Greg Easterbrook is my hero: read this.
Marc
« | September 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 |
Marc
Though mild clear weather
Smile again on the shire of your esteem
And its colours come back, the storm has changed you:
You will not forget, ever,
The darkness blotting out hope, the gale
Prophesying your downfall.
You must live with your knowledge.
Way back, beyond, outside of you are others,
In moonless absences you never heard of,
Who have certainly heard of you,
Beings of unknown number and gender:
And they do not like you.
What have you done to them?
Nothing? Nothing is not an answer:
You will come to believe - how can you help it? -
That you did, you did do something;
You will find yourself wishing you could make them laugh,
You will long for their friendship.
There will be no peace.
Fight back, then, with such courage as you have
And every unchivalrous dodge you know of,
Clear in your conscience on this:
Their cause, if they had one, is nothing to them now;
They hate for hate's sake.
--W. H. Auden
Marc
Democrats seem to get excited by candidates who don't know if they want to run, (see Mario Cuomo), but all Cuomo ever proved to be was a giant pain in the ass. If you want to be president, you've gotta want it, no questions asked. It's a humiliating, exhausting, mind-bogglin experience, and if you have any kind of chance, you can't allow yourself doubts. I'd rather have a candidate who knows what he wants and is willing to get it, then a diva who needs to be assured that his ass will be kissed by everyone he speaks to before he will even consider honoring his country by running for president.
Clark isn't the only candidate who's got supporters out there, despite their unknown (or in this case known) intentions. People want Gore. (Although, Gore may have set this site up himself, I haven't heard what he's been up to lately.)
The Gore website points to a recent Zogby poll indicating that people, by a 52 to 40 margin (8 undecided) think someone new deserves to be reelected. This is a typical polling question at about this point in the election cycle, but the results are a little misleading. Americans are both leary of extended stints in power, and naturally optimistic. As long as the question is status quo versus what might be, Americans tend to lean toward what might be. Until a pollster puts a opponents name in the question. Then, the President's record can be measured against something concrete (his potential opponents record) instead of whoever the respondent has in mind at the time of the question. Also, the other candidates negatives will drive up the Presidetns number. Right now 52% of the respondents think someone deserves to be elected. Replace that with a name (Dean, Kerry, Gephardt...) and that number's going down.
Since today is the 2nd anniversary of 9/11, and I'm such a stickler for flag etiquette, check out these rules.
Tony
This is the big story of this debate. Dean is now being taken seriously as the probable nominee, so now he has to show what he is willing to do for the black political establishment. Last night, Dean signalled that he is 100% in line with them.
Dean's stance on Palestinian terrorism may not help him with Jews, but it was music to the ears of the black members of the audience. I don't know if you've picked this up, but black people don't like Jews, so Dean's willingness to play 'fair' with Jew-murdering terrorists doesn't hurt him too much. With the new campaign-finance laws and his talent for harvesting small contributions, he is far less dependent than someone like Bill Clinton on big-money Hollywood producers and others who would demand support for Israel.
The Juan Williams question on gun contol (implying that Dean only favored it in predominantly black jurisdictions) was perceived by many to be a cheap shot, but I think it was just part of the audition process. Most importantly, Dean came right out with his support of affirmative action. There will be no Sister Souljah moment for Howard Dean.
I can't figure out why more Dems don't support Gephardt. He is the prototypical, party-line Democrat. Once upon a time, Gephardt was pro-life, but over the course of his career, he has jettisoned all stances that contradict party dogma.
I asked Liz (a slightly left-of-center Dem) about it, and she responded with a hateful tirade against Gephardt. Maybe he just looks too much like an albino.
The Democrats really showed how much they are stuck in the Vietnam mindset. The one phraee that they (especially the veteran Kerry) love to include in their pissing and moaning about Iraq is "exit stategy". This is striped-pants speak for running home with your tail between your legs, a la Vietnam, Beirut, etc. The only real 'exit strategy' in Iraq is something this country used to aim for in war: total victory.
I think Dean is the only candidate who realizes that if you are against the war in Iraq (as Dean was), then you have to be FOR something. Global terrorism is not something George Bush invented - it is real. You have to say what you are going to do as president to eliminate this threat to national security. Dean made a start by denouncing anti-Semitic education in Saudi schools, something the current administration has been too gutless to do (because they're our allies, remember?).
I thought Gephardt looked good, but see above. Kerry was boring and meaningless as always. Lieberman spent his time attacking the front-runner, which can only help Kerry and Gephardt. He needs to take down one of the second-tier guys and try to make it a Lieberman-Dean race.
So that leaves Dean. I thought he did a good job of parrying Palpatine's attacks without getting angry. He satisfied the black demands and he focused on foreign policy (the economy is a loser for Dems by February). Dean solidified his front-runner position.
Transcript here.
Marc
It's more than an issue of Bush's perceived indestructibility; it has to do with who you can picture grabbing a party that is on the brink of irrelevancy by the horns. Who can you picture standing down terrorists, being firm when necessary and knowing when finesse is the more appropriate course of action? Who can sit in the situation room and be commander-in-chief of a military that is almost instinctively suspicious of the Democratic Party?
I decided not long ago that evaluating presidents based on issues, while being the most obviously intellectual method, might not be the best. Issues may change, or in the case of President Bush, emerge without getting very much press during the campaign. Compromise is inevitable and desirable in our system of government, so choosing a candidate based on his support of issues you care about will almost always lead to disappointment.
I agreed with a lot, if not all, of what was said on stage last night, as I suspect most Democratic voters did. But what the Democratic party needs now is not someone who can articulate the party position, but someone who can be an effective president. Who has the combination of strength, intelligence, executive ability and good instincts necessary to turn campaign promises into policy initiatives and eventually law? That's the only relevant question, and after last night, it remains unanswered.
Tony
Just another illustration of Orndoff's Law: everything now is worse than it used to be.
Marc
What an selfish weasel (well, he is a trial lawyer)! Yet another rich idiot who would be eliminated from politics if didn't have these stupid campaign finance laws.
Marc
Did you know?
The Titans released Neil O'Donnell. Backing up the oft-injured Steve McNair is... Billy Volek.
Marc
Myrr
I don't have anything against spending on Labor and Education, but if you increase spending and decrease revenue, there are going to be defeicits, that's the way the system works. So, Bush will be like Reagan; huge budget defeicits as a result of their presidency.
Myrr