Michael Tomasky

Michael Tomasky is the American editor-at-large of the Guardian (UK). He was executive editor of the Prospect from 2003 to 2006.

Recent Articles


THAT WAS THEN. So I woke up in the middle of the night and flicked on TCM. And there was The Shoes of the Fisherman, the 1968 Michael Anderson-lensed (as they say in Variety) adaptation of the famous Morris West novel about the ascension of the first Eastern European Pope.

I was transfixed. I remember both novel and film being much discussed in my house when I was a kid, although I don�t really remember anyone�s opinions. I think I recall my late, beloved Aunt Vicky, who was the devout Catholic among our extended clan, speaking of it approvingly. Which is interesting for the following reasons.


DICK MORRIS IS RIGHT!! He has this column in The Hill saying that Lieberman should forego the Democratic primary entirely and just run as an Independent, and that if he did so, he would win �overwhelmingly.�

GUTSY. Note that...

GUTSY. Note that on the flag-burning amendment, Robert Byrd voted against.

Even though he�s from red West Virginia. Even though Jay Rockefeller voted yea. Even though he�s involved in a potentially tough reelection campaign against a simian blowhard from my hometown named John Raese who will demagogue this to death. Even though virtually every other Democrat facing an election this year -- especially those from red states, and even one from a blue state (Bob Menendez) -- voted yeah. (The roll call is here.) Even though Byrd could have been the 67th and thus decisive vote in favor.


OCCAM�S RAZOR EXPLANATION. I think, Ezra, it�s all simpler than that.

They invaded Iraq. They didn�t expect a problem. They got a problem. Now they want out. But they want out provided two conditions are met in the process: 1. They can do it in such a way to make the Democrats look weak; 2. They can time it so as to maximize electoral benefit from announcement of withdrawal.


MORE ON FEELINGS AND STUFF. See, I read Brooks� column yesterday in a kind of light spirit, which I thought he intended (while recognizing, of course, the subtle conservative subtext, which David always sneaks in toward the end of such ruminative columns). Now, Linda H. comes along to remind me that there�s nothing light about these questions at all, that I�ve fallen into Brooks� well-sprung trap, and am only demonstrating that, when it comes to the phrase �male liberal,� the first word is fated always to pulverize the second.