Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
How many reasons...
...will it take to convince JB he should vote for McCain? Here's another good one.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Here's a candidate we can all get behind.
Thanks, Red Alert 3. Topical and timely!
More here.
I particularly like the campaign logo featuring a dolphin with a laser on its head.
More here.
I particularly like the campaign logo featuring a dolphin with a laser on its head.
The return of GnR?
Not only is Chinese Democracy really, truly being released 11/23/2008, you can get a free Dr. Pepper too!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Romney Train
Well, at least I finally converted you to to Golden Mitt. I may just write his name in on my ballot.
(As far as the golden plates go-some Mormon beliefs are pretty silly-but-then again, I take the Bible as truth, including a passage in which a donkey talks to his master-so you know-to each his own)
As to whether or not Rush/Hannity has too much power within the ranks, I'm not sure. I am confident unvarnished, unsantized truth can still escape and that there is room for intellectual development. I tend to dismiss the argument about conservative "projections" onto blank-slate Palin, because I think Palin is a little more sophisticated than that. (Although, it is drop-dead funny when liberals (not you)(you will be converted to the ways of Rush one day, too) say this, because that is exactly what they are doing with Obama). Palin was picked because she is everything McCain isn't-conservative, charimastic, energetic, etc. In that regard she is a fabulous choice. I like the selection to be honest.
To add on to your earlier point-the continued invocation of Reagan's name by not really conservative Republicans who in no way govern, conduct themselves or act like Reagan is insulting to my intelligence. Reagan built a mighty political legacy, and they turned around and screwed it up.
One point on Greenspan. His comments made it sound like America had a well running mixed economy, turned it over to greedy bankers and KABOOM-crisis. What a sham. Regulation is completely unrelated to the current problems. Nobody seems to mention federal pressure to issue minority home owner loans to suspect families. Nobody cares about inefficient and even corrupt business practices in the lending industries. Nobody cares about exploitative affect of flexible rate mortgages. Government regulation gave us those things for god's sake. Good grief he has it backwards. If Greenspan has reason to question his "free-market principles", that is because he supported a heavily mixed economy from the get-go-I thought this was already understood way back in the '90s.
(As far as the golden plates go-some Mormon beliefs are pretty silly-but-then again, I take the Bible as truth, including a passage in which a donkey talks to his master-so you know-to each his own)
As to whether or not Rush/Hannity has too much power within the ranks, I'm not sure. I am confident unvarnished, unsantized truth can still escape and that there is room for intellectual development. I tend to dismiss the argument about conservative "projections" onto blank-slate Palin, because I think Palin is a little more sophisticated than that. (Although, it is drop-dead funny when liberals (not you)(you will be converted to the ways of Rush one day, too) say this, because that is exactly what they are doing with Obama). Palin was picked because she is everything McCain isn't-conservative, charimastic, energetic, etc. In that regard she is a fabulous choice. I like the selection to be honest.
To add on to your earlier point-the continued invocation of Reagan's name by not really conservative Republicans who in no way govern, conduct themselves or act like Reagan is insulting to my intelligence. Reagan built a mighty political legacy, and they turned around and screwed it up.
One point on Greenspan. His comments made it sound like America had a well running mixed economy, turned it over to greedy bankers and KABOOM-crisis. What a sham. Regulation is completely unrelated to the current problems. Nobody seems to mention federal pressure to issue minority home owner loans to suspect families. Nobody cares about inefficient and even corrupt business practices in the lending industries. Nobody cares about exploitative affect of flexible rate mortgages. Government regulation gave us those things for god's sake. Good grief he has it backwards. If Greenspan has reason to question his "free-market principles", that is because he supported a heavily mixed economy from the get-go-I thought this was already understood way back in the '90s.
Re: Conservative Thought
That's a fair response. I'm all-too willing to accept your categorization of Limbaugh and Hannity as entertainers in order to quarantine them away from the actualization of policy and Republican thought in general, but I think you and I know that essentially isn't true--both have been rather intimately connected with the administration during the past 8 years (not in a legislative sense, but in a imagistic way).
I don't buy your symbioses argument. I just don't think it holds up under a microscope. It's impossible to know, of course, but I think Buckley would abhor Sarah Palin (perhaps his son's reaction is reasonable evidence for this; perhaps not). Brooks' cancer metaphor is far more apt. When I see a Sarah Palin rally, I think, "who is this woman and is she listening to what she is saying?" She meets all the conservative litmus thresholds but beyond that is a blank slate, on which really any agenda, conservative or otherwise can be written. Do you really want a President Palin, with who-knows-what-ideas she's absorbed or accepted as fixed, ready to pull the trigger on those ideas? I would say we've effectively had that with George Bush. We've seen this model in action, and it's proven ineffective at both governance and advancing conservative principles. I'm amazed to say it, but the McCain-Palin team actually makes me nostalgic for Mitt Romney. At least with him, one could be reasonably certain there was a solid unmovable core of ideas through which he sees the world (which also happens to hold that Jesus appeared to the Indians and something about some mysterious golden plates, but whatever).
I think your line about fixed ideas is interesting during a week in which Alan Greenspan has expressed doubts, perhaps for the first time in his life, about the self-regulation powers of the free market. But to your final point, I'm not sure the conservative movement at this point is capable of producing another towering intellectual figure--such a person would undoubtedly be ejected by the Palins or the Limbaughs for some modest heresy to 'conservative principles' long before they could gain such status.
And, on Obama, since I haven't said anything about him: I think that the conservative commentators who are supporting him (expressly or not) are doing so based on the hope that he truly is a moderate and will govern as such--despite the lack of evidence in his legislative record (which is why they have to go back to temperment). I think we've seen this story before, where a leftist-grown politician governs as a moderate, and this seemed to be the right's distinct hope if Hillary became president. If Obama would come clean and acknolwedge that his agenda cannot be enacted now due to the economic crisis and its costs, I think he would sweep up a bunch of economic conservatives (or maybe he already is, who knows). Moderate or raging leftist... I guess we might be about to find out. We'd probably be asking the same questions about a President McCain on a variety of issues.
