Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Props to Goldberg
Goldberg has asked for props for all of the aesthetic work he's done on the blog. Props Goldberg, PROPS!
|
Lieberman
Joe Lieberman has apparently said that Dean should not be so sensitive to attacks from other Democrats, because the attacks from Bush will be far worse. Could this possibly be accurate? Is it true that George W. Bush, a member of the party that opposes the Democrats, may launch attacks on Dean that are more pointed than attacks launched by members of his own party?
I think it might be possible that Joe is missing the point: Dean is not suggesting that Democrats stop attacking him because he is personally hurt by these attacks. It just may be that it is not in the best interest of Democrats to be tearing down each other, and it is really not in their best interest to paint the likely nominee as both a cold-hearted conservative and a namsy-pamsy liberal.
Here is all I need to know about Joe Lieberman. In 2000, he decide to run for his Senate seat while running for Vice President while the governor of Connecticut was a Republican. Had Gore won (assuming we lived in some fantasy candy land where the candidate who received the most votes won an election), the Democrats would have lost their majority in the Senate. (However, thank God, Joe Lieberman would have been Vice President.) Instead of stepping aside and allowing another Democrat to win, Joe Lieberman decided to hedge his bets - assuring that he would be either a Senator or a Vice President. In other words, Lieberman, with all his talk of morals and virtue, put the good of himself above the good of his party and, ultimately, the good of his country.
A friend of mine also once pointed out that he sounds exactly like the dad from Alf. (The "Willie" from "Hey, Willie.") This is another reason I just don't like him.
UPDATE: Neither the word "namsy" nor "pamsy" appears in the Blogger spell check software.
|
I think it might be possible that Joe is missing the point: Dean is not suggesting that Democrats stop attacking him because he is personally hurt by these attacks. It just may be that it is not in the best interest of Democrats to be tearing down each other, and it is really not in their best interest to paint the likely nominee as both a cold-hearted conservative and a namsy-pamsy liberal.
Here is all I need to know about Joe Lieberman. In 2000, he decide to run for his Senate seat while running for Vice President while the governor of Connecticut was a Republican. Had Gore won (assuming we lived in some fantasy candy land where the candidate who received the most votes won an election), the Democrats would have lost their majority in the Senate. (However, thank God, Joe Lieberman would have been Vice President.) Instead of stepping aside and allowing another Democrat to win, Joe Lieberman decided to hedge his bets - assuring that he would be either a Senator or a Vice President. In other words, Lieberman, with all his talk of morals and virtue, put the good of himself above the good of his party and, ultimately, the good of his country.
A friend of mine also once pointed out that he sounds exactly like the dad from Alf. (The "Willie" from "Hey, Willie.") This is another reason I just don't like him.
UPDATE: Neither the word "namsy" nor "pamsy" appears in the Blogger spell check software.
spelcheking
I find it somewhat disturbing that the spell checker provided by Blogger does not recognize the word "blog." I wonder if it recognizes the word "blogosphere"?
UPDATE: It does not.
|
UPDATE: It does not.
IF ONLY WE HAD A BLOG IN 2000....
When I, in the face of all conventional wisdom, boldly predicted that no Supreme Court Justices would retire during Bush's first term. At the time I argued that none of the conservatives would retire - because none of them would want history to view them as having installed Bush in the White House so that they could retire knowing a conservative would replace them.
My prediction will certainly come true, absent a serious illness or something of that ilk. Though it was only a mini-story at the time, the allegation that O'Connor said something at a Washington party to the effect that she hoped Bush would win so she could retire would not have been viewed kindly by her biographers 20 or 30 years from now.
However, all Democrats (and all women who would prefer that men not tell them what to do with their own uterus) need to realize just what is at stake in 2004. Rehnquist will certainly retire. O'Connor will certainly retire - and her replacement could swing a lot of crucial votes the other way. Stevens - well, I saw Stevens speak two years ago and he seemed healthy; let us pray he remains so.
|
My prediction will certainly come true, absent a serious illness or something of that ilk. Though it was only a mini-story at the time, the allegation that O'Connor said something at a Washington party to the effect that she hoped Bush would win so she could retire would not have been viewed kindly by her biographers 20 or 30 years from now.
However, all Democrats (and all women who would prefer that men not tell them what to do with their own uterus) need to realize just what is at stake in 2004. Rehnquist will certainly retire. O'Connor will certainly retire - and her replacement could swing a lot of crucial votes the other way. Stevens - well, I saw Stevens speak two years ago and he seemed healthy; let us pray he remains so.
Monday, December 29, 2003
DEFAMATION ALERT!
When I first read this article by Bill O'Reilly (who will be oft discussed on this blog), I thought "Ah, here is a conservative who is engaging in some sort of satire, taking the Ninth Circuit's sometimes liberal views to the extreme in such a way that will perhaps cause me to think critically about the viewpoints espoused by the Ninth Circuit."
