Salon: Big Old Bullfrogs:
"About six months ago, the president said to me, 'Well, at least I make strong decisions, I lead.' I said, 'Mr. President, look behind you. Leaders have followers. No one's following. Nobody."
Wow. Really makes you want to know what was said right before that prompted the "at least".
[100th post. Woohoo!]
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
ashcroft vs clinton in 2008?
From Salon.com Politics: "Some Republicans are wondering whether Mr. Ashcroft would be asked to return for a second Bush term if the president is re-elected in November, or whether he would choose not to serve again, perhaps to pursue his own run for the presidency in 2008."
Wow, just think of the possibilities. Two of the most polarizing people on right and left duking it out for the presidency?
I'm always amused by Hilary Clinton's ability to incite foaming of the mouth on the part of conservatives. They truly seem to hate her, and I've never really figured out why she became a lightning rod for so much crap. It's been so much fun watching freepers construct deep dark conspiracy theories about how Hil's planning to hijack this year's convention, about how she's skewering the VP selection to prevent any heir apparent standing in her way in 2008 or 2012. As if she, along with every other liberal in America, isn't doing everything she can to get the nutso idealogues out of the WH this year.
On the other hand, liberals do a bit of foaming themselves when the subject of Ashcroft comes up. I'd like to think it's far more justified, since Ashcroft actually holds a position of power and has materially affected hundreds of thousands of lives with his repressive policies. [Hilary garnered her animus as First Lady, a mostly ceremonial post, mostly it seems because she tried to do something substantive with it. And people forget that the Prez gets to appoint anyone he wants to work on special projects, including ex-felons, unlicensed lawyers, sons, daughters, husbands of political allies, and yes wives.]
For my part, I don't think I could take the level of overt partisanship that would inevitably ensue in a Clinton vs. Ashcroft world. But then again, I may have built up a tolerance for it by then.
Wow, just think of the possibilities. Two of the most polarizing people on right and left duking it out for the presidency?
I'm always amused by Hilary Clinton's ability to incite foaming of the mouth on the part of conservatives. They truly seem to hate her, and I've never really figured out why she became a lightning rod for so much crap. It's been so much fun watching freepers construct deep dark conspiracy theories about how Hil's planning to hijack this year's convention, about how she's skewering the VP selection to prevent any heir apparent standing in her way in 2008 or 2012. As if she, along with every other liberal in America, isn't doing everything she can to get the nutso idealogues out of the WH this year.
On the other hand, liberals do a bit of foaming themselves when the subject of Ashcroft comes up. I'd like to think it's far more justified, since Ashcroft actually holds a position of power and has materially affected hundreds of thousands of lives with his repressive policies. [Hilary garnered her animus as First Lady, a mostly ceremonial post, mostly it seems because she tried to do something substantive with it. And people forget that the Prez gets to appoint anyone he wants to work on special projects, including ex-felons, unlicensed lawyers, sons, daughters, husbands of political allies, and yes wives.]
For my part, I don't think I could take the level of overt partisanship that would inevitably ensue in a Clinton vs. Ashcroft world. But then again, I may have built up a tolerance for it by then.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
john kerry fact for the day
"Every time we've passed an increase in the minimum wage, America's done better, notwithstanding those arguments.
When I'm president, the first thing we're going to do is start to raise that minimum wage to $7 an hour and allow people in America to be able to work and get out of poverty for the work that they do.
But it's not limited to minimum wage…you've got to start talking about a living wage that so many mayors are beginning to talk about."
When I'm president, the first thing we're going to do is start to raise that minimum wage to $7 an hour and allow people in America to be able to work and get out of poverty for the work that they do.
But it's not limited to minimum wage…you've got to start talking about a living wage that so many mayors are beginning to talk about."
Monday, June 28, 2004
quote of the week
Charles Pierce on Altercation: " In fact, the most heartbreaking thing about F 9/11 is that we are now engaged in the national argument over a film that we should have had about going to war."
Sunday, June 27, 2004
nato?
Why have I heard no discussion of NATO involvement from the left-leaning blogs I read regularly? Are they all working on big big stories about it? Is it a subject that puts Bush in a positive light--and of course none of us want that? What's going on? It was the same way with the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. I think there is something there--I've heard it discussed ad nauseum on right-wing radio. But zip-zero from lefties.
