Carpetbagger's got a post suggesting that now that it looks like McCain's going to be the Republican nominee that we shift tacks, and instead of focusing on the division between McCain and conservatives, we instead focus on the similarities. And by doing so, we will taint McCain with the Republican disease. And while that's not a bad strategy, that's just not the best one. At this point, I'll just repeat what I said at his place.
I think we need to make him fight for his conservative bonafides and to prove to these people that he’s one of them. That way, he’ll have to make more speeches and platform ideas that conform to what they want to hear. And by doing so, he’ll turn off the rest of the country and make our job easier.
Now Carpetbagger's suggesting that we do that for him. That we attack him for being too conservative, thus making conservatives want to defend him. So then he can focus more energy on showing what a maverick he is, and how he’s not as conservative as the evil libs are portraying him. And while I see some wisdom to this, I don’t think it’s the best strategy.
The best strategy is, as always, to just tell the truth. He’s a lying flip-flopper who says whatever he needs to say to get elected. We contrast his words on the campaign trail in 2000 with what he’s saying now. And we compare his ample praise of Bush and the Iraq war with what he’s now pretending his position was. That’s where the attack is. We shouldn’t let him take any ground, and we’ll deny him the ability to claim either the conservative OR maverick labels. The conservatives will hate him for his words in 2000, his inconsistencies, his maverickness, and his attacks on Bush; while moderates will hate him for his more recent words, his inconsistencies, his conservativeness, and most of all, his support for Bush. And so he’ll be stuck trying to please both groups, while finding it tough to do either.
And let’s not forget: This is the same mistake we made with Bush. We kept trying to paint him as an idiot cowboy who was too conservative; and they kept recasting all our criticism as showing that he’s a regular cowboy who is consistent. And then he could campaign as a moderate while his conservative base was confident he was a conservative, based upon liberal outrage of him. And that’s exactly backwards. Republicans are lying conmen who will say anything to be elected. That’s where the attack needs to be. McCain isn’t too conservative. He’s too big of a phony. And best of all, this undercuts his great appeal: Which is that he’s authentic. It’s not true and we should do our best to convince people of that.
Make him fight to prove he’s not a phony, and he’ll have to take a side and piss off the other. And whichever side he takes, we just attack him for having said the opposite and showing how this proves what a phony he is. That’s what they did with Kerry, and Kerry wasn’t nearly the phony McCain is. Everything we say about McCain must be a part of this bigger narrative of him being a phony. That’s just how it’s done in politics. And best of all, it's the truth.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Lacking the Vision Thing
I was over at Carpetbaggers, yet again thrashing about with Hillary supporters, and wrote a comment on Hillary's vote to authorize war in Iraq that I figured I'd share with you. But don't tell anyone else about this one. This post is just between you and me.
One thing I’d just like to mention is that the Iraq vote isn’t an isolated incident, but rather is symptomatic of the entire Clinton method. In essence, they’re not proactive fighters, but reactive. They wait for their opponents to establish the playing field, and then they find a key position to hide in which allows them to declare a relatively easy victory. Which is good in the short term, but in the long term, they end up going deeper into their own territory every time.
That’s how we got into Iraq in the first place. How often did we hear Bill’s and Hillary’s words come back to haunt us during the build-up to the war, and even afterwards? Too often. But why was Iraq such a big deal in the 90’s? They never threatened us. They weren’t going to attack us. I’m not big on countries flouting the UN or torturing people and whatnot; but are we going to pretend this was some special case for Iraq? Of course not. Some of our key allies do the same thing. The truth is that this was a big issue because the war mongers wanted to attack Iraq, and so Bill played it the best he could. He allowed them to set the stage, and then worked to stop their goals on it. But in the meantime, he wasted too much time on an issue that wasn’t vital to America’s security. And when he finally left, it really didn’t take too much, relatively speaking, for Bush to launch an unnecessary pre-emptive war that continues to screw us up to this day.
And that’s the thing, for as much as he was credited with it, Bill never did have the vision thing. He talked a good game, but in the end, always worked within the constraints that the conservatives set for him. Because he waited for them to make their move, and then reacted to it; rather than taking the initiative. And I suspect it’s because they just like winning battles, and don’t really have any broader goals beyond that.
And that’s exactly how Hillary looks now, and is why I prefer Barack. It’s not just a fluke that he’s better at staying on message and projecting a vision. That’s what he does. He’s not going to waste time combating every little squabble, but tries to focus on the Big Picture and staying with his own narrative. And it works, and is what we need in a president. Not someone who waits to find out where his opponent is going, but moving ahead, forcing his opponent to run to catch up with him. And so we see Fighter Hillary now playing nice with Obama, just as he had planned. It was obvious that Hillary’s strategy was to pull him into a mudfight to sully him, but he ended up pulling her out of the mud and sidelining Bill.
And that’s the same kind of stuff conservatives did to the Clintons throughout the 90’s. As I’ve said before, I always defended that crap, but I never liked it. I want a president I’m proud to support; not another I’m ashamed to defend.
Oh, and I finally got around to reading Obama's big anti-war speech from 2002. If you haven't read it yet, you should. Good stuff. Too bad more Democrats weren't saying stuff like this, rather than trying to prove their patriotic bonafides by allowing us to get rolled by the Republicans. And we ended up getting attacked as unpatriotic traitors anyway. Great plan, guys.
One thing I’d just like to mention is that the Iraq vote isn’t an isolated incident, but rather is symptomatic of the entire Clinton method. In essence, they’re not proactive fighters, but reactive. They wait for their opponents to establish the playing field, and then they find a key position to hide in which allows them to declare a relatively easy victory. Which is good in the short term, but in the long term, they end up going deeper into their own territory every time.