However, I then remembered that Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe in satire, in fact, he often argues that the haters of America hide behind so-called satire in order to peddle their lies and defamation onto an unsuspecting American public. Therefore, I must assume that Bill O'Reilly wants us to take his article literally - however, I know of no Ninth Circuit precedent whereupon a known genocidal tyrant would nbe free from criminal liability. This, then, is clear defamation, and I hope Mr. O'Reilly posts a correction shortly.
|
When I first read this article by Bill O'Reilly (who will be oft discussed on this blog), I thought "Ah, here is a conservative who is engaging in some sort of satire, taking the Ninth Circuit's sometimes liberal views to the extreme in such a way that will perhaps cause me to think critically about the viewpoints espoused by the Ninth Circuit."
However, I then remembered that Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe in satire, in fact, he often argues that the haters of America hide behind so-called satire in order to peddle their lies and defamation onto an unsuspecting American public. Therefore, I must assume that Bill O'Reilly wants us to take his article literally - however, I know of no Ninth Circuit precedent whereupon a known genocidal tyrant would nbe free from criminal liability. This, then, is clear defamation, and I hope Mr. O'Reilly posts a correction shortly.
Finally, we come up in a Google search of "Goldberg and Guthrie." Good for us.
|
An AP story is making the rounds which reads like a Foxnews fair and balanced report. (The story is posted on the Foxnews main page now, under the fair and balanced headline "Do as I Say, Not as I Do.")
Basically, the story details a meeting Dean had with energy executives which, according to the tone of the article, is basically identical to the meeting Cheney had with energy executives. Both meetings were kept secret, Dean criticized Cheney for keeping his meeting secret, Dean is a hypocrite, the world will end if he is elected President.
The part of the article that details why these two meetings were the same...
So in other words, there are many differences. The AP story says that both Dean and Cheney released the names of the participants in the meeting, but then two paragraphs later states that Cheney's aides divulged the names of "many" of the participants of his meeting to reporters. So, in other words, Cheney has not revealed the names of the participants of his meeting. And this is the main issue! Of course, Presidents and leaders will get better advice if the advice is kept private - it is far more important who they are getting the advice from.
The comparison of the campaign contributions must just be a joke.
Usually, one has to do research in order to refute the claims made in an essay or article. In this case, one simply has to read the whole article. But why do I get a feeling most people won't even do this? Thank Christ Al Gore invented the internet, so readers of this blog can get the fair and unbalanced truth. We're looking out for you, readers. (In other words I, Guthrie, am looking out for you, Goldberg.)
|
Basically, the story details a meeting Dean had with energy executives which, according to the tone of the article, is basically identical to the meeting Cheney had with energy executives. Both meetings were kept secret, Dean criticized Cheney for keeping his meeting secret, Dean is a hypocrite, the world will end if he is elected President.
The part of the article that details why these two meetings were the same...
"The parallels between the Cheney and Dean task forces are many.
Both declined to open their deliberations, even under pressure from legislators. Both received input from the energy industry in private meetings, and released the names of task force members publicly.
Dean's group volunteered the names of those it consulted with in its final report.
While Cheney has refused to formally give a list to Congress to preserve the White House's right to private advice, known as executive privilege, his aides have divulged to reporters the names of many of those from whom the task force sought advice.
The Bush-Cheney campaign and Republican Party received millions in donations from energy interests in the election before its task force was created.
Dean's Vermont re-election campaign received only small contributions from energy executives.
But a political action committee created as he prepared to run for president collected $19,000, or nearly a fifth of its first $110,000, from donors tied to Vermont's electric utilities."
So in other words, there are many differences. The AP story says that both Dean and Cheney released the names of the participants in the meeting, but then two paragraphs later states that Cheney's aides divulged the names of "many" of the participants of his meeting to reporters. So, in other words, Cheney has not revealed the names of the participants of his meeting. And this is the main issue! Of course, Presidents and leaders will get better advice if the advice is kept private - it is far more important who they are getting the advice from.
The comparison of the campaign contributions must just be a joke.
Usually, one has to do research in order to refute the claims made in an essay or article. In this case, one simply has to read the whole article. But why do I get a feeling most people won't even do this? Thank Christ Al Gore invented the internet, so readers of this blog can get the fair and unbalanced truth. We're looking out for you, readers. (In other words I, Guthrie, am looking out for you, Goldberg.)