I don't buy your symbioses argument. I just don't think it holds up under a microscope. It's impossible to know, of course, but I think Buckley would abhor Sarah Palin (perhaps his son's reaction is reasonable evidence for this; perhaps not). Brooks' cancer metaphor is far more apt. When I see a Sarah Palin rally, I think, "who is this woman and is she listening to what she is saying?" She meets all the conservative litmus thresholds but beyond that is a blank slate, on which really any agenda, conservative or otherwise can be written. Do you really want a President Palin, with who-knows-what-ideas she's absorbed or accepted as fixed, ready to pull the trigger on those ideas? I would say we've effectively had that with George Bush. We've seen this model in action, and it's proven ineffective at both governance and advancing conservative principles. I'm amazed to say it, but the McCain-Palin team actually makes me nostalgic for Mitt Romney. At least with him, one could be reasonably certain there was a solid unmovable core of ideas through which he sees the world (which also happens to hold that Jesus appeared to the Indians and something about some mysterious golden plates, but whatever).
I think your line about fixed ideas is interesting during a week in which Alan Greenspan has expressed doubts, perhaps for the first time in his life, about the self-regulation powers of the free market. But to your final point, I'm not sure the conservative movement at this point is capable of producing another towering intellectual figure--such a person would undoubtedly be ejected by the Palins or the Limbaughs for some modest heresy to 'conservative principles' long before they could gain such status.
And, on Obama, since I haven't said anything about him: I think that the conservative commentators who are supporting him (expressly or not) are doing so based on the hope that he truly is a moderate and will govern as such--despite the lack of evidence in his legislative record (which is why they have to go back to temperment). I think we've seen this story before, where a leftist-grown politician governs as a moderate, and this seemed to be the right's distinct hope if Hillary became president. If Obama would come clean and acknolwedge that his agenda cannot be enacted now due to the economic crisis and its costs, I think he would sweep up a bunch of economic conservatives (or maybe he already is, who knows). Moderate or raging leftist... I guess we might be about to find out. We'd probably be asking the same questions about a President McCain on a variety of issues.
Conservative Thought
I understand your point and sentiment-but I find Dionne shallow-I'll elaborate. (Classifying E.J. Dionne as "left-leaning" sells him short. Lets call him what he is, a raging leftist trying to hide as a sort of not raging sort of not leftist.)
You seem to bemoan the lack of intellectual rigor in leading elements of both the Republican party and the conservative movement, two seperate but often aligned forces. Intellectual movements, like Buckley-style conservatism, obviously need vigorous intellectual forces to develop themselves over time. Political parties can get by without that, although it certainly can help from time to time. So Sarah Palin can address a crowd, give speeches and espouse Republican ideas and grow into a party leader without being an intellectual one. Most party leaders don't have a strong technical grasp of the roots of conservative political thought, because they are reaping the benefits of intellectual work done before them. Palin benefits from Buckley's years of work. Buckley also benefits from Palin, as she is a tool to spread many of his ideas. This symbiosis has been the key for Republican politics since Reagan.
Limbaugh/Hannity are entertainers. They readily espouse Republican and often conservative viewpoints to inform and entertain their audiences. They are not intellectual leaders, they don't want to be seen as such. Rush is more of a signal of the direction of our society then it is upon conservative politics per se.
Your example of Peter Lawler implies an ideological purity or quest for purity that simply does not exist in contemporary politics or the Republican party. Certainly a large bulk of Republicans/conservatives are pro-life, and perhaps some perspective was needed for Lawler's audience. I can't see how that projects onto the movement as a whole, however. The problems you are referring to are not inconsequential, and they are not wholly untrue. But they are the problems that come with electoral success. And the success that the conversative movement has had at the ballot box has led to these type of problems, for good or ill.
Ensconsed in your Buffalo'ed frozen ivory tower, you may naturally think that anti-intellectualism is always bad-but I see a place for it, especially in electoral politics. Is Sarah Palin, at least in part, anti-intellectual? I think she is-and I like it. Do political parties and movements need intellectuals? No doubt about it-else they end up like Whigs. But they also need a willingness to accept certain ideas as fixed and use those ideas to plow through. You see what I am getting at? Palin would do that-torpedoes be damned! In this way, I think anti-intellectualism can be good, because it removes damaging encumberences and shows a sense of purpose most intellectuals suck at.
If you are concerned with the collusion of the Republicans and conservatives ultimately weakening, or even gutting, the conservative movement-I'm with you. But it has to be done to achieve any kind of real impact. The work is just beginning-conservatives have pulled this party from a place of ideological nowhere to something resembling coherence. I like it-and I think there is plenty of more work to be done. Is Rush to answer to the future success of the conservative movement? Not really-because he is more of a Republican operative than a conservative intellectual. Dionne doesn't get it- I find his understanding of American politics to be shockingly shallow given all his years in the business. Conservatives came from nowhere to be a primary force in Republican politics. Did we lose ourselves a bit along the way? Maybe-but we gained a lot too-and to my mind we can win back anything we lost.
David Brooks is fine with me-he is entitled to his opinions about the current nature of conservative politics. But he also falls victim to making exceptionally shallow and inane observations. Palin doesn't seen to pass Noonan's "smart test". I guess all I would say to that is bug off Noonan, you're wrong on this one. I am far more concerned about Obama's raging leftism than whether or not it took Palin 10 seconds to explain the nebulous Bush Doctrine.
Do I love Palin? Not really-I am not excited about a woman in the White House to be frank, and she has had some trouble with questions she ought not to have. But most of the criticism of her has been ridiculous. Well, I ought not conflate that with your original point-suffice to say that the conservative movement will produce another towering intellectual figure or two, and the Republican party will make another 20 Palins or Limbaughs-let's see if they can work together.
You seem to bemoan the lack of intellectual rigor in leading elements of both the Republican party and the conservative movement, two seperate but often aligned forces. Intellectual movements, like Buckley-style conservatism, obviously need vigorous intellectual forces to develop themselves over time. Political parties can get by without that, although it certainly can help from time to time. So Sarah Palin can address a crowd, give speeches and espouse Republican ideas and grow into a party leader without being an intellectual one. Most party leaders don't have a strong technical grasp of the roots of conservative political thought, because they are reaping the benefits of intellectual work done before them. Palin benefits from Buckley's years of work. Buckley also benefits from Palin, as she is a tool to spread many of his ideas. This symbiosis has been the key for Republican politics since Reagan.