That’s how we got into Iraq in the first place. How often did we hear Bill’s and Hillary’s words come back to haunt us during the build-up to the war, and even afterwards? Too often. But why was Iraq such a big deal in the 90’s? They never threatened us. They weren’t going to attack us. I’m not big on countries flouting the UN or torturing people and whatnot; but are we going to pretend this was some special case for Iraq? Of course not. Some of our key allies do the same thing. The truth is that this was a big issue because the war mongers wanted to attack Iraq, and so Bill played it the best he could. He allowed them to set the stage, and then worked to stop their goals on it. But in the meantime, he wasted too much time on an issue that wasn’t vital to America’s security. And when he finally left, it really didn’t take too much, relatively speaking, for Bush to launch an unnecessary pre-emptive war that continues to screw us up to this day.
And that’s the thing, for as much as he was credited with it, Bill never did have the vision thing. He talked a good game, but in the end, always worked within the constraints that the conservatives set for him. Because he waited for them to make their move, and then reacted to it; rather than taking the initiative. And I suspect it’s because they just like winning battles, and don’t really have any broader goals beyond that.
And that’s exactly how Hillary looks now, and is why I prefer Barack. It’s not just a fluke that he’s better at staying on message and projecting a vision. That’s what he does. He’s not going to waste time combating every little squabble, but tries to focus on the Big Picture and staying with his own narrative. And it works, and is what we need in a president. Not someone who waits to find out where his opponent is going, but moving ahead, forcing his opponent to run to catch up with him. And so we see Fighter Hillary now playing nice with Obama, just as he had planned. It was obvious that Hillary’s strategy was to pull him into a mudfight to sully him, but he ended up pulling her out of the mud and sidelining Bill.
And that’s the same kind of stuff conservatives did to the Clintons throughout the 90’s. As I’ve said before, I always defended that crap, but I never liked it. I want a president I’m proud to support; not another I’m ashamed to defend.
Oh, and I finally got around to reading Obama's big anti-war speech from 2002. If you haven't read it yet, you should. Good stuff. Too bad more Democrats weren't saying stuff like this, rather than trying to prove their patriotic bonafides by allowing us to get rolled by the Republicans. And we ended up getting attacked as unpatriotic traitors anyway. Great plan, guys.
Terrorism
I'm not trying to be snide or anything, but why does it matter if two bombing victims were unwittingly carrying the bombs? They're still just as dead as the other people. I'm also not sure why it matters if they were mentally disabled or not, as if that makes it worse than when a normal person dies. I'm worried that people have gotten so desensitized to this stuff that they only notice unusual bombings, and so the death of two gains more attention than the death of one hundred.
And this should serve as a reminder of how inherently stupid racial profiling is. When people can be carrying bombs that they're not even aware of, it really is best if the terrorists don't know who will get through security more easily. Telling people about your security provisions doesn't seem like a very good idea, especially not when you're tipping them off on how to get around them.
Perhaps some day soon we'll have political leaders who have better solutions to fighting terrorism than war and tighter security.
And this should serve as a reminder of how inherently stupid racial profiling is. When people can be carrying bombs that they're not even aware of, it really is best if the terrorists don't know who will get through security more easily. Telling people about your security provisions doesn't seem like a very good idea, especially not when you're tipping them off on how to get around them.
Perhaps some day soon we'll have political leaders who have better solutions to fighting terrorism than war and tighter security.
Friday, February 01, 2008
More Hillary Bashing
I don't watch debates, and generally don't even watch highlight reels of debates, unless a blogger I trust says it's something particularly interesting. Because the whole time I watch these things, all I can think about is how they answered the questions wrong and what they should have done instead and I find that whole thing to be quite frustrating. But I just read part of a debate transcript that Juan Cole has, and noticed this interesting exchange after something Obama said:
MR. BLITZER: Senator -- Senator Clinton, that's a clear swipe at you. (Laughter.)
SEN. CLINTON: Really? (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: I wouldn't call it a "swipe." I think --
SEN. CLINTON: We're having -- we're having such a good time.
SEN. OBAMA: We are having a -- we're having --
SEN. CLINTON: We are, we are. We're having a wonderful time.
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, absolutely. (Laughter, applause.)
I refuse to watch any clip of this for fear of it giving me the diabetes, but I really don't see much context for this other than to say that they're now making a point of getting along. Perhaps too much of a point. Shortly afterwards, Hillary spoke of some bill that both her and Barack both agreed upon. It's enough to make a Republican cry.
But the main thing this suggests to me is that I was right in thinking Obama won the attack war. Specifically, he was able to make two of Hillary's strongest assets, her husband and her aggressive attack style, into liabilities that she won't want to use any more.
I've already read things suggesting that they're now regretting Bill's strong position in her campaign, and this debate now looks like they've neutered her attacks. That she's so afraid to attack Obama that she gives this lame banter intended to project friendliness. And this plays right into Obama's strengths. He's the nice guy who can play a little rough in order to get his opponents to play nice with him, and it worked.
Why This Counts
Now, I generally don't think political campaigns are the best way to pick leaders, as the skills for leading aren't necessarily the same as the skills for campaigning. Just ask President Bush about that. If he was as lousy a campaigner as he is a president, he'd have a few cush board member jobs at his daddy's friend's companies and wouldn't have a trouble in the world. But now that he's expected to actually do stuff and have people listen to him, it's all gone down the crapper.
But this is actually different, as this fits right into their plans as president. Barack has told us that he can do this routine as president and get results; while Hillary tells us that she can be a fierce attack dog and get results. But now we see Obama tap-dancing around Hillary while she acts like she's on some lame morning talkshow. And I think it all comes down to Hillary being unable to make battlefield decisions on which attacks are good and which should be avoided. Instead, she's just swinging at everything that comes her way, to the point that she contradicts her own attacks.
Republicans do the very same thing; like when they attacked Kerry for being a pandering flip-flopper who's too liberal for America and won't give us what we really want. These are inherently different ideas, but somehow Republicans could say both things in the same sentence and imagine they made sense. And that's the general problem with attack-style politics; none of these people are actually clever enough to pull it off. I mean honestly, what helped more with Bush's two victories: the constant attacks or voter fraud? Instead, we see them attack everything indiscriminately and only remember a small handful of them, which we pretend were decisive in an election we also believe was stolen. But in my opinion, it was the theft that gave them the Whitehouse; not the attacks.
