around the bush nonsense?

Second, and this is important: how does one man's interview reflect on the numerous agencies who responded to the disaster? Chertoff is an imbicile, ergo thousands of people in dozens of agencies are responsible. No, that doesn't follow. The best I can guess about this obtuse take is guess that Novak is trying to work in the Republican talking-points about failures at the lower levels of government. Again: if you want to argue that some agency has done a poor job, point to something substantial, failures to achieve goals, unresponsiveness, dead bodies, there's plenty to pick from. But a bad interview by the Director of Homeland Security does not reflect poorly on the police officers of New Orleans. They're unrelated.

Chertoff's inexperience was shown when he said ''I've got this down'' into an open microphone, thinking he was safe because the cameras were off and not realizing his words were transmitted via satellite. He clearly saw himself as an advocate tailoring what he said to a lawyer's brief.

Actually Bob, his inexperience was shown by not having an adequate disaster plan ready to implement. It is shown by in sending a hospital ship from Baltimore to New Orleans on the Friday after the hurricane. When help arrives 10 days after the disater, you didn't do a good job. What happens with a microphone is utterly irrelevant. If Chertoff were a microphone genius, he'd still be a bad Director of Homeland Security. And to test the inverse, if he'd been a good director and implemented a plan to save lives, but still fucked up the mike...we wouldn't be talking about his inexperience.

Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut is more liberal than nearly all his fellow Republicans, but he has tried to be a Bush loyalist. He is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and chairs the national security subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee. Consequently, it is noteworthy when he accuses the administration of ''a real sense of arrogance. Loyalty and never admitting a mistake matters more than the truth. It has a Nixon feel to me.

What is he trying to say here? The most liberal Republican is taking shots at the administration? It's a bad scene, but not a really bad scene? This isn't someone relating a story, this is someone taking a shot at Chris Shays. I can't imagine a less flattering way to portray somone to the Connecticut voters. Allow me to repeat the above paragraph with editorial read-betwee-the-lines.

Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut is more liberal than nearly all his fellow Republicans [Attention CT Conservatives: this guy is a bad Republican and should be voted out in a primary], but he has tried to be a Bush loyalist [Attention CT Liberals: Shays tries to be the president's bootlicker, isn't that annoying? Don't support him. Special Note to conservatives: Shays only tried to be a bootlicker, evidently he sometimes fails. We can do better.] He is a member of the Homeland Security Committee and chairs the national security subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee. [Half of this shit is probably his fault] Consequently, it is noteworthy when he accuses the administration of ''a real sense of arrogance. Loyalty and never admitting a mistake matters more than the truth. It has a Nixon feel to me."

No mention that outspoken criticism of his own party is nothing new for Shays. Nothing about how he opposed changes to the House ethics rules, and clamored for a stop to Delay's corruption. No mention of those, because they would be positive things to say about Shay. Instead we get the impression that Shays is kind of a wishy-washy guy who's now saying mean things. I wonder if this hatchet-job is payback for Shays taking on Delay.

Overall, I can't tell if Novak is deliberately finding the weakest arguments possible or if he's just an idiot. But let's not rule out the possibility of both. The theme of this article is that we need more competent officials. I agree with that %100, but this article doesn't have any legitimate evidence to back up the assertions. What it says is Chertoff messed up on TV, there was a disaster, Democrats are politicizing, and some Republicans are mad, therefore Chertoff might not be the best director. I guess when you live in a world of press and spin, these carry more weight than the reality that Chertoff is bad for the job because he didn't prepare or respond sufficiently and people died.