This is too bad. As a liberal, I want to be well-rounded informed. I want to be able to talk to my more conservative acquaintances and not have them blindside me about topics I know nothing about.
Regarding NATO, I can read the AP reports like everyone else. But it raises more questions than it answers--questions I'd like answered. For example, is this whole NATO effort anything more than a photo op? What are the advantages/disadvantages--to Bush as well as the world--to working through NATO instead of the UN? In fact, is this a deliberate effort to sideline the UN while still appearing to work internationally? Does the US have more influence on NATO activities that UN? Or is this deliberate snub of the UN? What are the global ramifications of NATO involvement in Iraq? Why didn't the Bushies try to involve NATO earlier? What is a true assessment of how effective these NATO plans can be in the near term? In the long term?
This is too bad. As a liberal, I want to be well-rounded informed. I want to be able to talk to my more conservative acquaintances and not have them blindside me about topics I know nothing about.
Regarding NATO, I can read the AP reports like everyone else. But it raises more questions than it answers--questions I'd like answered. For example, is this whole NATO effort anything more than a photo op? What are the advantages/disadvantages--to Bush as well as the world--to working through NATO instead of the UN? In fact, is this a deliberate effort to sideline the UN while still appearing to work internationally? Does the US have more influence on NATO activities that UN? Or is this deliberate snub of the UN? What are the global ramifications of NATO involvement in Iraq? Why didn't the Bushies try to involve NATO earlier? What is a true assessment of how effective these NATO plans can be in the near term? In the long term?
hitler politics
I've been regularly amazed these past few months at the anti-Kerry/ant-Dem rhetoric coming from the Bushies and Repubs. So often it seems like the accusations against Dems are either real stretches or outright fabrications, but at the same time are almost perfect characterizations of the Bush Administration.
For example, the flip flop complaint. Virtually every specific example cited against Kerry can only be accepted using a willful misunderstanding of the facts. Such as expecting someone to have the same opinions about an issue twenty years apart. Or demanding that a person must vote either for all wars or against all wars, regardless of circumstances. In contrast, one of the Bush Administration's most notable characteristics has been to push and push their view and then buckle when public opinion coalesces on the opposite site. The past three years are rife with examples. Such as SEC reform after the Enron debacle--their initial stance was the "one bad apple" refrain (heard that lately?), insisting that the overall system was sound. Of course, that was before Global Crossing, Adelphia, and a host of others fell like dominos and the public started howling. Reform was coming, so the Bushies jumped on the bandwagon in order to garner a few kudos as well as drive the reform their way. Same scenario can be seen in the Homeland Security Dept inception, the 9/11 investigation, working with the UN over Iraq (a short-lived sidetrack), the Plame investigation, testifying before investigations, etc.
So now back to "hitler politics". This web ad with images of Hitler seems to fit the pattern. I mean, seriously, when you look at Kerry and look at Bush, which one's policies and methods better fit the pattern? Which one advocates unilateral action over diplomacy? Which one drums up support by hammering the "supremacy" of the American people? Which one believes its a good thing for the country's private citizens to spy and inform on each other? Which one thinks its ok to hold individuals in prison for years without representation, due process, or--in many cases--communication with their families? Which one boldly announces that they are above, not only international law, but the laws of their own country?
Is there some kind of disconnect here, that the Bushies can't see the irony in their accusations? Wasn't that a general Aryan characteristic--the inability to see themselves as others see them?
I think the Bushies better be careful. Once they open the hitler door, what makes them think only Repubs can walk through?
For example, the flip flop complaint. Virtually every specific example cited against Kerry can only be accepted using a willful misunderstanding of the facts. Such as expecting someone to have the same opinions about an issue twenty years apart. Or demanding that a person must vote either for all wars or against all wars, regardless of circumstances. In contrast, one of the Bush Administration's most notable characteristics has been to push and push their view and then buckle when public opinion coalesces on the opposite site. The past three years are rife with examples. Such as SEC reform after the Enron debacle--their initial stance was the "one bad apple" refrain (heard that lately?), insisting that the overall system was sound. Of course, that was before Global Crossing, Adelphia, and a host of others fell like dominos and the public started howling. Reform was coming, so the Bushies jumped on the bandwagon in order to garner a few kudos as well as drive the reform their way. Same scenario can be seen in the Homeland Security Dept inception, the 9/11 investigation, working with the UN over Iraq (a short-lived sidetrack), the Plame investigation, testifying before investigations, etc.