Misremembering History
Two other issues I wanted to talk about were at the end of the clip Cole posted (I skipped to the end, so I'm sure I missed other stuff). The first was fairly small, when she said "We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors." But of course, that's not correct. As I'm sure she knows, we bombed Iraq because they weren't cooperating with the inspectors, not because they were kicked out. You can hear Bill explain it here. But seeing as how this has become accepted wisdom in the media, I guess I can't blame her for repeating the inaccuracy. Hell, she might even have been attacked for suggesting it wasn't this way.
But here's the bigger problem, as she continued to defend her authorization of war:
Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do.So I think I made a reasoned judgment.
Now, she's not a dumb person, but I didn't think I was either; yet I can't make any sense of this? We needed to attack Saddam because he had a large ego and might want to outdo Bin Laden? Is that it? Because I can't see what else this can mean, but think it's a complete load of shit. But again, maybe I'm missing something here.
And remember, if we remove the 9/11-Bin Laden thing out of the picture, shouldn't we have invaded Iraq during Bill's presidency? For as much as people suggest that 9/11 "changed everything," it didn't change this at all. The war-mongers wanted us to go to war with Iraq, and that's what they got. But if anything, 9/11 made attacking Iraq a worse decision, not a better one.
And once we remove 9/11 from the picture, yet still insist that we needed to invade; then the only conclusion is that Bill screwed up by not invading. But she can't say that, and surely won't say that Saddam was tied to 9/11, so I'm guessing she's invented this absurd megolamaniac argument as a way of justifying her bad judgment without having to explain why we didn't do it earlier.
Bad Calculus
And the worst part about it is that this is just hogwash and she's playing us all for suckers. Everyone knows why she authorized war, whether they want to admit it or not. It was a political calculation, plain and simple. She thought she saw the writing on the wall, and didn't want a repeat of the first Gulf War, when Dems who opposed the war got hammered. So like many of her ilk, she thought this was a no-brainer and thought she was scoring easy points by supporting a popular war. That's all there is to this and anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.
And as Digby has pointed out (I think it was Digby, anyway), the political calculation on this was all wrong. At this point, the Republicans were going to hammer each and every Dem no matter what they did, so the only smart move was to at least take a brave stand and oppose the war. And I agree with that completely. Sure, I'd prefer that Dems oppose the war because they thought it was a bad decision, but if it was a political calculation, I'd at least like for them to have calculated it properly. Hillary didn't. Obama did.
But again, this is all more reason for why we need Obama and not Hillary. She continues to make faulty political calculations, and is primarily resting on her fame and marketing machine to carry her through this. Kind of reminds me of a certain president I know. As usual, I'll give the disclaimer that I would have supported Hillary if I didn't think there was a better candidate and will support her if she wins the primary; but the more I see of her, the less I'd want that to happen.
MR. BLITZER: Senator -- Senator Clinton, that's a clear swipe at you. (Laughter.)
SEN. CLINTON: Really? (Laughter.)
SEN. OBAMA: I wouldn't call it a "swipe." I think --
SEN. CLINTON: We're having -- we're having such a good time.
SEN. OBAMA: We are having a -- we're having --
SEN. CLINTON: We are, we are. We're having a wonderful time.
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, absolutely. (Laughter, applause.)
I refuse to watch any clip of this for fear of it giving me the diabetes, but I really don't see much context for this other than to say that they're now making a point of getting along. Perhaps too much of a point. Shortly afterwards, Hillary spoke of some bill that both her and Barack both agreed upon. It's enough to make a Republican cry.
But the main thing this suggests to me is that I was right in thinking Obama won the attack war. Specifically, he was able to make two of Hillary's strongest assets, her husband and her aggressive attack style, into liabilities that she won't want to use any more.
I've already read things suggesting that they're now regretting Bill's strong position in her campaign, and this debate now looks like they've neutered her attacks. That she's so afraid to attack Obama that she gives this lame banter intended to project friendliness. And this plays right into Obama's strengths. He's the nice guy who can play a little rough in order to get his opponents to play nice with him, and it worked.
Why This Counts
Now, I generally don't think political campaigns are the best way to pick leaders, as the skills for leading aren't necessarily the same as the skills for campaigning. Just ask President Bush about that. If he was as lousy a campaigner as he is a president, he'd have a few cush board member jobs at his daddy's friend's companies and wouldn't have a trouble in the world. But now that he's expected to actually do stuff and have people listen to him, it's all gone down the crapper.
But this is actually different, as this fits right into their plans as president. Barack has told us that he can do this routine as president and get results; while Hillary tells us that she can be a fierce attack dog and get results. But now we see Obama tap-dancing around Hillary while she acts like she's on some lame morning talkshow. And I think it all comes down to Hillary being unable to make battlefield decisions on which attacks are good and which should be avoided. Instead, she's just swinging at everything that comes her way, to the point that she contradicts her own attacks.
Republicans do the very same thing; like when they attacked Kerry for being a pandering flip-flopper who's too liberal for America and won't give us what we really want. These are inherently different ideas, but somehow Republicans could say both things in the same sentence and imagine they made sense. And that's the general problem with attack-style politics; none of these people are actually clever enough to pull it off. I mean honestly, what helped more with Bush's two victories: the constant attacks or voter fraud? Instead, we see them attack everything indiscriminately and only remember a small handful of them, which we pretend were decisive in an election we also believe was stolen. But in my opinion, it was the theft that gave them the Whitehouse; not the attacks.
Misremembering History
Two other issues I wanted to talk about were at the end of the clip Cole posted (I skipped to the end, so I'm sure I missed other stuff). The first was fairly small, when she said "We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors." But of course, that's not correct. As I'm sure she knows, we bombed Iraq because they weren't cooperating with the inspectors, not because they were kicked out. You can hear Bill explain it here. But seeing as how this has become accepted wisdom in the media, I guess I can't blame her for repeating the inaccuracy. Hell, she might even have been attacked for suggesting it wasn't this way.