Limbaugh/Hannity are entertainers. They readily espouse Republican and often conservative viewpoints to inform and entertain their audiences. They are not intellectual leaders, they don't want to be seen as such. Rush is more of a signal of the direction of our society then it is upon conservative politics per se.
Your example of Peter Lawler implies an ideological purity or quest for purity that simply does not exist in contemporary politics or the Republican party. Certainly a large bulk of Republicans/conservatives are pro-life, and perhaps some perspective was needed for Lawler's audience. I can't see how that projects onto the movement as a whole, however. The problems you are referring to are not inconsequential, and they are not wholly untrue. But they are the problems that come with electoral success. And the success that the conversative movement has had at the ballot box has led to these type of problems, for good or ill.
Ensconsed in your Buffalo'ed frozen ivory tower, you may naturally think that anti-intellectualism is always bad-but I see a place for it, especially in electoral politics. Is Sarah Palin, at least in part, anti-intellectual? I think she is-and I like it. Do political parties and movements need intellectuals? No doubt about it-else they end up like Whigs. But they also need a willingness to accept certain ideas as fixed and use those ideas to plow through. You see what I am getting at? Palin would do that-torpedoes be damned! In this way, I think anti-intellectualism can be good, because it removes damaging encumberences and shows a sense of purpose most intellectuals suck at.
If you are concerned with the collusion of the Republicans and conservatives ultimately weakening, or even gutting, the conservative movement-I'm with you. But it has to be done to achieve any kind of real impact. The work is just beginning-conservatives have pulled this party from a place of ideological nowhere to something resembling coherence. I like it-and I think there is plenty of more work to be done. Is Rush to answer to the future success of the conservative movement? Not really-because he is more of a Republican operative than a conservative intellectual. Dionne doesn't get it- I find his understanding of American politics to be shockingly shallow given all his years in the business. Conservatives came from nowhere to be a primary force in Republican politics. Did we lose ourselves a bit along the way? Maybe-but we gained a lot too-and to my mind we can win back anything we lost.
David Brooks is fine with me-he is entitled to his opinions about the current nature of conservative politics. But he also falls victim to making exceptionally shallow and inane observations. Palin doesn't seen to pass Noonan's "smart test". I guess all I would say to that is bug off Noonan, you're wrong on this one. I am far more concerned about Obama's raging leftism than whether or not it took Palin 10 seconds to explain the nebulous Bush Doctrine.
Do I love Palin? Not really-I am not excited about a woman in the White House to be frank, and she has had some trouble with questions she ought not to have. But most of the criticism of her has been ridiculous. Well, I ought not conflate that with your original point-suffice to say that the conservative movement will produce another towering intellectual figure or two, and the Republican party will make another 20 Palins or Limbaughs-let's see if they can work together.
To Bert (or JB), on Conservatism
Ok, so it's the admittedly left-leaning E. J. Dionne, but this nevertheless captures how I feel:
"The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity--and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces."
I don't think the second sentence is a big deal--it's an election year. But I think the first is spot-on. In 2005 I attended a conference in Indianapolis on Robert Nisbet, and I'll never forget the way that Peter Lawler essentially apologized to the audience for Nisbet being explicitly pro-choice, and how he had to make the argument that Nisbet's ideas were still worth taking seriously despite the fact that he was pro-choice (and for Nisbet, the decision was based on the idea of the family as a structural unit and the family's dominion over its own house, so it was actually a pretty limited sort of pro-choice).
I'd add Steyn and Hanson to the list with the talk radio hosts who are eager to throw out people like Noonan and Brooks for bucking the party line in favor of an strangely intense anti-intellectual movement that won't bother to read Burke, Strauss, Nisbet or Buckley, much less engage their ideas. Even the more academically minded conservative youth will toss out Nisbet because he doesn't fit their definition of 'conservative.' The movement seems more interested, and registers more excitement, in producing Palins and Hannitys than Buckleys.
If you turn this microscope on the left there's the same phenomenom (Olbermann, Matthews, etc.) but without the theorized and well-considered underpinning (no Left version of God & Man at Yale, for example), a void that perhaps helps explain the triangulating electoral and (presumably in the case of Obama) governing strategy of Clinton/Obama. (Though I guess you could throw Bush in there too... is anyone on the right yet willing to call Bush a Democratic Republican president the same way Clinton is called the first black president?)
"The cause of Edmund Burke, Leo Strauss, Robert Nisbet and William F. Buckley Jr. is now in the hands of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity--and Sarah Palin. Reason has been overwhelmed by propaganda, ideas by slogans, learned manifestoes by direct-mail hit pieces."
I don't think the second sentence is a big deal--it's an election year. But I think the first is spot-on. In 2005 I attended a conference in Indianapolis on Robert Nisbet, and I'll never forget the way that Peter Lawler essentially apologized to the audience for Nisbet being explicitly pro-choice, and how he had to make the argument that Nisbet's ideas were still worth taking seriously despite the fact that he was pro-choice (and for Nisbet, the decision was based on the idea of the family as a structural unit and the family's dominion over its own house, so it was actually a pretty limited sort of pro-choice).
I'd add Steyn and Hanson to the list with the talk radio hosts who are eager to throw out people like Noonan and Brooks for bucking the party line in favor of an strangely intense anti-intellectual movement that won't bother to read Burke, Strauss, Nisbet or Buckley, much less engage their ideas. Even the more academically minded conservative youth will toss out Nisbet because he doesn't fit their definition of 'conservative.' The movement seems more interested, and registers more excitement, in producing Palins and Hannitys than Buckleys.
If you turn this microscope on the left there's the same phenomenom (Olbermann, Matthews, etc.) but without the theorized and well-considered underpinning (no Left version of God & Man at Yale, for example), a void that perhaps helps explain the triangulating electoral and (presumably in the case of Obama) governing strategy of Clinton/Obama. (Though I guess you could throw Bush in there too... is anyone on the right yet willing to call Bush a Democratic Republican president the same way Clinton is called the first black president?)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
THIS ARGUMENT ENDS NOW!!!
