I dig the fact that Clinton and Obama are sparring over an issue of substance, how to engage unfriendlies in diplopamatically (cool word I fat-fingered there). I'm digging Clinton and Edwards more lately. Obama just does not seem ready for the big time to me. Richardson's proposal to completely pull out of Iraq before the end of this year is just unrealistic.
I hope I'm not alone in my perception that all the Republican candidates seem like boobs. I realize most 'swing' voters don't pay attention to anything until the general campaign (and the Republican slimeball advertising kicks in), so there's plenty of time for the filthy party machinery to tar any Dem who receives the nomination. Dammit, I'm getting pessimistic again.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Dem hopefuls
I'm not one to handicap the horses, but I do like to check them out and see which one I prefer to win. I'm not sure about this race at the moment. They've barely made it out of the gate, but at the moment...
Obama seems just too damned young and inexperienced for my taste. He's got some very good stances on matters of policy, and great stage presence but I think he's not ready for the big leagues yet given that there are so many other candidates with much more federal and executive experience.
I'm digging Hillary more as time goes on. I very much like the confrontation she's having with the Pentagon at the moment. In 2000, when her name was first tossed about as a potential Pres candidate, I didn't think she had the skills and experience to do a great job as President. But, I think she's learned a great deal during her time in the Senate and her skills in negotiating have improved greatly.
John Edwards is still cool by me. Always was, still is.
Joe Biden has the best solution on Iraq in his pocket. That also makes him cool by me.
Bill Richardson has some GREAT credentials as far as experience goes.
All in all, this group would make a great cabinet regardless of which one of the is the nominee.
Obama seems just too damned young and inexperienced for my taste. He's got some very good stances on matters of policy, and great stage presence but I think he's not ready for the big leagues yet given that there are so many other candidates with much more federal and executive experience.
I'm digging Hillary more as time goes on. I very much like the confrontation she's having with the Pentagon at the moment. In 2000, when her name was first tossed about as a potential Pres candidate, I didn't think she had the skills and experience to do a great job as President. But, I think she's learned a great deal during her time in the Senate and her skills in negotiating have improved greatly.
John Edwards is still cool by me. Always was, still is.
Joe Biden has the best solution on Iraq in his pocket. That also makes him cool by me.
Bill Richardson has some GREAT credentials as far as experience goes.
All in all, this group would make a great cabinet regardless of which one of the is the nominee.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Response to an ass
Thoughts on Jeff Jacoby's Boston Globe column today.
"There are only a finite number of broadcast frequencies, the statists say. If the government didn't own and license them, the result would be chaos....Well, the supply of land is finite, too . Yet no one argues that real estate should be nationalized and licensed by the feds."
That's because land is not public airwaves. They are different. And I suppose 'statists' are supposed to be the bad people who believe in government action. Isn't a statist like an 'airist'? People who believe air should act? Duh uh uh uhhh uh uhhhh.
"These are the same Democrats, of course, who refuse to debate on the Fox News Channel because they object to its political agenda. So be it. But what does it say about their priorities that they gladly court Logo's niche viewers, yet snub the far larger mainstream audience that watches Fox?"
It says that they are open-minded and that the Dem party swings to the left. Logo Network swings to the left, Fox to the right. Duh...dumbass.
"Bilingual ballots, mandated by federal law in 1992, are incompatible with the American tradition of E Pluribus Unum."
Not really. Inclusion is also form of "shared identity". I say yahoo, yippee and whoopee to increasing participation in voting. That's what democracy is all about. Exclusion is what anti-statists like you are about.
"In Britain last November, a national survey measuring the trustworthiness of 19 professions found that journalists ranked dead last. Even politicians managed to edge them out....The more the press proclaims itself accurate and unbiased, the less the public seems to agree."
This survey a direct result of parcipation of Rupert Murdoch, the right wing extremist behind Fox and the tabloid crap that is so prevalent in Britain. The "press" doesn't "proclaim itself" anything. There is no spokesperson or centralized entity speaking on its behalf. Again, Jacoby is cute but wrong.
"There are only a finite number of broadcast frequencies, the statists say. If the government didn't own and license them, the result would be chaos....Well, the supply of land is finite, too . Yet no one argues that real estate should be nationalized and licensed by the feds."
That's because land is not public airwaves. They are different. And I suppose 'statists' are supposed to be the bad people who believe in government action. Isn't a statist like an 'airist'? People who believe air should act? Duh uh uh uhhh uh uhhhh.
"These are the same Democrats, of course, who refuse to debate on the Fox News Channel because they object to its political agenda. So be it. But what does it say about their priorities that they gladly court Logo's niche viewers, yet snub the far larger mainstream audience that watches Fox?"
It says that they are open-minded and that the Dem party swings to the left. Logo Network swings to the left, Fox to the right. Duh...dumbass.
"Bilingual ballots, mandated by federal law in 1992, are incompatible with the American tradition of E Pluribus Unum."
Not really. Inclusion is also form of "shared identity". I say yahoo, yippee and whoopee to increasing participation in voting. That's what democracy is all about. Exclusion is what anti-statists like you are about.
"In Britain last November, a national survey measuring the trustworthiness of 19 professions found that journalists ranked dead last. Even politicians managed to edge them out....The more the press proclaims itself accurate and unbiased, the less the public seems to agree."
This survey a direct result of parcipation of Rupert Murdoch, the right wing extremist behind Fox and the tabloid crap that is so prevalent in Britain. The "press" doesn't "proclaim itself" anything. There is no spokesperson or centralized entity speaking on its behalf. Again, Jacoby is cute but wrong.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Scooter commutation vs. Clinton pardons
Republican apologists (like W spokeshole Tony Snow) are wrong in comparing Clinton's pardons to Bush's Scooter commutation. Al Gore stated the differences best on The Today Show as quoted in the NY Times:
***
“I thought it was improper,” Mr. Gore said of the decision. “He was charged with knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House, which included the vice president and the president. I thought it was very disappointing.”
Mr. Gore said the Libby pardon differed from the Clinton administration’s pardons “because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involve knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did.”
***
In other words, pardoning someone for political payback (as Clinton did) is different than commuting or pardoning someone who could point a finger of criminal or political blame at the President or VP (as W did). I do see the difference and I think Gore is right about it, but I think both actions were politically wise, but morally wrong.
Naturally, the Republican sin is worse here. Republicans are less moral than Democrats.
***
“I thought it was improper,” Mr. Gore said of the decision. “He was charged with knowledge that could incriminate his bosses in the White House, which included the vice president and the president. I thought it was very disappointing.”
Mr. Gore said the Libby pardon differed from the Clinton administration’s pardons “because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involve knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did.”
***
In other words, pardoning someone for political payback (as Clinton did) is different than commuting or pardoning someone who could point a finger of criminal or political blame at the President or VP (as W did). I do see the difference and I think Gore is right about it, but I think both actions were politically wise, but morally wrong.
Naturally, the Republican sin is worse here. Republicans are less moral than Democrats.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
America the Beautiful
...but seriously. This is Cheez-it brand cracker's homage to the original American big cheeses, or something like that. Coming to a city near you this summer, a 600-pound cheese replica of Mount Rushmore. My parents took us to see Mt. Rushmore when I was a kid. We must have spent a week in that god-awful station wagon to see it. I've been putting some effort into learning more about America's founding fathers. It's gratifying to learn that they were humans subject to much the same weakenesses as more modern politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
