He laid it all out in an interview with Charlie Rose, and it is so false that I think the American people will surely buy it.
The Democrats who were in Congress in 2002 are responsible for all the problems in Iraq today because their vote authorizing the use of force pushed Bush to war before he was ready. They were gung ho, and Bush wanted to take his time and let diplomacy have a chance to address the issues we had with Saddaam.
I'm not joking. This isn't The Onion.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
checked out some of the Dem debate
I still prefer Biden or Edwards to the rest of the field. I think Hillary or Obama would get trounced in the general election. Neither one of the them is ready for a big-time, full out campaign against the evil empire (Republicans).
Chris Dodd said some very heartfelt sounding stuff about the mudslinging against Hillary. He said words to the effect that the American people aren't interested in this negative stuff and that they really want to hear differences on policy. I think he is completely wrong. Americans are bored shitless by policy debate. They need the mudslinging to make it interesting for their small minds.
Edwards' take on the Hillary bashing is astute. He noted that this is very gentle stuff compared to the storm of lies and nastiness that ANY Democrat faces when they run against the Republican Party for the presidency.
Chris Dodd said some very heartfelt sounding stuff about the mudslinging against Hillary. He said words to the effect that the American people aren't interested in this negative stuff and that they really want to hear differences on policy. I think he is completely wrong. Americans are bored shitless by policy debate. They need the mudslinging to make it interesting for their small minds.
Edwards' take on the Hillary bashing is astute. He noted that this is very gentle stuff compared to the storm of lies and nastiness that ANY Democrat faces when they run against the Republican Party for the presidency.
Monday, November 12, 2007
What do liberals, conservatives and moderates put into their brains?
http://www.learcenter.org/html/projects/?cm=zogby
This is interesting stuff. The poll was run for the purpose of aiding the advertising campaigns interpret the results in a political way. I'm one of those interpreters. I take this as further proof that people who swing to the political left are more open-minded than those on the right. This is natural, because liberalism = open-minded.
This is interesting stuff. The poll was run for the purpose of aiding the advertising campaigns interpret the results in a political way. I'm one of those interpreters. I take this as further proof that people who swing to the political left are more open-minded than those on the right. This is natural, because liberalism = open-minded.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
Obama slings mud at Hillary
From Newsweek.
"Q. How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
A. Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn't have control over whether or not these papers were being released—what we're talking about here is her husband's presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.
Q. So is she being honest?
A. I think she was being disingenuous.
Q. What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?
A. You'll have to ask her.
Q. Is she entitled to any credit for her years as First Lady as she argues her case to be president?
A. On those areas where there is a record of her having done work, she certainly deserves credit for it. What she can't do is have it both ways. She can't embrace every success of Bill Clinton's presidency and distance herself from every failure of Bill Clinton's presidency."
This is just not cool. I'm liking Obama less. Slinging poop at Hillary for this Presidential paper thing is stupid and wrong. Mostly because this just in not important, but also because the accusation is cheap and should be beneath any Democratic candidate for the nomination.
"Q. How would you describe her response on the question of her First Lady papers?
A. Her response was certainly inadequate. When she suggested somehow she didn't have control over whether or not these papers were being released—what we're talking about here is her husband's presidential library. And when she is making a suggestion that part of the experience that she brings to this office is her experience as First Lady, people have a right to ask some tough questions. She can release these papers.
Q. So is she being honest?
A. I think she was being disingenuous.
Q. What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?
A. You'll have to ask her.
Q. Is she entitled to any credit for her years as First Lady as she argues her case to be president?
A. On those areas where there is a record of her having done work, she certainly deserves credit for it. What she can't do is have it both ways. She can't embrace every success of Bill Clinton's presidency and distance herself from every failure of Bill Clinton's presidency."
This is just not cool. I'm liking Obama less. Slinging poop at Hillary for this Presidential paper thing is stupid and wrong. Mostly because this just in not important, but also because the accusation is cheap and should be beneath any Democratic candidate for the nomination.
Friday, November 02, 2007
W at The Heritage Foundation
Our President made another horrifyingly evil partisan speech this week. There's so much material in this turd, that I barely know where to begin. But I'll try:
"Together with a great President named Ronald Reagan, you championed a policy of rolling back communism oppression and bringing freedom to nations enslaved by communist tyranny. And by taking the side of dissidents, who [sic] helped millions across the world throw off the shackles of communism, you helped build the free and peaceful societies that are the true sources of stability and peace in the world.