But here's the bigger problem, as she continued to defend her authorization of war:
Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do.So I think I made a reasoned judgment.
Now, she's not a dumb person, but I didn't think I was either; yet I can't make any sense of this? We needed to attack Saddam because he had a large ego and might want to outdo Bin Laden? Is that it? Because I can't see what else this can mean, but think it's a complete load of shit. But again, maybe I'm missing something here.
And remember, if we remove the 9/11-Bin Laden thing out of the picture, shouldn't we have invaded Iraq during Bill's presidency? For as much as people suggest that 9/11 "changed everything," it didn't change this at all. The war-mongers wanted us to go to war with Iraq, and that's what they got. But if anything, 9/11 made attacking Iraq a worse decision, not a better one.
And once we remove 9/11 from the picture, yet still insist that we needed to invade; then the only conclusion is that Bill screwed up by not invading. But she can't say that, and surely won't say that Saddam was tied to 9/11, so I'm guessing she's invented this absurd megolamaniac argument as a way of justifying her bad judgment without having to explain why we didn't do it earlier.
Bad Calculus
And the worst part about it is that this is just hogwash and she's playing us all for suckers. Everyone knows why she authorized war, whether they want to admit it or not. It was a political calculation, plain and simple. She thought she saw the writing on the wall, and didn't want a repeat of the first Gulf War, when Dems who opposed the war got hammered. So like many of her ilk, she thought this was a no-brainer and thought she was scoring easy points by supporting a popular war. That's all there is to this and anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.
And as Digby has pointed out (I think it was Digby, anyway), the political calculation on this was all wrong. At this point, the Republicans were going to hammer each and every Dem no matter what they did, so the only smart move was to at least take a brave stand and oppose the war. And I agree with that completely. Sure, I'd prefer that Dems oppose the war because they thought it was a bad decision, but if it was a political calculation, I'd at least like for them to have calculated it properly. Hillary didn't. Obama did.
But again, this is all more reason for why we need Obama and not Hillary. She continues to make faulty political calculations, and is primarily resting on her fame and marketing machine to carry her through this. Kind of reminds me of a certain president I know. As usual, I'll give the disclaimer that I would have supported Hillary if I didn't think there was a better candidate and will support her if she wins the primary; but the more I see of her, the less I'd want that to happen.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Slow News Day, Anyone?
Per Reuters:
PARIS (Reuters) - A drunk broke off his rendition of a Charles Aznavour song to ask rush-hour Paris commuters for 50,000 euros (37,109 pounds) on Wednesday, inspired by the scale of the trading scandal at French bank Societe Generale.
"Got five euros sir? No? Maybe 50,000 euros then. I'm not a banker. I'd bet it on the horse-races," said the drunk, who got no money but plenty of laughs.
Uhm, if anyone can explain to me the significance of this, I'd be glad to know. And if this is what gets laughs in Paris, insert Jerry Lewis joke here. Perhaps it was funnier in French.
And what has the world come to when news articles only give currency amounts in euros and pounds. What the hell are we supposed to do? Carry slide rules around with us? I blame George Bush.
PARIS (Reuters) - A drunk broke off his rendition of a Charles Aznavour song to ask rush-hour Paris commuters for 50,000 euros (37,109 pounds) on Wednesday, inspired by the scale of the trading scandal at French bank Societe Generale.
"Got five euros sir? No? Maybe 50,000 euros then. I'm not a banker. I'd bet it on the horse-races," said the drunk, who got no money but plenty of laughs.
Uhm, if anyone can explain to me the significance of this, I'd be glad to know. And if this is what gets laughs in Paris, insert Jerry Lewis joke here. Perhaps it was funnier in French.
And what has the world come to when news articles only give currency amounts in euros and pounds. What the hell are we supposed to do? Carry slide rules around with us? I blame George Bush.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Deep Thought of the Moment
If Fred Thompson were a doctor, he'd still have to rely entirely on his mediocre acting skills and deep voice to pay the bills.
In other breaking news: Red State's Ben Domenech has such a man-crush on Hollywood Fred that he knows that Thompson "obviously" doesn't need Viagra. Good to know.
In other breaking news: Red State's Ben Domenech has such a man-crush on Hollywood Fred that he knows that Thompson "obviously" doesn't need Viagra. Good to know.
Cult of Hillary
Yowser. You probably already saw the story about the New York chapter of NOW putting out a press release denouncing Ted Kennedy for endorsing Obama instead of Hillary and referring to it as "the ultimate betrayal" and "the greatest betrayal!" (Exclamation point in the original)
But I just wanted to say how this incident really adds to the whole weird Cult of Hillary that seems to be forming in the minds of her supporters. Now before I go on, I'd like to say again that I don't think Hillary is a bad candidate and that I will support her in the general election, god forbid she wins. But it just happens that I think Obama is the better candidate, and think he'd be better in the general election and in the Whitehouse.
But it's her supporters that are really starting to worry me. Because they will not only fervently support everything she does, often with the meagerest of rationalizations, but seem to be supporting her supporters oddball actions too. Like with this NY NOW press release. To me, this is a no-brainer: That press release was a huge, huge mistake. And for as much as it could make a difference in this campaign, it would be only to hurt Hillary and help Obama. In fact, this is much better for Obama than if they had just endorsed him explicitly.
Yet, there appear to be some who support even this ridiculous press release. For example, one Hillary supporter at Carpetbagger's suggests that this is just Obama supporters being "touchy" over some criticism, as we "pillory Hillary," and even suggests that we're only now defending Kennedy as a "shiny light," though he's been attacked in the media for years.
What in god's name has this person been smoking? This wasn't criticism. This was a declaration of war. To even suggest that Kennedy endorsing Obama is a betrayal of feminists at all is nothing but an open insult to feminists; let alone the "ultimate" betrayal. And this gives the worst view of special interest groups possible. Apparently, NY NOW thinks that Ted Kennedy is a horrible politician who only deserves their support because they imagined that he'd endorse a woman for president. And now that he's "betrayed" them, they're going to take him down. I'm sure Teddy's trembling as we speak.