Not really, but this is so awesome you need to watch it anyway. You won't be sorry. Back to your regularly scheduled McCain Vs. Obama Vs. Nobody.
And for the record, the rest of the album is just as awesome.
And for the record, the rest of the album is just as awesome.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
This is a fun game to play
Here's why Gore would not have invaded Iraq:
1. Assuming this alternate timeline, I still say that Republicans keep/expand their hold on Congress in 2002, and while its pretty inconceivable that they'd roadblock the hawkishness of this magical Gore administration you've conjured, they obviously don't grant Gore the lattitude that was afforded Bush.
2. Gore stays within the framework of the UN. He ratchets up 'inspections', and this is where the hawkish pressure is channeled. It may lead to posturing, which Gore hopes looks JFK-like, wherein Americans rattle sabers in Saudi Arabian bases, but no one crosses the borders.
3. Except maybe some missiles. They don't do anything worthwhile.
4. As a result, the focus shifts to Afghanistan/Pakistan. If American troops are deployed in Iraq-numbers, it is to this region. Saddam Hussein remains in power, etc., etc.
5. This is all moot, because President Dole would've prevented 9/11.
1. Assuming this alternate timeline, I still say that Republicans keep/expand their hold on Congress in 2002, and while its pretty inconceivable that they'd roadblock the hawkishness of this magical Gore administration you've conjured, they obviously don't grant Gore the lattitude that was afforded Bush.
2. Gore stays within the framework of the UN. He ratchets up 'inspections', and this is where the hawkish pressure is channeled. It may lead to posturing, which Gore hopes looks JFK-like, wherein Americans rattle sabers in Saudi Arabian bases, but no one crosses the borders.
3. Except maybe some missiles. They don't do anything worthwhile.
4. As a result, the focus shifts to Afghanistan/Pakistan. If American troops are deployed in Iraq-numbers, it is to this region. Saddam Hussein remains in power, etc., etc.
5. This is all moot, because President Dole would've prevented 9/11.
Presidential nominees = teh sux0r
I'm not going to claim to have the historical database of JB to compare anyone to Chester A. Arthur or Nick's sarcastic p4wnage or Bert's vehement loyalty to the Republican party no matter how big of a wang they put on the podium to run for president (and let's be serious, anyone in danger of losing to Obama is a pretty big wang). However, I said awhile ago I wasn't going to vote. Bert criticized me, saying not voting was akin to a vote for Obama. Demos criticized saying that this is the most important election ever (read: since the previous re-election of Bush). In the end, though, the purpose of my vote is to speak my voice on a political level. Not using that vote sends a message as well. Not voting for McCain is not the same as voting for Obama. It's simply a statement on my part that neither candidate deserves to be president (and I'm not going to address any election where a nominee campagins in video games and gives out Dave Matthews tickets as the most important election ever).
The fact is, neither candidate has demonstrated the necessary political or economic understanding to be president. Both have ridiculous means by which to create "tax breaks" (and I use that loosely since in either case, it seems to me that middle and upper-middle class is going to get boned) while at the same time cutting national deficit, both voted in favor of the bailout (so are republicans going social?), both are, for the most part, clueless on foreign policy (I have no idea if Gore would have invaded Iraq or not, but I just had to sit through an inconvenient truth, so I'm not putting anything past that buffoon) and neither has demonstrated in any significant way the capacity for leadership. A vote for either candidate says "Hey _______ party, you've given me a good person to vote for, keep up the good work." Which is inherently untrue. Therefore, I am using my right to not vote to speak the message I want sent. And since the Republican party is seemingly leaning towards the left more and more as election day approaches, it seems useless to even use the idea of having a republican president keep a democratic senate in line as a reason to vote. Regardless of who gets in, I'm going to lose my money. It's just a matter of determining to which bullshit use the money they are stealing from me is going to go. So until either party can put forth a candidate that is worth my time to acknowledge, I say F American politics.
The fact is, neither candidate has demonstrated the necessary political or economic understanding to be president. Both have ridiculous means by which to create "tax breaks" (and I use that loosely since in either case, it seems to me that middle and upper-middle class is going to get boned) while at the same time cutting national deficit, both voted in favor of the bailout (so are republicans going social?), both are, for the most part, clueless on foreign policy (I have no idea if Gore would have invaded Iraq or not, but I just had to sit through an inconvenient truth, so I'm not putting anything past that buffoon) and neither has demonstrated in any significant way the capacity for leadership. A vote for either candidate says "Hey _______ party, you've given me a good person to vote for, keep up the good work." Which is inherently untrue. Therefore, I am using my right to not vote to speak the message I want sent. And since the Republican party is seemingly leaning towards the left more and more as election day approaches, it seems useless to even use the idea of having a republican president keep a democratic senate in line as a reason to vote. Regardless of who gets in, I'm going to lose my money. It's just a matter of determining to which bullshit use the money they are stealing from me is going to go. So until either party can put forth a candidate that is worth my time to acknowledge, I say F American politics.
"Shock" and Awe
In order to accept the idea I put forward that Gore would have invaded Iraq as well, you have to reject the conventional wisdom and "storylines" put out by the media surrounding GWB's decision to invade Iraq. Let's look at it from the point of view of a Gore presidency in 2001. September 11 almost certainly happens in the same manner. Gore responds with similar patriotic speeches and calls for justice as GWB did. Al-Qaeda is identified as a target, as well as their camps and bases in Afghanistan. So, we conduct an air campaign and introduce ground troops in a very similar fashion as Rumsfeld/Bush, perhaps more ground troops are committed sooner and there are different strategic concepts, but you get the point.
Pressue begins to mount from both Republicans and Democrats about how to deal with the Saddam problem. Clear Al-Qaeda-Saddam connections exist, and Saddam continues to violate US/UN restrictions. Gore recognizes that the world is drastically changed, and therefore agrees to invade. This is not that hard to believe. Gore probably stays away from the WMD argument. You can cast side Gore's criticism from outside power against Iraq, because that was merely an issue of political convienence. A Gore actually in power would have been responsible enough to pull the trigger on an Iraqi invasion.