And now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding -- this time regarding my policy in the Middle East. Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be "stability." And once again they're wrong. In Kabul, in Baghdad, in Beirut, and other cities across the broader Middle East, brave men and women are risking their lives every day for the same freedoms we enjoy. And like the citizens of Prague and Warsaw and Budapest in the century gone by, they are looking to the United States to stand up for them, speak out for them, and champion their cause. And we are doing just that. (Applause.) "
Here we have the wise analysis of the head of our government that we have elected twice to run the most powerful nation in the world. I can see where this message would be attractive the the fundamentalist audience at Heritage, which is pretty much the opposite of my world view. The problem is that the analysis is completely wrong. Radical Islam is NOTHING LIKE COMMUNISM!!!!! Nothing at all. Not even close.
Please vote these knuckleheads out of office. This just is not good for any of us.
"Together with a great President named Ronald Reagan, you championed a policy of rolling back communism oppression and bringing freedom to nations enslaved by communist tyranny. And by taking the side of dissidents, who [sic] helped millions across the world throw off the shackles of communism, you helped build the free and peaceful societies that are the true sources of stability and peace in the world.
And now we're at the start of a new century, and the same debate is once again unfolding -- this time regarding my policy in the Middle East. Once again, voices in Washington are arguing that the watchword of the policy should be "stability." And once again they're wrong. In Kabul, in Baghdad, in Beirut, and other cities across the broader Middle East, brave men and women are risking their lives every day for the same freedoms we enjoy. And like the citizens of Prague and Warsaw and Budapest in the century gone by, they are looking to the United States to stand up for them, speak out for them, and champion their cause. And we are doing just that. (Applause.) "
Here we have the wise analysis of the head of our government that we have elected twice to run the most powerful nation in the world. I can see where this message would be attractive the the fundamentalist audience at Heritage, which is pretty much the opposite of my world view. The problem is that the analysis is completely wrong. Radical Islam is NOTHING LIKE COMMUNISM!!!!! Nothing at all. Not even close.
Please vote these knuckleheads out of office. This just is not good for any of us.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Hillary vs the world
I didn't watch it, but I was just reading about last night's Dem debate. Now seems to be the time for all the hopefuls to take shots at Hillary. Again the idea of the lying, disingeuous, slick, double-talking Clinton is the message of her opponents on the left and the right.
I don't think she's a liar. I don't think she's a flip-flopper (a concept so stupid, I'm not even sure what it means). I don't think she is her husband.
I think she's doing much what John Kerry did in 04 when the questions about solutions in Iraq came up. She's taking a wise, moderate approach to complicated issues. The next President cannot possibly know what the final solution to many of these things will be. Political reality is that they will have to cut a deal with Congress, their own cabinet and staff AND things can change. Keeping some opitions in the future requires a candidate to be a bit vague on how a policy should look.
At the moment, I'm leaning toward Edwards but I could be comfortable with any of the Dem candidates as President.
Anyone who is elected President eventually will be accused of lying during the campaign. This is not because they are a liar, it is because things change and policies can't turn out to be exactly what was discussed on the campaign trail. The more specific the campaign proposals, the more likely that the end product will differ from the proposal.
I don't think she's a liar. I don't think she's a flip-flopper (a concept so stupid, I'm not even sure what it means). I don't think she is her husband.
I think she's doing much what John Kerry did in 04 when the questions about solutions in Iraq came up. She's taking a wise, moderate approach to complicated issues. The next President cannot possibly know what the final solution to many of these things will be. Political reality is that they will have to cut a deal with Congress, their own cabinet and staff AND things can change. Keeping some opitions in the future requires a candidate to be a bit vague on how a policy should look.
At the moment, I'm leaning toward Edwards but I could be comfortable with any of the Dem candidates as President.