I honestly don't know what to think about this admission that this group supported a politician they didn't like because they thought he'd be loyal to one of their causes. On the one hand, I wonder if they hadn't thought this through all the way and didn't mean to say that. On the other hand, it really would explain why these groups seem to support incumbents so much.
Name Calling
And then there was a commenter named rockerbabe, who mimicked the NY NOW press conference, while going further in suggesting that Democrats turn a blind eye to people referring to Hillary as "a bitch, a whore, etc." What planet is this person on and how do they receive our internet so quickly?
While I'm sure there are anti-Hillary Dems who say these things about Hillary, or who don't denounce it; most of us do. Like when a McCain supporter referred to Hillary as a bitch when asking him a question, and McCain got in trouble for it (which I wrote about here). Or more recently, when an anti-Hillary conservative group came out named Citizens United, Not Timid, which not only sought to alienate social conservatives like my mom with their offensive language, but are also trying to win the coveted Worst Acronym of the Year award.
And have I been missing it when mainstream politicians refer to Hillary as a bitch? Even McCain seemed awkward about it in that one instance, and clearly wanted to avoid using it without offending his supporter. And overall, I'm just not seeing some public acceptance of any of this. Sure, it's ok with some people. But I find the whole insinuation of this to be extremely offensive. There's this implied idea that any of us who aren't actively feminists are anti-feminists who they're putting up with, despite our sexism. And the tell-tale on this would seem to be that anyone who doesn't support Hillary is sexist.
And last, but not least: Can we do away with this whole idea that there are insults against women that are acceptable because we're sexist? I'm sorry, but some women act like bitches. It's true. And there are women who I'd refer to as "whores," even though they aren't actual prostitutes. But then again, I've referred to men using these terms too. Moreover, there are specific words that generally are only used to describe men: Like bastard, asshole, schmuck, and prick. Is it sexist that these words are only used to describe men? I don't see how, yet I've never used any of those words to describe a woman. That's just how it is.
And then there was rockerbabe's suggestion that it's a "double-standard" that we can't use the "n-word" to describe Obama. Is there any suggestion here that this word would be acceptable if Obama was a black woman? Of course not. For whatever reason, right or wrong, that word is considered to be completely off-limits as an insult of black people. Some insults are more harsh than others, and that's considered one of the worst. I see no double-standard with that. I don't know what rule-making body makes these decisions, but I'll abide by them. Some words are more off-limits than others.
Backfiring Campaigns
And again, it ties into this whole idea that we're chauvinists for not supporting Hillary. And of course, that's most offensive to Hillary. Are we supposed to support her because she's a woman, or because she's the best candidate? If it's because she's a woman, she gets no support from me at all. Hell, I'd probably just pick my wife, mom, or sister if I didn't care about the woman's qualifications. At least that way I'd get to hang out in the Whitehouse sometime. But if we're supporting Hillary because of her qualifications, then I'm fine with that, but still prefer Obama.
Overall, I think this whole line of reasoning is a mistake. But it's the same kind of mistake I'm getting from the entire Hillary campaign: Anything to be attacked should be attacked, and everything that can be supported must be supported. And so we see Hillary attacking Obama for being too soft and too hard, and her supporters denouncing us for not picking the woman candidate. And we're all Hillary bashers for not supporting all this. Again, this is not what I want in a presidential candidate. You have to know when to make your attacks and when someone on your team has made a mistake. So far, I've seen few signs from the Hillary camp to suggest they understand this.
Because this kind of thing was a huge mistake; just as I think it was a mistake for them to put Bill front and center of her campaign. And it's the same mistakes that the Republicans have been making for years: While it's generally a good idea to go strong against your opponents, it's too easy to go too far and end up helping them out. And while you might get an immediate bump on your side, you can't always predict the backfire and how much worse things can be once the other side gets a full grasp of what you did. But instead of going with a nuanced approach, they just find it easier to blindly swing at anything coming their way. Anyway, I've got to end this now as I need to go to bed. Sorry it's not better.
But I just wanted to say how this incident really adds to the whole weird Cult of Hillary that seems to be forming in the minds of her supporters. Now before I go on, I'd like to say again that I don't think Hillary is a bad candidate and that I will support her in the general election, god forbid she wins. But it just happens that I think Obama is the better candidate, and think he'd be better in the general election and in the Whitehouse.
But it's her supporters that are really starting to worry me. Because they will not only fervently support everything she does, often with the meagerest of rationalizations, but seem to be supporting her supporters oddball actions too. Like with this NY NOW press release. To me, this is a no-brainer: That press release was a huge, huge mistake. And for as much as it could make a difference in this campaign, it would be only to hurt Hillary and help Obama. In fact, this is much better for Obama than if they had just endorsed him explicitly.
Yet, there appear to be some who support even this ridiculous press release. For example, one Hillary supporter at Carpetbagger's suggests that this is just Obama supporters being "touchy" over some criticism, as we "pillory Hillary," and even suggests that we're only now defending Kennedy as a "shiny light," though he's been attacked in the media for years.
What in god's name has this person been smoking? This wasn't criticism. This was a declaration of war. To even suggest that Kennedy endorsing Obama is a betrayal of feminists at all is nothing but an open insult to feminists; let alone the "ultimate" betrayal. And this gives the worst view of special interest groups possible. Apparently, NY NOW thinks that Ted Kennedy is a horrible politician who only deserves their support because they imagined that he'd endorse a woman for president. And now that he's "betrayed" them, they're going to take him down. I'm sure Teddy's trembling as we speak.
I honestly don't know what to think about this admission that this group supported a politician they didn't like because they thought he'd be loyal to one of their causes. On the one hand, I wonder if they hadn't thought this through all the way and didn't mean to say that. On the other hand, it really would explain why these groups seem to support incumbents so much.
Name Calling
And then there was a commenter named rockerbabe, who mimicked the NY NOW press conference, while going further in suggesting that Democrats turn a blind eye to people referring to Hillary as "a bitch, a whore, etc." What planet is this person on and how do they receive our internet so quickly?