Additionally, there would not have been a protracted media campaign questioning the invasion's merits to the same degree. None of the inane "finishing his father's work" or "getting his buddies oil money" comparisons. It is generally easier for Democratic presidents to conduct military campaigns (in the early stages) because so much of the anti-war sentiment is within their own party, so critics don't come out for fear of damaging Gore politically. (See Clinton, Kosovo-Iraq-Somalia) Now, I do agree that in protracted conflicts Dems have a problem if they begin to lose control of their base (1968), but that is beside the point. As to whether a Democratic administration would have run the war more competently, it is difficult to imagine. I think it is wrong to underestimate the political pressure that would have been applied to Gore to invade Iraq-therefore-from a foreign policy perspective one could argue that Bush-Gore would have been quite similar.
Pressue begins to mount from both Republicans and Democrats about how to deal with the Saddam problem. Clear Al-Qaeda-Saddam connections exist, and Saddam continues to violate US/UN restrictions. Gore recognizes that the world is drastically changed, and therefore agrees to invade. This is not that hard to believe. Gore probably stays away from the WMD argument. You can cast side Gore's criticism from outside power against Iraq, because that was merely an issue of political convienence. A Gore actually in power would have been responsible enough to pull the trigger on an Iraqi invasion.
Additionally, there would not have been a protracted media campaign questioning the invasion's merits to the same degree. None of the inane "finishing his father's work" or "getting his buddies oil money" comparisons. It is generally easier for Democratic presidents to conduct military campaigns (in the early stages) because so much of the anti-war sentiment is within their own party, so critics don't come out for fear of damaging Gore politically. (See Clinton, Kosovo-Iraq-Somalia) Now, I do agree that in protracted conflicts Dems have a problem if they begin to lose control of their base (1968), but that is beside the point. As to whether a Democratic administration would have run the war more competently, it is difficult to imagine. I think it is wrong to underestimate the political pressure that would have been applied to Gore to invade Iraq-therefore-from a foreign policy perspective one could argue that Bush-Gore would have been quite similar.
McCain Hatred
Bert makes an appropriate and persuasive article about why one should pull the lever for McCain, despite his faults. I am sympathetic to this point of view. Here's the beef, though.
McCain is a charlatan. He is a complete boob. He made his career sucking up to the media while bashing conservatives and snuggling with Democrats with some can't-we-be-nice bi-partisanship crapola. He was the absolute worst nominee our party could have put forward. I can't imagine a worse (viable) candidate. (Ron Paul does not count as viable.) He thinks he knows something about American foreign policy-he doesn't. He thinks he knows something about the intricacies of military policy-very little-in my estimation. This "politics of personal honor" is REALLY off-putting. Everything is an affront to him. Should I vote for him and he win, he is guaranteed to be the nominee in 2012, so I can get a total of 8 years of this stooge. Why do I have to do that? Not to mention, given the fact that Dems won't be shutout of the White House forever, leaves me with the prospect of no real quality Republican candidate until at least 2016, and maybe longer. Republicans became drunk with power and they spent money like it was going out of style. Having Democrats in control of Congress won't be that much different. I doubt the percentage of the growth of spending will be any higher than the Bush years. There are consequences to the bad leadership of Republicans, and the loss of my vote is one of them. If we need another Clinton to spark another '94, lets do it, because the current version of Congressional Republicans is laugh-out-loud bad. I don't care what they say, I look at what they do and I find it ridiculous.
Now-to the Chief Executive. It is true that it is extremely unlikely that I will ever vote for a Dem to be President. I have too many sharp policy disagreements. Obama will be the worst president since Buchanan. But I am not voting for him. But why does that mean that I have to vote for a nearly as bad alternative? McCain lost my vote 6 years ago-why should I take him seriously now? He has proven nothing to me except that his instincts are terrible, his grasp of policy is thin, and his temeperant is anything but reasoned. When he put Palin on the ticket, I thought about it. I do like her, and I laugh at her critics who criticize her experience while promoting Obama. But she won't be president-he will. And he will be the worst president since Chester Arthur. Time for Republicans to pay the price for their sins. I can't support a massively bad choice because the alternative is hugely massively bad.
McCain is a charlatan. He is a complete boob. He made his career sucking up to the media while bashing conservatives and snuggling with Democrats with some can't-we-be-nice bi-partisanship crapola. He was the absolute worst nominee our party could have put forward. I can't imagine a worse (viable) candidate. (Ron Paul does not count as viable.) He thinks he knows something about American foreign policy-he doesn't. He thinks he knows something about the intricacies of military policy-very little-in my estimation. This "politics of personal honor" is REALLY off-putting. Everything is an affront to him. Should I vote for him and he win, he is guaranteed to be the nominee in 2012, so I can get a total of 8 years of this stooge. Why do I have to do that? Not to mention, given the fact that Dems won't be shutout of the White House forever, leaves me with the prospect of no real quality Republican candidate until at least 2016, and maybe longer. Republicans became drunk with power and they spent money like it was going out of style. Having Democrats in control of Congress won't be that much different. I doubt the percentage of the growth of spending will be any higher than the Bush years. There are consequences to the bad leadership of Republicans, and the loss of my vote is one of them. If we need another Clinton to spark another '94, lets do it, because the current version of Congressional Republicans is laugh-out-loud bad. I don't care what they say, I look at what they do and I find it ridiculous.
Now-to the Chief Executive. It is true that it is extremely unlikely that I will ever vote for a Dem to be President. I have too many sharp policy disagreements. Obama will be the worst president since Buchanan. But I am not voting for him. But why does that mean that I have to vote for a nearly as bad alternative? McCain lost my vote 6 years ago-why should I take him seriously now? He has proven nothing to me except that his instincts are terrible, his grasp of policy is thin, and his temeperant is anything but reasoned. When he put Palin on the ticket, I thought about it. I do like her, and I laugh at her critics who criticize her experience while promoting Obama. But she won't be president-he will. And he will be the worst president since Chester Arthur. Time for Republicans to pay the price for their sins. I can't support a massively bad choice because the alternative is hugely massively bad.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Obama
The second half of my sentence you quote comes from Obama himself. The first half is not an unfair inference from Obama's worldview, writings, statements, associates, etc. Lump me in with conservative talk show hosts if you like. I am in good company if in Rush's company at least.