So now back to "hitler politics". This web ad with images of Hitler seems to fit the pattern. I mean, seriously, when you look at Kerry and look at Bush, which one's policies and methods better fit the pattern? Which one advocates unilateral action over diplomacy? Which one drums up support by hammering the "supremacy" of the American people? Which one believes its a good thing for the country's private citizens to spy and inform on each other? Which one thinks its ok to hold individuals in prison for years without representation, due process, or--in many cases--communication with their families? Which one boldly announces that they are above, not only international law, but the laws of their own country?
Is there some kind of disconnect here, that the Bushies can't see the irony in their accusations? Wasn't that a general Aryan characteristic--the inability to see themselves as others see them?
I think the Bushies better be careful. Once they open the hitler door, what makes them think only Repubs can walk through?
Friday, June 25, 2004
new bush ad
Well, this ad ("The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party") is just stupid as well as amazingly offensive.
It's stupid because, in order to show emotional clips, they also have to include substantive rhetoric, such as Al Gore shouting "How dare they drag the good name of the US through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prisons", Michael Moore stating, very firmly, "We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for ficticious reasons", and Dick Gephardt saying "This president is a miserable failure." As far as I can tell, this ad will only resonate with the 35% of the people who think this country's on the right track. And they're certainly already commited. So what's really going on? My first thought is that they're seriously misjudging the average person's ability to take in the words as well as the pictures. My second thought is that perhaps I am seriously underestimating the average person's capacity to choose comfort over facing facts.
The Hitler images are just offensive (a word I rarely use), because there is no context in which to understand why they're there. The viewer would have to remember a minor flap back in February over two ads submitted to a moveon.org contest to figure out the ostensible point--that Dems are comparing Bush to Hitler. There is one brief clip that says "sponsored by moveon.org" but again there's no frame of reference at all. To all intents and purposes, the ad appears to be trying to say that Hitler is one of the "faces" of the current Democratic Party. Disgusting.
It's stupid because, in order to show emotional clips, they also have to include substantive rhetoric, such as Al Gore shouting "How dare they drag the good name of the US through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prisons", Michael Moore stating, very firmly, "We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for ficticious reasons", and Dick Gephardt saying "This president is a miserable failure." As far as I can tell, this ad will only resonate with the 35% of the people who think this country's on the right track. And they're certainly already commited. So what's really going on? My first thought is that they're seriously misjudging the average person's ability to take in the words as well as the pictures. My second thought is that perhaps I am seriously underestimating the average person's capacity to choose comfort over facing facts.
The Hitler images are just offensive (a word I rarely use), because there is no context in which to understand why they're there. The viewer would have to remember a minor flap back in February over two ads submitted to a moveon.org contest to figure out the ostensible point--that Dems are comparing Bush to Hitler. There is one brief clip that says "sponsored by moveon.org" but again there's no frame of reference at all. To all intents and purposes, the ad appears to be trying to say that Hitler is one of the "faces" of the current Democratic Party. Disgusting.
dave ross for jennifer dunn's old seat
OK, Dave Ross has his web site up and running for business. Here's a snippet from the campaign letter he just sent out:
Listeners have asked me throughout my career - are you a liberal or a conservative, and what do you mean by "common sense?" I'll report - you decide:
- I'm liberal enough to know that government has no business controlling any woman's reproductive choices.
- I'm liberal enough to know that the burden of proof should be on those who pump waste into the air, not those of us who must breathe it.
- I'm liberal enough to think that the richest nation on earth can provide a better safety net than Tent City.
- I'm conservative enough to understand that it doesn't help national security to attack the wrong enemy.
- I'm conservative enough to insist on an honest budget process that doesn't pretend war is free.
- I'm conservative enough to know that Social Security is a promise that can't be replaced by a Wall Street gamble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)