I would tend to agree that Dean should release the records. However, we now know that any document, no matter how inconsequential, would be used by Republicans during a Dean presidency to personally destroy him. If a single document suggested even the possibility that Dean may have done something illegal as governor (even if he had, say, lost money on a land deal while governor), a full scale investigation into Dean's life would begin. Everyone close to Dean would receive subpoenas, in the hope of digging up other scandals or in the hope of catching a witness in a lie, even a lie completely unrelated to the investigation. Dean would be forced to defend this investigation even while fighting the war of terror, and many good men and women would avoid working in a Dean administration.
Those are the rules these days. If I was running for office, I'm not sure I would ever turn over a single document about my life, absent a court order.
|
Those are the rules these days. If I was running for office, I'm not sure I would ever turn over a single document about my life, absent a court order.
From the William Safire article, linked to by Dan below:
Could somebody explain how these remarks are any different from Dean's oft-criticized remarks about Bush knowing about September 11? They are not different at all - both speakers are making a point about the dangers of secrecy - the fact that it can lead to wild speculation and general distrust in government. (Of course there is one key difference - Safire, unlike Dean, does not say that he believes these mysterious allegations are false.)
|
"That leaves Democratic primary voters to guess at what he's going to such great legal lengths to hide. Does an unsavory connection to an Enron subsidiary exist in his correspondence? Are there minutes of his meetings about same-sex civil unions that could come back to haunt him, or a pardon recommendation he wants sealed until he can laugh at voters' remorse? What could be so "embarrassing" at this 'critical time'?"
Could somebody explain how these remarks are any different from Dean's oft-criticized remarks about Bush knowing about September 11? They are not different at all - both speakers are making a point about the dangers of secrecy - the fact that it can lead to wild speculation and general distrust in government. (Of course there is one key difference - Safire, unlike Dean, does not say that he believes these mysterious allegations are false.)
From what I've read of Dean's remarks I think they are extraordinarily refreshing. The fact is, Jesus Christ (in the Bible) was a rebel, he detested hypocrisy and, most importantly, he sought to provide a voice to the outcasts and despised segments of society. Good for Dean for pointing out that the message of Jesus is not to vote Republican. (It's probably not to vote Democratic either, of course, but one party shouldn't have a monopoly on the Jesus vote.)
By the way, I think we need to be prepared for a serious undercurrent of anti-semitism in articles concerning Dean's faith. There are plenty of people who despise the fact that Dean would marry a Jewish woman and allow his children to be raised in the Jewish faith. Not that I would accuse any of the analysts below of anti-semitism; still try adding the following sentence to the end of any statement questioning the sincerity of Dean's religious views: "I mean, come on, his own wife and children don't even believe that Jesus was the Son of God!"
|
By the way, I think we need to be prepared for a serious undercurrent of anti-semitism in articles concerning Dean's faith. There are plenty of people who despise the fact that Dean would marry a Jewish woman and allow his children to be raised in the Jewish faith. Not that I would accuse any of the analysts below of anti-semitism; still try adding the following sentence to the end of any statement questioning the sincerity of Dean's religious views: "I mean, come on, his own wife and children don't even believe that Jesus was the Son of God!"
A Fair and Balanced analysis of the political news of the day. The article is about Dean's recent remarks on Jesus Christ. The analysts cited? Mary Ann Marsh (who I've never heard of) and, fairly, former chairman of the Republican National Committee Mark Braden and Dick Gephardt's campaign manager.
The analysis, shockingly, is that Dean's attempts at bringing religion into the campaign are insincere.
|
The analysis, shockingly, is that Dean's attempts at bringing religion into the campaign are insincere.
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Bowling in Columbine also argues that the media vastly overemphasized the importance of school shootings, which is curious as it is a whole movie about school shootings. (Spinsanity actually did a pretty thorough dissection of this film.) I thought by far the strongest part of the movie was the whole thing about the welfare to work program. Sad. Just another thing to thank Bill Clinton for (that, and a Republican Congress - I'll be posting more on this later).
As far as I'm concerned, Howard Dean was/is right about guns - it's a local issue. Guns in Harlem and guns in rural Alabama (or Vermont) are very, very different - and I think people who don't hunt underestimate how important hunting is as a bonding experience for some people.
|
As far as I'm concerned, Howard Dean was/is right about guns - it's a local issue. Guns in Harlem and guns in rural Alabama (or Vermont) are very, very different - and I think people who don't hunt underestimate how important hunting is as a bonding experience for some people.
Friday, December 26, 2003
I have nothing really to add today - only to point out that The Daily Howler basically wrote all of what Krugman wrote today while it was going on. Any liberal who doesn't read The Daily Howler on a daily basis simply doesn't understand what we're up against.
|
Thursday, December 25, 2003
This is pretty funny.
(Of course, like a lot of attempts at humor, it is sort of ruined at the end when the author explains the joke. Still, the point is a good one.)
|
(Of course, like a lot of attempts at humor, it is sort of ruined at the end when the author explains the joke. Still, the point is a good one.)