Obama's foreign policy will only be more realistic if by realistic you mean like that of the Clinton years minus all the good things that Clinton did with opening trade and recognizing the benefits of globalization. Obama's realistic foreign policy, one can assume, will be realistic in the sense that he will be hesitant to assert America's interests in any meaningful way. Thus we will become isolated because of our lack of will to advance America's interests militarily or economically. (The wrong lesson to learn from Bush's supposed overreaching.) So as far as a do-nothing foreign policy is realistic, it indeed will be realistic. (I suspect you mean it won't be overreaching, and I agree.) While Gore may have invaded Iraq (I'm not as shocked as Nick by the contention) can anyone imagine Obama doing so. I would be more shocked by such action should a similar situation present itself.
At best the man's policies and views are unquantifiable which should be enough to disqualify him this late in the game. However, the most cursory review of his past and present leads me to suspect there is little that is heterodox about him when it comes to the left. America is nearly alone in facing up to threats around the world among those with any capacity to do so. Indeed even most Western countries do not have the resources we do to face Middle Eastern terrorism/Iran-Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, or potentially China let alone the will to do so.
I am not a fan of John McCain, but that does not mean that I should leave such important decisions in the hands of almost anyone in the Democrat party let alone a nobody like Obama. That is what abstaining from this election means.
Obama's foreign policy will only be more realistic if by realistic you mean like that of the Clinton years minus all the good things that Clinton did with opening trade and recognizing the benefits of globalization. Obama's realistic foreign policy, one can assume, will be realistic in the sense that he will be hesitant to assert America's interests in any meaningful way. Thus we will become isolated because of our lack of will to advance America's interests militarily or economically. (The wrong lesson to learn from Bush's supposed overreaching.) So as far as a do-nothing foreign policy is realistic, it indeed will be realistic. (I suspect you mean it won't be overreaching, and I agree.) While Gore may have invaded Iraq (I'm not as shocked as Nick by the contention) can anyone imagine Obama doing so. I would be more shocked by such action should a similar situation present itself.
At best the man's policies and views are unquantifiable which should be enough to disqualify him this late in the game. However, the most cursory review of his past and present leads me to suspect there is little that is heterodox about him when it comes to the left. America is nearly alone in facing up to threats around the world among those with any capacity to do so. Indeed even most Western countries do not have the resources we do to face Middle Eastern terrorism/Iran-Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, or potentially China let alone the will to do so.
I am not a fan of John McCain, but that does not mean that I should leave such important decisions in the hands of almost anyone in the Democrat party let alone a nobody like Obama. That is what abstaining from this election means.
"I do not think allowing a man who thinks America is a force for evil in the world and that its best days are over to become president is insignificant."
WTF Limbannitygram? What did you do with my friend Bert?
BTW Slate has a timely piece on the recent death of libertarianism.
I think "they're both bad" is a sort of weak-minded denial of the past 8-16 years of presidential history and politics. The only thing I'd add to what JB said contra Bert is that I think both candidates will run a more reality-driven foreign policy than Bush, but at this point I think the track record points to Obama as having the greater potential for a reality-driven foreign policy.
Yes, the bar is pretty low when I'm judging the candidates by how well they acknowledge reality.
Also, for the love of God don't post anything else by Steyn--at least not until after the election.
Oh, and--Gore would've invaded Iraq? Really?! Wow. That's such a ballsy claim, it gives me tingles. I can't even argue against it right now, I'm just sorta stunned.
Rocking Edmund Fitzgerald rocks. I'm working on developing my own keytariphone.
WTF Limbannitygram? What did you do with my friend Bert?
BTW Slate has a timely piece on the recent death of libertarianism.
I think "they're both bad" is a sort of weak-minded denial of the past 8-16 years of presidential history and politics. The only thing I'd add to what JB said contra Bert is that I think both candidates will run a more reality-driven foreign policy than Bush, but at this point I think the track record points to Obama as having the greater potential for a reality-driven foreign policy.
Yes, the bar is pretty low when I'm judging the candidates by how well they acknowledge reality.
Also, for the love of God don't post anything else by Steyn--at least not until after the election.
Oh, and--Gore would've invaded Iraq? Really?! Wow. That's such a ballsy claim, it gives me tingles. I can't even argue against it right now, I'm just sorta stunned.
Rocking Edmund Fitzgerald rocks. I'm working on developing my own keytariphone.
And if Russia is too far away for concern
Obama is wrong in our own hemisphere as well. (Not to mention Venezuela...the list goes on.)
Foreign Policy
One of my favorite public figures weighs in on Russia. This man would be in my cabinet.
It is also a reminder why Kris and JB are wrong about the election. Obama's people handling foreign policy or McCain's? While I lament our descent toward socialism, I do not think allowing a man who thinks America is a force for evil in the world and that its best days are over to become president is insignificant.
It is also a reminder why Kris and JB are wrong about the election. Obama's people handling foreign policy or McCain's? While I lament our descent toward socialism, I do not think allowing a man who thinks America is a force for evil in the world and that its best days are over to become president is insignificant.
Sorry Bert,
JB's right. There is no significant difference between the two candidates. Obama's a socialist? Well, McCain is going to use my money to buy mortgages of people who couldn't afford them. It doesn't matter anymore.
Joe the Plumber
I agree with Mark Steyn today. Joe the Plumber is more articulate than McCain when it comes to Republican (or what should be Republican) policy and more articulate than both candidates when it comes to American values.
JB, don't be silly. You can't sit this one out. It's certainly not the most important election ever, but you are letting your animus toward McCain get in the way of civic duty. Imagine, if you will, one-party Democrat government. Or an executive branch staffed by Carteresque or committed leftists.
JB, don't be silly. You can't sit this one out. It's certainly not the most important election ever, but you are letting your animus toward McCain get in the way of civic duty. Imagine, if you will, one-party Democrat government. Or an executive branch staffed by Carteresque or committed leftists.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Most important election, like, ever?
I read this line everywhere, on both sides. Frankly, I don't get it.