Anyone who is elected President eventually will be accused of lying during the campaign. This is not because they are a liar, it is because things change and policies can't turn out to be exactly what was discussed on the campaign trail. The more specific the campaign proposals, the more likely that the end product will differ from the proposal.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Galbraith was right, and still is
John Kenneth Galbraith's "The New Industrial State" was published in 1967. He described the very high level political economics of the highly developed industrial world of the time. He coined the word Technostructure to show the convergence of industrial bureacaracies in both the communist and democratic worlds. He observed that technocrats were the people who were really controlling societies and governments. Technocrats being the corporate politicians who had mastered the organizations who control the production of goods.This is a highly evolved socialist worldview that conservatives hate.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Partisan in Chief
This week Congress passed a bill to authorize spending on health care subsidies for children. Bush vetoed the bill. He then blamed Congress for not passing any bills. His poll numbers immediately went up. See the logic?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Fred Deux
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about Fred Thompson. From all reports, his campaign is falling pretty flat. Republicans are really not like me. Independent and "Swing" voters mystify me. They're from a different planet than I am. That's a good thing because I'm cooler than they are.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Obama's experience
Some fun Democratic infighting last week. Bill Clinton acted the role of a Vice-Presidential candidate and took some shots at Obama's lack of experience. Robert Reich acted the role of an Obama spinner in defending him. I agree with Clinton that Obama's experience is a bit lacking compared to Hillary and Edwards, but I don't agree with his specific knocks. Obama has no experience at all in a national campaign. Regardless of how you spin it, that's not good in my eyes. I want the Dem candidate (whomever that may be) to thrash the Repub candidate (whomever that may be).
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Quote quiz
Who said the following of which President this week?
""the best Republican president we've had in a while."
Give up?
Alan Greenspan said it of Bill Clinton.
Yep, Greenspan loves Bill Clinton. He especially loves Clinton's conservative economic policies. Wide open borders for trade, and fiscal responsibility were Clinton hallmarks and he pulled them off better than any Republican President since Eisenhower.
Personally, I think those policies were perfect for the time Clinton was in office. Maybe not so much today. That either makes me practical or a hypocrite depending on your perspective.
""the best Republican president we've had in a while."
Give up?
Alan Greenspan said it of Bill Clinton.
Yep, Greenspan loves Bill Clinton. He especially loves Clinton's conservative economic policies. Wide open borders for trade, and fiscal responsibility were Clinton hallmarks and he pulled them off better than any Republican President since Eisenhower.
Personally, I think those policies were perfect for the time Clinton was in office. Maybe not so much today. That either makes me practical or a hypocrite depending on your perspective.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
September 12 - self-righteous ignorant assholes
Post September 11 America is a pretty lousy place to be. Yeah, we waved our flags for a few days, cried together a bit, watched the same stuff on TV, and partied at the Concert for NYC some. But all those feelings of community were very short-lived. Our true nature of ignorance, blaming each other and generally lousy human nature bubbled to the surface with great force.
Shortly after September 11, 2001 an internet asshole (who knew a bit about me personally) decided I was somewhat to blame for the attacks because I voted for Ted Kennedy. In his ignorant mind, he figured that since the planes departed from Logan Airport and Kennedy is a Massachusetts liberal, and all liberals (especially Ted) are 'soft on security and crime' then Kennedy and his supporters (like me) must be partly responsible for the deaths of the thousands in New York. I am not kidding. This asshole really did believe his argument. That moment was a revelation for me. I realized that as shocking as it was to find out how much some non-Americans hate us, we also hate each other. Mix a little self-righteousness together with the hate, and acts of cruelty are the likely result.
Last year ABC Television aired a mini-series on the 5th anniversary of the attacks. The gist of the 2 day commemorative event was to make the argument that the attacks were the fault of the Clinton Administration, and that the Bush Administration behaved with great heroism. I made a sarcastic joke about this movie on a chatboard, saying that we should always remember and never lose sight of the fact that 9-11 was Clinton's fault. Another internet asshole (also armed with some personal knowledge of me) took offense and wished me dead. He followed up his death wish with further expressions of his anger, taking swipes at me on several personal levels. Again, proving how self-righteous anger often makes Americans inflict cruelty on each other. This particular ignorant asshole was so angry and nasty toward me that I couldn't really understand why he was angry. His expressions sounded like a very young child having a tantrum. I can only guess that he thought I was making an offensive joke about him, and that it was somehow personal. If he was one of the dumbasses who really did hold Clinton primarily repsonsible (I can't know for sure), then I guess he had a good reason to be very angry at me. I was making fun of that ignorant line of reasoning, and expressing my disgust with my fellow Americans. He may have thought I was being cruel to him, but I'll probably never know that for sure.
The first major terrorist act in America (post cold war) happened in Oklahoma City. Americans killed Americans for the shear joy of expressing their hatred of each other. Joy to the world. Not.