While I'm sure there are anti-Hillary Dems who say these things about Hillary, or who don't denounce it; most of us do. Like when a McCain supporter referred to Hillary as a bitch when asking him a question, and McCain got in trouble for it (which I wrote about here). Or more recently, when an anti-Hillary conservative group came out named Citizens United, Not Timid, which not only sought to alienate social conservatives like my mom with their offensive language, but are also trying to win the coveted Worst Acronym of the Year award.
And have I been missing it when mainstream politicians refer to Hillary as a bitch? Even McCain seemed awkward about it in that one instance, and clearly wanted to avoid using it without offending his supporter. And overall, I'm just not seeing some public acceptance of any of this. Sure, it's ok with some people. But I find the whole insinuation of this to be extremely offensive. There's this implied idea that any of us who aren't actively feminists are anti-feminists who they're putting up with, despite our sexism. And the tell-tale on this would seem to be that anyone who doesn't support Hillary is sexist.
And last, but not least: Can we do away with this whole idea that there are insults against women that are acceptable because we're sexist? I'm sorry, but some women act like bitches. It's true. And there are women who I'd refer to as "whores," even though they aren't actual prostitutes. But then again, I've referred to men using these terms too. Moreover, there are specific words that generally are only used to describe men: Like bastard, asshole, schmuck, and prick. Is it sexist that these words are only used to describe men? I don't see how, yet I've never used any of those words to describe a woman. That's just how it is.
And then there was rockerbabe's suggestion that it's a "double-standard" that we can't use the "n-word" to describe Obama. Is there any suggestion here that this word would be acceptable if Obama was a black woman? Of course not. For whatever reason, right or wrong, that word is considered to be completely off-limits as an insult of black people. Some insults are more harsh than others, and that's considered one of the worst. I see no double-standard with that. I don't know what rule-making body makes these decisions, but I'll abide by them. Some words are more off-limits than others.
Backfiring Campaigns
And again, it ties into this whole idea that we're chauvinists for not supporting Hillary. And of course, that's most offensive to Hillary. Are we supposed to support her because she's a woman, or because she's the best candidate? If it's because she's a woman, she gets no support from me at all. Hell, I'd probably just pick my wife, mom, or sister if I didn't care about the woman's qualifications. At least that way I'd get to hang out in the Whitehouse sometime. But if we're supporting Hillary because of her qualifications, then I'm fine with that, but still prefer Obama.
Overall, I think this whole line of reasoning is a mistake. But it's the same kind of mistake I'm getting from the entire Hillary campaign: Anything to be attacked should be attacked, and everything that can be supported must be supported. And so we see Hillary attacking Obama for being too soft and too hard, and her supporters denouncing us for not picking the woman candidate. And we're all Hillary bashers for not supporting all this. Again, this is not what I want in a presidential candidate. You have to know when to make your attacks and when someone on your team has made a mistake. So far, I've seen few signs from the Hillary camp to suggest they understand this.
Because this kind of thing was a huge mistake; just as I think it was a mistake for them to put Bill front and center of her campaign. And it's the same mistakes that the Republicans have been making for years: While it's generally a good idea to go strong against your opponents, it's too easy to go too far and end up helping them out. And while you might get an immediate bump on your side, you can't always predict the backfire and how much worse things can be once the other side gets a full grasp of what you did. But instead of going with a nuanced approach, they just find it easier to blindly swing at anything coming their way. Anyway, I've got to end this now as I need to go to bed. Sorry it's not better.
Why Saddam Didn't Stop the Invasion
I just read a Sixty Minutes interview they had with an FBI guy who was tasked with interrogating Saddam for awhile. And it was pretty interesting, though I was left wanting more. The main thing I took from it was that I was right about Saddam. As suspected, he wasn't some loony "mad man" intent on destroying the world, but just a somewhat paranoid dictator living in a bubble who wanted to do anything to stay in power; where "anything" meant he wouldn't do something stupid like attack America. Sure, he did a lot of horrible things, but none of them were a threat to us.
And the most embarrassing revalation came from the interviewer, not the interviewee. When talking about WMD's and why Saddam pretended to have them, Scott Pelley the interviewer asks:
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
Inexplicably, Piro, the interviewee, doesn't correct that and goes on to answer as if it was a serious question; but what the hell is this about? Am I the one with the faulty memory here? Because I have recollections from back then of Iraq insisting that they didn't have WMD's and that these were lies and fabrications by America. Am I wrong about that? I remember Saddam letting the inspectors back in and everything, and giving them much of the access they wanted, and then Bush telling them to leave because it was time to bomb. Is that not how it happened?
Now, I understand that the Bushies and the media treated Iraq's statements on this to be some sort of silly game, and that the entire inspection process was just a ruse to stall for time. But all the same, I find it extremely unlikely that if Saddam had said "Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction" that this would have done much to stop the war. If anything, it would have just given the guys on Fox News something else to laugh about. Is this Pelley guy serious?? What a bonehead!
It's Good to be a Bonehead Shill
And that's what so sad about our current situation: That the media got so tied into the idea that this unnecessary war was pushed on us by Iraq that they still think it was Saddam's fault and wonder why Saddam "wanted his country to be invaded." At least this guy seems to realize the WMD's weren't there, but will it ever sink in that Saddam was telling the truth? I don't get it.
Of cousre, it looks like one reason this guy is so big is because he can get the big interviews and stories. According to his Wikipedia page, he got the first interview with president-elect Bush, was accused of being a CIA agent by Iranian President Mamoud Ahmaninejad, and was physically removed from the Kremlin after shouting a question at President Clinton in 1998. He also broke two big Monica-gate stories which, as we all know, can only be due to hard work and excellent journalisming, and not because the GOP pegged him as a shill they should throw a bone to. And apparently, a writer at the Washington Times once compared him to Edward R. Murrow. So you know he's got to be good.