I was already told that 2004 was the most important election in my lifetime, coming on the heels of the previously most important election ever in 2000.
This is not the most important election ever, I'd say 1860 has dibs on that, with 1932 and 1912 in the running. Even considering the sort of differences in the candidates on domestic and foreign policy and a wider gulf on social issues, I don't see the "importance" issue this time. The war on terror is progressing reasonably, except for the thorny Pakistani problem. American and NATO troops that are deployed in the Phillippines, Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere have done a great deal to lock down Islamic groups in operation there. Neither candidate will make drastic changes there. Both seem committed to Afghanistan. I'd bet political reality prevents Obama from abandoning Iraq. Obama will probably end up to be weaker on foreign policy, in a Kennedy-esque style, but I'm not sure what actual new problems that will create. I say this because despite his reputation, I consider President Bush to be pretty weak when it comes to the use of American power. Woah you say? It is my contention that the President has done nothing that President Gore would not have done. You read it here-Gore would have invaded Iraq, and probably not have bungled the rhetoric so much. No responsible administration was going to let Saddam exist post 9-11. The Bush administration simply did not have the courage to put it that way, even if they did it for those reasons. The failures of the administration in Latin America, West Africa, China, North Korea, Turkey and Pakistan are pretty glaring to me. We can address this in detail, but I am a fierce critic of Colin Powell, and I have mixed feelings about Condi.
My point is that I am certain Obama will be the worst president in regards to foreign affairs since Carter. He will appoint judges to the bench that will make me cringe. He will spend money like a drunken sailor, like his Republican predecessors.
McCain? He will be slightly less terrible but still awful on foreign policy. His judges will be slightly less terrible, but I see Kennedy's and O'Connors in the mix. He will spend money like a drunken sailor.
I don't find either man to be talented or intelligent enough to forge a responsible, reasoned, and consistent foreign policy in an age of turbulence. I don't trust the principles of either, as Obama has been clearly willing to sacrifice his liberalism for the sake of voting "present" ( what a laugher) and has been a poor representative for the state of Illinois in a lot of ways.
McCain has no principles, except some phony idea of bi-partisanship as if that were a guiding light. Working together in Washington. What a joke-McCain hasn't made the right enemies, and I find him untrustworthy and even foolish at times.
I cannot provide either of these men with my support, and, hence I cannot vote for them. I am sitting this election out, because I obviously can't vote for someone so liberal and someone so ridiculous as McCain. McCain is a lot like Nixon in a lot of ways-without Nixon's redeeming qualities, and I don't just mean that politically, but I find similarities in their personality. Maverick means sometimes taking the hard road, and I honestly believe McCain has consistently taken the easy road in Washington. JB will not be voting for him.
I was already told that 2004 was the most important election in my lifetime, coming on the heels of the previously most important election ever in 2000.
This is not the most important election ever, I'd say 1860 has dibs on that, with 1932 and 1912 in the running. Even considering the sort of differences in the candidates on domestic and foreign policy and a wider gulf on social issues, I don't see the "importance" issue this time. The war on terror is progressing reasonably, except for the thorny Pakistani problem. American and NATO troops that are deployed in the Phillippines, Indonesia, West Africa and elsewhere have done a great deal to lock down Islamic groups in operation there. Neither candidate will make drastic changes there. Both seem committed to Afghanistan. I'd bet political reality prevents Obama from abandoning Iraq. Obama will probably end up to be weaker on foreign policy, in a Kennedy-esque style, but I'm not sure what actual new problems that will create. I say this because despite his reputation, I consider President Bush to be pretty weak when it comes to the use of American power. Woah you say? It is my contention that the President has done nothing that President Gore would not have done. You read it here-Gore would have invaded Iraq, and probably not have bungled the rhetoric so much. No responsible administration was going to let Saddam exist post 9-11. The Bush administration simply did not have the courage to put it that way, even if they did it for those reasons. The failures of the administration in Latin America, West Africa, China, North Korea, Turkey and Pakistan are pretty glaring to me. We can address this in detail, but I am a fierce critic of Colin Powell, and I have mixed feelings about Condi.
My point is that I am certain Obama will be the worst president in regards to foreign affairs since Carter. He will appoint judges to the bench that will make me cringe. He will spend money like a drunken sailor, like his Republican predecessors.
McCain? He will be slightly less terrible but still awful on foreign policy. His judges will be slightly less terrible, but I see Kennedy's and O'Connors in the mix. He will spend money like a drunken sailor.
I don't find either man to be talented or intelligent enough to forge a responsible, reasoned, and consistent foreign policy in an age of turbulence. I don't trust the principles of either, as Obama has been clearly willing to sacrifice his liberalism for the sake of voting "present" ( what a laugher) and has been a poor representative for the state of Illinois in a lot of ways.
McCain has no principles, except some phony idea of bi-partisanship as if that were a guiding light. Working together in Washington. What a joke-McCain hasn't made the right enemies, and I find him untrustworthy and even foolish at times.
I cannot provide either of these men with my support, and, hence I cannot vote for them. I am sitting this election out, because I obviously can't vote for someone so liberal and someone so ridiculous as McCain. McCain is a lot like Nixon in a lot of ways-without Nixon's redeeming qualities, and I don't just mean that politically, but I find similarities in their personality. Maverick means sometimes taking the hard road, and I honestly believe McCain has consistently taken the easy road in Washington. JB will not be voting for him.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Nick
I can't help but feel as though you have failed us all by letting this kid beat you to a) owning a kazookeylele and b) mastering The Final Countdown on it. If your fancy Buffalo schools are teaching you about not kazookeyleles, a pox on that I say! Seriously though, get on this. I'm super serial about that.
I wasn't making anything up last night:
Ignore the slideshow, or don't; it's better than most I've seen. Anyway WotEF:
No effing comment. Except, JC, come on!!!
Ad from Facebook; also I hate democracy:
What do you vote for?
What do you vote for?
Voting says a lot about you. See what the Cool Kids are thinking. Find what they vote for and then tell us your thoughts.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Obama in video games, has JB's vote?