Some lyrics from one of my favorite post-September 11 songs:
"I wil lay me down
in a bunker underground
I won't let this happen to my children
meet the real world coming out of your shell
With white elephants
sitting ducks
I will rise up
Little babies' eyes, eyes, eyes, eyes"
Shortly after September 11, 2001 an internet asshole (who knew a bit about me personally) decided I was somewhat to blame for the attacks because I voted for Ted Kennedy. In his ignorant mind, he figured that since the planes departed from Logan Airport and Kennedy is a Massachusetts liberal, and all liberals (especially Ted) are 'soft on security and crime' then Kennedy and his supporters (like me) must be partly responsible for the deaths of the thousands in New York. I am not kidding. This asshole really did believe his argument. That moment was a revelation for me. I realized that as shocking as it was to find out how much some non-Americans hate us, we also hate each other. Mix a little self-righteousness together with the hate, and acts of cruelty are the likely result.
Last year ABC Television aired a mini-series on the 5th anniversary of the attacks. The gist of the 2 day commemorative event was to make the argument that the attacks were the fault of the Clinton Administration, and that the Bush Administration behaved with great heroism. I made a sarcastic joke about this movie on a chatboard, saying that we should always remember and never lose sight of the fact that 9-11 was Clinton's fault. Another internet asshole (also armed with some personal knowledge of me) took offense and wished me dead. He followed up his death wish with further expressions of his anger, taking swipes at me on several personal levels. Again, proving how self-righteous anger often makes Americans inflict cruelty on each other. This particular ignorant asshole was so angry and nasty toward me that I couldn't really understand why he was angry. His expressions sounded like a very young child having a tantrum. I can only guess that he thought I was making an offensive joke about him, and that it was somehow personal. If he was one of the dumbasses who really did hold Clinton primarily repsonsible (I can't know for sure), then I guess he had a good reason to be very angry at me. I was making fun of that ignorant line of reasoning, and expressing my disgust with my fellow Americans. He may have thought I was being cruel to him, but I'll probably never know that for sure.
The first major terrorist act in America (post cold war) happened in Oklahoma City. Americans killed Americans for the shear joy of expressing their hatred of each other. Joy to the world. Not.
Some lyrics from one of my favorite post-September 11 songs:
"I wil lay me down
in a bunker underground
I won't let this happen to my children
meet the real world coming out of your shell
With white elephants
sitting ducks
I will rise up
Little babies' eyes, eyes, eyes, eyes"
Monday, September 10, 2007
Patriot Day - September 11
How to mark tomorrow????
The events are still fresh, the tradition of marking it are not yet set. What will become the traditions of this day? I don't want to fly my flag, that doesn't feel right. I'm sure someone will find that offensive. I'm not even comfortable with the notion that several thousand civillians dying without any warning could be 'patriots'. To me, a patriot is someone who exhibits some form of nationalism. I don't see how it relates to that day.
Patriot's Day is a Massachusetts and Maine holiday. It happens in April to mark the first battles of our war for independence against the British Empire. Today it is primarily marked by the running of The Boston Marathon, a Red Sox game and some guys marching around dressed up in costumes to elicit images of the partisan revolutionary radicals who fought for American independence.
Veterans Day is offically for honoring current members of the military. It was put into place by Woodrow Wilson on Armistice Day (the end of WWI). Today it is just another optional day off of work for most Americans.
Memorial Day's current offical purpose is honoring our war dead. It was originally put into place to honor those who died defending the Union during the US Civil War, and expanded to honor all military deaths after WWI. Currently, pop culture knows it as the first day of the summer season and the running of the Indianapolis 500. Many Americans also mark the day by honoring loved ones who have died irregardless of whether they served in the military.
What will become of September 11 in US culture? I've no idea, but the way these rememberances have morphed in the past might give some idea of how much the collective memory can change. Personally, I kind of wish it would just go away. It feels a bit to me like our national Good Friday. The day we got our ass whupped. Not very patriotic, I suppose.
The events are still fresh, the tradition of marking it are not yet set. What will become the traditions of this day? I don't want to fly my flag, that doesn't feel right. I'm sure someone will find that offensive. I'm not even comfortable with the notion that several thousand civillians dying without any warning could be 'patriots'. To me, a patriot is someone who exhibits some form of nationalism. I don't see how it relates to that day.
Patriot's Day is a Massachusetts and Maine holiday. It happens in April to mark the first battles of our war for independence against the British Empire. Today it is primarily marked by the running of The Boston Marathon, a Red Sox game and some guys marching around dressed up in costumes to elicit images of the partisan revolutionary radicals who fought for American independence.
Veterans Day is offically for honoring current members of the military. It was put into place by Woodrow Wilson on Armistice Day (the end of WWI). Today it is just another optional day off of work for most Americans.
