Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« November 2003 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
foolishness
gloating
jerk fellation
LEGO
politics
schadenfreude
sports
Stinktown
work
We Three Jerks
Thursday, 6 November 2003
Au Contraire, Mon Frere
T-Bone sez:
Democrats cannot and should not intend to compete for the south by appealing to cultural values
Obviously, Bill Clinton's primary issue in '92 was the economy, but he knew that he had to send signals to Southern whites that he wasn't just a dope-smoking Harvard hippie - he was also the first white-trash president since Andy Jackson.

First, you have the Ricky Rector case, where Clinton presided over the execution of a retard. For those of you who don't remember, Rector tried unsuccessfully to kill himself, and was left with an IQ around 65. Before being led to his execution, he left the pie from his last meal "for later". Second, there was the Sister Souljah affair, where Clinton bashed a black female rapper who had made anti-white comments, humiliating Jesse Jackson in the process. Even Bush the Elder knew this. When running in 1988, he professed a love for pork rinds. Not bad for a Yalie.

I'm not saying Dean should come out against affirmative action, but a few token gestures might be enough to offset his pot-smoking, draft-dodging, Yale-educated, Aspen-skiing, know-it-all Yankee, son-of-a-stockbroker image. The lunatic fringe of the Democratic party isn't going anywhere. Those feminist types didn't take long to ditch their principles and defend Clinton, and neither did the blacks abandon our "first black president".

I think there is an opening on the foriegn policy front. Maybe Dean could criticize Bush on his dealings with Saudi Arabia. Stand a bunch of Muslim bigwigs behind him and call them terrorists. He's got to do something, because he's looking at carrying 6 or 7 states at this point.

Marc

Posted by thynkhard at 12:26 PM EST
Post Comment | View Comments (4) | Permalink

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 1:01 PM EST

Name: Shawn

Here's a comment from some dude at Brookings (via Instapundit)


"The Democratic Party as a whole, and most of its presidential candidates, are making three consistent mistakes in their otherwise generally fair critiques of Bush administration policy in Iraq. These mistakes should be corrected. If they are not, Democrats will be less effective as constructive critics of President Bush now, and will probably fare worse in national elections next fall.

The first mistake is to argue that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were not a serious concern before the war. The second is that somehow Bush administration unilateralism has been the principal cause of our current problems on the ground in Iraq. And the third is the assumption, explicit or implicit, that the Iraq mission will remain just as difficult as it is today right through general election time next year."

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 3:29 PM EST

Name: Tony

Shawn: I think the Brookings quote is dead on. My opinion, in short, is that the Democrats are looking at an uphill battle in terms of the Iraq war because they have staked out a position that is inherently wrong.

Thursday, 6 November 2003 - 6:23 PM EST

Name: Shawn

I've got that feeling too, especially from some of the things that Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan post on a regular basis that get overlooked by the mainstream media (the success stories). I'm just so excited about the possibility of something resembling a democracy in the Middle East.

At this point it doesn't seem too much of an unlikely possiblity for both the state of the economy and foreign policy to improve a year from now. Significantly. However, I'm not completely behind Bush. Like so many others who tend towards Libertarianism, Bush's spending record is atrocious. And, as Geo. Will noted, Dean has at least mentioned the idea of reforming SSI; Bush doesn't seem to be about anything but leaving it alone (as far as I know).

Friday, 7 November 2003 - 12:20 PM EST

Name: Tony

Marc rails against Bush's spend-stravaganza all the time. I think Bush has suported partial privitaization of SSI. What the hell that means is anybody's guess. I think it entailed putting the payroll tax deductions that normally go into the SSI fund and placing them in private investment portfolios. However, I think it was the government who made the decisions about where the money went. So, you know, a step, but not quite there.

View Latest Entries