I was just flipping channels and saw "The Big Story" on Foxnews. Oliver North was on, and was discussing how it was that U.S. forces were able to catch Saddam Hussein. He said it was through careful police work, which included "interrogating, not threatening" suspects. Then he said (I'm paraphrasing), "In fact, it's a joke over there - you don't have to threaten anyone, you just have to say the word 'Gitmo' and they'll talk - because they all know what Gitmo is and they don't want to go there." Doesn't sound like a threat to me...
|
A rare admission from a conservative (though it is just Jonah Goldberg):
"Now, as a conservative I don't mind that Americans aren't consumed with political fervor. In fact, I tend to like low voter turnout on the principle that the people not voting are probably the people I don't think should vote."
Just remember this when listening to the typical Republican spin about "liberal elites" not understanding the values of every day Americans. The Democrats benefit when more Americans vote. The Republicans don't.
(The rest of Goldberg's piece proceeds to argue that Americans are basically stupid for choosing to watch Paris Hilton do, at least, something on Fox as opposed to watching the President say nothing on ABC.)
|
"Now, as a conservative I don't mind that Americans aren't consumed with political fervor. In fact, I tend to like low voter turnout on the principle that the people not voting are probably the people I don't think should vote."
Just remember this when listening to the typical Republican spin about "liberal elites" not understanding the values of every day Americans. The Democrats benefit when more Americans vote. The Republicans don't.
(The rest of Goldberg's piece proceeds to argue that Americans are basically stupid for choosing to watch Paris Hilton do, at least, something on Fox as opposed to watching the President say nothing on ABC.)
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Oooooohhhh! Looks like one of the posters on this blog went to Yale!
|
Rush Limbaugh today: "The Democrats in this country still cannot defeat me in the arena of political ideas, and so now they are trying to do so in the court of public opinion and the legal system," he said. "I guess it's payback time, and since I'm not running for office, they can't get to me that way."
Hmmm.... I don't seem to remember Rush taking so kindly to a similar argument made in 1998, when a woman blamed the legal troubles of her husband on a political conspiracy.
|
Hmmm.... I don't seem to remember Rush taking so kindly to a similar argument made in 1998, when a woman blamed the legal troubles of her husband on a political conspiracy.
How pissed are you if you're the Secretary of Agriculture? All ready to go home for the holidays, then this happens, probably the only agricultural-related crisis that can't wait until Monday.
|
|
I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio show - actually, a "best of" edition on a Saturday night. A caller called in and made some conservative point - I can't remember what. But this caller was obviously just trying to get on the air - and followed it up by saying "I also want to ask you what you think about the Bush campaign push polling in South Caroling in 2000 - asking people what they thought about John McCain's illegitimate black child." Hannity responded - "I have no idea what you're talking about." And that was the end of that call.
I don't know what to do in a case of dishonesty this profound. I don't want to marginalize talk radio - because the audience is so big, and so much of their anger is real. I think the left makes a mistake when we just call them "liars" and make fun of them - a lot of the people who listen to this should probably be voting for Democrats but they're never going to if they think Democrats just don't respect them. But what can you do? How can you engage this sort of debate seriously? Is there any way for the left to reach through Foxnews and talk radio and reach this audience?
|
I don't know what to do in a case of dishonesty this profound. I don't want to marginalize talk radio - because the audience is so big, and so much of their anger is real. I think the left makes a mistake when we just call them "liars" and make fun of them - a lot of the people who listen to this should probably be voting for Democrats but they're never going to if they think Democrats just don't respect them. But what can you do? How can you engage this sort of debate seriously? Is there any way for the left to reach through Foxnews and talk radio and reach this audience?
I'm not always the biggest fan of Andrew Sullivan. However, scroll down and read his post "Hoist by Their Own Petard." Not only do I love the use of this phrase, but he links to a poll being run by some family values group. (Family values not in the way real people think about it but in the way the right thinks about it, in other words hating gay people.) Note that when Mr. Sullivan first linked to the poll, they were apparently showing the results. Now, when you vote in the poll, no results are shown.
Of course, in order to fight this type of ignorance, I think we should all follow Andrew Sullivan's advice and vote for George Bush. Scroll down to yesterday's posts and see Mr. Sullivan defend our President's greatness because he said he would only support an amendment banning gay marriage "if necessary."
|
Of course, in order to fight this type of ignorance, I think we should all follow Andrew Sullivan's advice and vote for George Bush. Scroll down to yesterday's posts and see Mr. Sullivan defend our President's greatness because he said he would only support an amendment banning gay marriage "if necessary."
Monday, December 22, 2003
The Browns are the new Bengals.
|
The cover of Sean Hannity's new book seems to indicate that Sean Hannity will personally deliver us from the evil that is the Statue of Liberty.
|