And so here we are, almost five years after the war began, and one of the top reporters for the top news show in the country is just now finding out why Saddam pretended to have WMD's and that he wasn't the evil threat to America he was hyped as. Great. Now maybe if we can arrange to have Edward R. Murrow's ghost appear in a dream and convince this dumbass that everything else the Bushies have been saying were shameless lies, we might really be getting somewhere.
And the most embarrassing revalation came from the interviewer, not the interviewee. When talking about WMD's and why Saddam pretended to have them, Scott Pelley the interviewer asks:
"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.
Inexplicably, Piro, the interviewee, doesn't correct that and goes on to answer as if it was a serious question; but what the hell is this about? Am I the one with the faulty memory here? Because I have recollections from back then of Iraq insisting that they didn't have WMD's and that these were lies and fabrications by America. Am I wrong about that? I remember Saddam letting the inspectors back in and everything, and giving them much of the access they wanted, and then Bush telling them to leave because it was time to bomb. Is that not how it happened?
Now, I understand that the Bushies and the media treated Iraq's statements on this to be some sort of silly game, and that the entire inspection process was just a ruse to stall for time. But all the same, I find it extremely unlikely that if Saddam had said "Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction" that this would have done much to stop the war. If anything, it would have just given the guys on Fox News something else to laugh about. Is this Pelley guy serious?? What a bonehead!
It's Good to be a Bonehead Shill
And that's what so sad about our current situation: That the media got so tied into the idea that this unnecessary war was pushed on us by Iraq that they still think it was Saddam's fault and wonder why Saddam "wanted his country to be invaded." At least this guy seems to realize the WMD's weren't there, but will it ever sink in that Saddam was telling the truth? I don't get it.
Of cousre, it looks like one reason this guy is so big is because he can get the big interviews and stories. According to his Wikipedia page, he got the first interview with president-elect Bush, was accused of being a CIA agent by Iranian President Mamoud Ahmaninejad, and was physically removed from the Kremlin after shouting a question at President Clinton in 1998. He also broke two big Monica-gate stories which, as we all know, can only be due to hard work and excellent journalisming, and not because the GOP pegged him as a shill they should throw a bone to. And apparently, a writer at the Washington Times once compared him to Edward R. Murrow. So you know he's got to be good.
And so here we are, almost five years after the war began, and one of the top reporters for the top news show in the country is just now finding out why Saddam pretended to have WMD's and that he wasn't the evil threat to America he was hyped as. Great. Now maybe if we can arrange to have Edward R. Murrow's ghost appear in a dream and convince this dumbass that everything else the Bushies have been saying were shameless lies, we might really be getting somewhere.
Monday, January 28, 2008
2008 Election Results
Alright, it's over. The 2008 presidential elections have now been decided, and I've got excellent news: I'm the new Vice President!!! That's right. Ol' Doc Biobrain just got the cushiest gig in America. The clincher was when they asked me if I had planned to continue expanding the office of the Vice President as my predecessor has, and I gave a big "Fuck no!" And that pretty much sealed the deal. Now it looks like I'm on permanent vacation for the next four years.
Oh, and Cheney's the new president, so my biggest worry is that something might happen to his ticker and I'd be stuck having to waste all my time presidenting. But that's why I agreed to sort of be the public face of the Whitehouse, while he takes care of the nation's business from one of three hundred presidential private bunker resorts, each equipped with a mock-up West Wing and steak buffet. It's great. So I get to go to all the free dinners and travel the globe, while Cheney does whatever it was Cheney was planning to do while holed up inside nuclear-proof bunkers, each replete with its own personal harem and stud farm. From what I understand, they're quite glorious. One of them is supposedly an exact replica of Saddam's own underground palace northwest of Tikrit. They say the wallpaper in the den is made of human flesh. I wouldn't know, because I'm not allowed to know where they're located. That's what they call Plausible Deniability.
And over the last seven years, Cheney was able to finish completion of his own personal clones, which not only look and act like the real Dick Cheney, but share the same DNA and decision-making powers. So even if you take out the real Cheney, you have to take out all the doubles too; thus eliminating any advantage to assassinating him. You can kill the man, but it'll just make the hive mad. And no, I don't think having eight independent presidential clones walking around making decisions would lead to any kind of constitutional crisis.
Ok, well that's it. I just found all this out and thought I should share it with you, my loyal readers. It was supposed to be a secret, so be sure to act surprised.
Update: Oops, three of the Cheney clones have already forced a power struggle with the real Cheney, and we now believe that the first two Cheneys are dead. Cheney #3 has now declared himself Cheney-in-Chief, but Cheneys 4 and 5 have raised a serious challenge to this in the Cheney Supreme Court. And of course, Cheney #6 is very fearful of Cheney #7, primarily because 7 8 9. I'll let you know more when I hear it.
Late Update: Nevermind. Apparently, the real Cheney had uncovered the coup-de-dick and had arranged to fake his own death in order to lull his attackers into a false sense of security. From there, Cheney was able to have all of the other Cheneys captured by his secret security clones, interrogated by the interrogation clones, and had the guilty ones sent of to Guantanamo for "re-education." Fortunately, Cheneys 4 and 8 remained loyal throughout the interrogations and have now been returned to their decision-making positions in Texas and Sri Lanka, respectively.
Last Update: They're dead. All of the Cheneys have been assassinated by PETA. Now I'm the President of the United States. Shit!
Oh, and Cheney's the new president, so my biggest worry is that something might happen to his ticker and I'd be stuck having to waste all my time presidenting. But that's why I agreed to sort of be the public face of the Whitehouse, while he takes care of the nation's business from one of three hundred presidential private bunker resorts, each equipped with a mock-up West Wing and steak buffet. It's great. So I get to go to all the free dinners and travel the globe, while Cheney does whatever it was Cheney was planning to do while holed up inside nuclear-proof bunkers, each replete with its own personal harem and stud farm. From what I understand, they're quite glorious. One of them is supposedly an exact replica of Saddam's own underground palace northwest of Tikrit. They say the wallpaper in the den is made of human flesh. I wouldn't know, because I'm not allowed to know where they're located. That's what they call Plausible Deniability.