Memorial Day's current offical purpose is honoring our war dead. It was originally put into place to honor those who died defending the Union during the US Civil War, and expanded to honor all military deaths after WWI. Currently, pop culture knows it as the first day of the summer season and the running of the Indianapolis 500. Many Americans also mark the day by honoring loved ones who have died irregardless of whether they served in the military.
What will become of September 11 in US culture? I've no idea, but the way these rememberances have morphed in the past might give some idea of how much the collective memory can change. Personally, I kind of wish it would just go away. It feels a bit to me like our national Good Friday. The day we got our ass whupped. Not very patriotic, I suppose.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Fred Thompson
This guy seems to have the stuff that many unthinking voters love: Deep voice, acting ability, tall, macho image, proven ability to lie and shovel manure, drives a pickup truck for the cameras... Therefore I think he has a real good chance to be the next President. He's Reaganesque, which is the gold standard for Republicans an many 'independent' voters. Of course, it isn't clear at all what policies he would want to pursue but no matter. He has what Americans have proven they want in a President - an image.
Friday, August 31, 2007
I am NOT gay
I've tried to find something horribly wrong with Senator Craig's toilet encounter. I think Republicans are evil people who should not have the keys to my country, so I'm a partisan who wants to 'dirty and good man's reputation' in this case. However, I don't understand what he did wrong. Shoe-to-shoe contact under the stall partition with a disputed reach-under doesn't seem so bad to me. From what I can tell, the cop was in the wrong and the Senator was in the right.
The entertaining angle on this is (aside from the mental images of these two guys in stalls) is the way the Republicans are denouncing his actions in the nastiest possible terms. Without the slightest hint of specificity on why, they want this guy gone. Not now, but yesterday. I hope it is further evidence of the Republican Party falling apart.
Now, for anyone who might have the misfortune of sitting next to me in a public toilet I have the following soundbites ready for anything you might find 'disgusting':
- It is not supposed to smell good, it is shit.
- I don't find anything about this situation to be sexually stimulating. Poop is nasty. There's no wood in this stall.
- If you feel I've crossed over into your space, I'm sorry. That is the last thing I want to do. I would prefer to do this in my own home or in an empty space of my own. I'm doing my best to avoid any social interaction at this time.
The entertaining angle on this is (aside from the mental images of these two guys in stalls) is the way the Republicans are denouncing his actions in the nastiest possible terms. Without the slightest hint of specificity on why, they want this guy gone. Not now, but yesterday. I hope it is further evidence of the Republican Party falling apart.
Now, for anyone who might have the misfortune of sitting next to me in a public toilet I have the following soundbites ready for anything you might find 'disgusting':
- It is not supposed to smell good, it is shit.
- I don't find anything about this situation to be sexually stimulating. Poop is nasty. There's no wood in this stall.
- If you feel I've crossed over into your space, I'm sorry. That is the last thing I want to do. I would prefer to do this in my own home or in an empty space of my own. I'm doing my best to avoid any social interaction at this time.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
My favorite Presidental canditates
The most recent poll I've seen puts the Democratic contenders in order. My current preference number is to the left (natch), % in poll to right.
2-Hillary Clinton 36
4-Barack Obama 21
8-Al Gore 15
Unsure 10
3-John Edwards 9
6-Bill Richardson 3
1-Joe Biden 2
7-Dennis Kucinich 1
5-Chris Dodd -
9-Mike Gravel -
Other 1
2-Hillary Clinton 36
4-Barack Obama 21
8-Al Gore 15
Unsure 10
3-John Edwards 9
6-Bill Richardson 3
1-Joe Biden 2
7-Dennis Kucinich 1
5-Chris Dodd -
9-Mike Gravel -
Other 1
Turd Blossom
Regarding Karl Rove's observations about GW Bush critcs: "What they don't like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America." No. That's wrong. "They" dislike many things about him, none of which has anything to do with loathing his common sense or middleness (whatever the hell that means). I dislike him because he has done harm to my country. I loathe him because of things he has done, not because of the image he projects. I don't give a damn about his image.
And good ol' middle American Karl has something right about me. I am elitist. I think smarts, education, wisdom, intellectualism and open-mindedness are good things. I believe all humans are elitist in some way.
And good ol' middle American Karl has something right about me. I am elitist. I think smarts, education, wisdom, intellectualism and open-mindedness are good things. I believe all humans are elitist in some way.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Dem hopefuls II
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