Link to an article about Obama paying for advertising in video games. So, uh....yeah. Here's a link to a site where a dood photoshopped Obama in to other games, including WoW. So, Nick and JB, does this make you want to vote "O"?*
*There are signs around campus that say that. No joke. I can't make that up.
*There are signs around campus that say that. No joke. I can't make that up.
Don't Blame Capitalism
I was always under the impression that the NYT was a liberal podium. At any rate, Schiff's article does a good job pointing out that capitalism shouldn't involve government regulation (and therefore bailouts). I particularly like this line at the end:
"Binding the country to a tangle of socialist ideals will seal our fate as a second-rate economic power."
"Binding the country to a tangle of socialist ideals will seal our fate as a second-rate economic power."
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Thanks, random Youtube clicking!
In this most asinine of election years, here is some we can all agree on:
Enjoy, from me.
Enjoy, from me.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Nick is alive?!!?!!
He's one of them there interlectuhls. I can tell. Maybe that's why he doesn't talk to his rube, midwestern friend anymore.
There is some truth to Brooks's contention, but I don't think it explains why Republicans have lost the coasts and metropolitan areas. The rise of Republican populism, regrettable as it may be, is fairly recent. And it is regrettable, but that is politics in an increasingly democratic age. Do Republicans have to get in the populism game to win? I don't know, but I'll note, our Founders created a republic not a simple democracy. But we have over time continued to abolish republican checks on our democracy.
Back to the point, the culture has liberalized and most of its institutions--universities among them--are left-leaning. This is in part a cause of "educated" people, perhaps, tending to be more liberal not the Republicans offending them with their everyman appeal. (not sure the contention that educated people are more Democratic is true. It is with advanced degrees but I thought I read somewhere that President Bush won a majority of those with Bachelors degrees.) Democrats have been claiming to be for the little guy for the last 75 years and have simulaneously held sway over the intellectual class. Perhaps, as Brooks says, the Republicans actually do reflect the culture of joe sixpack. Again, probably unfortunate to some extent.
Brooks likes to think of himself as some lone high-minded conservative with only philistines as political allies. I am increasingly skeptical of his conservatism. As far as he warns that conservatism should not become an anti-intellectual pursuit, I agree depending upon what we're calling an intellectual. If it is simply someone who writes or teaches for a living or values learning then I can agree. But there is some valid anti-intellectualism out there if you keep in mind Paul Johnson's definition of an intellectual--someone who cares more for ideas than people, adheres to an ideology despite reality, and thinks it within his rational faculties to solve the world's problems with ideological prescriptions. A conservative is not unlearned or unsophisticated, but a central tenet of conservatism is eschewing ideology.
There is some truth to Brooks's contention, but I don't think it explains why Republicans have lost the coasts and metropolitan areas. The rise of Republican populism, regrettable as it may be, is fairly recent. And it is regrettable, but that is politics in an increasingly democratic age. Do Republicans have to get in the populism game to win? I don't know, but I'll note, our Founders created a republic not a simple democracy. But we have over time continued to abolish republican checks on our democracy.
Back to the point, the culture has liberalized and most of its institutions--universities among them--are left-leaning. This is in part a cause of "educated" people, perhaps, tending to be more liberal not the Republicans offending them with their everyman appeal. (not sure the contention that educated people are more Democratic is true. It is with advanced degrees but I thought I read somewhere that President Bush won a majority of those with Bachelors degrees.) Democrats have been claiming to be for the little guy for the last 75 years and have simulaneously held sway over the intellectual class. Perhaps, as Brooks says, the Republicans actually do reflect the culture of joe sixpack. Again, probably unfortunate to some extent.
Brooks likes to think of himself as some lone high-minded conservative with only philistines as political allies. I am increasingly skeptical of his conservatism. As far as he warns that conservatism should not become an anti-intellectual pursuit, I agree depending upon what we're calling an intellectual. If it is simply someone who writes or teaches for a living or values learning then I can agree. But there is some valid anti-intellectualism out there if you keep in mind Paul Johnson's definition of an intellectual--someone who cares more for ideas than people, adheres to an ideology despite reality, and thinks it within his rational faculties to solve the world's problems with ideological prescriptions. A conservative is not unlearned or unsophisticated, but a central tenet of conservatism is eschewing ideology.
Higher Ed and Conservatives
David Brooks makes the argument that class/culture warfare is driving intellectuals and intellectualism out of the Republican party.
I think it's a remarkable argument, because it suggests the inverse of the conventional wisdom preached by right-leaning think-tanks and organizations. Heritage, et al, say that conservative profs and students can't get a fair shake at college because it is dominated by leftover hippies and seventies radicals. I think the extension of Brooks' argument suggests that young conservatives don't embrace intellectualism because they believe (or have been taught) that it runs counter to their class-based/cultural identity.
I think it's a remarkable argument, because it suggests the inverse of the conventional wisdom preached by right-leaning think-tanks and organizations. Heritage, et al, say that conservative profs and students can't get a fair shake at college because it is dominated by leftover hippies and seventies radicals. I think the extension of Brooks' argument suggests that young conservatives don't embrace intellectualism because they believe (or have been taught) that it runs counter to their class-based/cultural identity.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Some alarmism from the Derb
Will Obama Kill Science? Derbyshire often writes about biology and its social implications as more is learned about genetics and neurobiology. He thinks natural human differences are a threat to the leveling project of leftists.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
A direct quote from Wikipedia:
Snoop Dogg notes drinking "Seagram's Gin" in the hit single "Gin and Juice". He laments everyone else having a cup but not chipping in.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Tell it Dr. NO!!!!!
Tom Coburn is awesome (except for voting for the bailout). Here are the honorable 25 who didn't.
Palin-Biden
So, who goes down first?
Joseph-I plagirize and produce a gaffe a minute-Biden?
or Sarah-even Katie Couric made me look dumb-Palin?
Good grief, Palin. Get it done tonight or Repubs face doom.
Joseph-I plagirize and produce a gaffe a minute-Biden?
or Sarah-even Katie Couric made me look dumb-Palin?
Good grief, Palin. Get it done tonight or Repubs face doom.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
In the words of the philosopher...
...Garth Algar, "We fear change." Especially when it is a euphemism for socialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)