And over the last seven years, Cheney was able to finish completion of his own personal clones, which not only look and act like the real Dick Cheney, but share the same DNA and decision-making powers. So even if you take out the real Cheney, you have to take out all the doubles too; thus eliminating any advantage to assassinating him. You can kill the man, but it'll just make the hive mad. And no, I don't think having eight independent presidential clones walking around making decisions would lead to any kind of constitutional crisis.
Ok, well that's it. I just found all this out and thought I should share it with you, my loyal readers. It was supposed to be a secret, so be sure to act surprised.
Update: Oops, three of the Cheney clones have already forced a power struggle with the real Cheney, and we now believe that the first two Cheneys are dead. Cheney #3 has now declared himself Cheney-in-Chief, but Cheneys 4 and 5 have raised a serious challenge to this in the Cheney Supreme Court. And of course, Cheney #6 is very fearful of Cheney #7, primarily because 7 8 9. I'll let you know more when I hear it.
Late Update: Nevermind. Apparently, the real Cheney had uncovered the coup-de-dick and had arranged to fake his own death in order to lull his attackers into a false sense of security. From there, Cheney was able to have all of the other Cheneys captured by his secret security clones, interrogated by the interrogation clones, and had the guilty ones sent of to Guantanamo for "re-education." Fortunately, Cheneys 4 and 8 remained loyal throughout the interrogations and have now been returned to their decision-making positions in Texas and Sri Lanka, respectively.
Last Update: They're dead. All of the Cheneys have been assassinated by PETA. Now I'm the President of the United States. Shit!
Beating Rudy
I just beat Giuliani in an ice cream tasting contest. They had him favored to win early, but then everyone remembered that they really didn't like the guy very much, and it was all downhill from there. I heard he entered a race for town dog catcher, but the dogs rejected him 2-to-1. I guess they didn't dig what he had to say. And then there was the time they put Rudy in an a-hole competition where they kicked him out for being too much of a prick. No respect.
9/11
9/11
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Radical Hillary
If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I believe many of her liberal supporters will be in for a horrible surprise: Hillary's not a liberal. This wasn't something I noticed until I started debating them, but apparently some of the more progressive Democrats seem to have this idea that Hillary is a closet radical who is going to nail Republicans once she's in office.
No, I take that back. Now that I think about it, I remember someone at Carpetbagger's saying something to that effect a few months ago and thought it was crazy and told them that I disagreed and thought it'd be foolish for her to go for revenge. But now I see this is a wider spread phenomenum than I had realized, which I've now witnessed directly when I tell people that Hillary is a centrist. To quote Zeitgeist at Carpetbaggers "If you’ve ever read any of her early law reviews or articles about the rights of children she’s beyond liberal - she’s absolutely radical."
Early law reviews. Right. And I used to be a dittohead, and then moved directly from there to being into populist communism, and then finally settled into the track that I'm currently on, which occured sometime before Bill's re-election. But we're supposed to believe that these early law reviews are better indicators than...everything we've seen for the past fifteen years. And apparently, the idea is that all that conservative stuff from the 90's was just Bill's doing. As Jackie commented at TPM Election Central "Obama is probably even right of Mr. "Republican Lite" Bill Clinton."
Have I been missing something? She's been in the Senate for seven years now, and I don't remember her trailblazing any radical agenda. We all remember that she helped authorize some sort of war, as well as rejecting an amendment which would have forced Bush to be more diplomatic and obtain another authorization before war was allowed. She voted for the Patriot Act, as well as a revised renewal of it. In 2005, she was against the immediate withdrawal from Iraq that progressives had been demanding for awhile, and she voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, which was part of the neo-con saber rattleing progressives denounced. And I just picked all this up from a look at her Wikipedia page.
Oddly, if you mention any of this stuff to her supporters, you'll be told that other Dems did this stuff too. But I thought the whole point was that she was some sort of fighting radical. Someone who didn't just roll over to their Republican overlords. So what kind of defense is this?
Bizarro Hillary
And now I just feel like I've entered an alternative universe. How is it that people far to the left of me approve of this woman? Is there some secret Hillary chatroom where she's giving them the lowdown on what her true plans are? Is she planning a double-secret retroactive impeachment of Bush and Cheney? Sending them to Gitmo, perhaps? I don't get it. How is she winning them over?
And the best I can come up with is that they're overstating Obama's Nice Guy rhetoric and forgetting that this has been her mantra throughout most of her Senate career. It's like nothing before the presidential season counts and they like the fact that she's now pretending to be tough, even though she still won't take a stand on anything important, like the FISA telecom immunity thing.
Secondly, I think it's perhaps just holdover stuff from the Clinton era. They still have deepdown sympthies with her for what happened in the 90's, as well as the continuing attacks against her, while blaming Bill for all of the conservative stuff. But I can't imagine how this works. She's a Big Money candidate. She's the Queen of the DLC. She's the type of politician they should hate. But somehow, these people hate Obama more, and so Hillary has been turned into some sort of radical hero.
But even the Obama bashing doesn't quite make sense to me. Because it's based loosely on his nice guy rhetoric, and mostly consists of theories of what me might be. He might be more conservative than Bill Clinton. He might have skeletons in his closet which haven't been outed by any political opponents since 1996, including Hillary's own people during this election. But that's really the best attack Hillary has: That Barack is too good to be true and must have some big downside which will doom us all.
And so instead we're supposed to chose the candidate who seems to be exactly as conservative as Bill, and who has no skeletons left in the closet because everyone knows about them and continue to attack her with them. And I don't know why. This makes no sense. Because it just seems like it's the more radical progressives who are doing this, while the mainstream progressives and outright liberals are not. Anyway, I'm willing to listen to theories on this one. I'm usually the one with the answers, but this has me stumped. I'm going to bed.
No, I take that back. Now that I think about it, I remember someone at Carpetbagger's saying something to that effect a few months ago and thought it was crazy and told them that I disagreed and thought it'd be foolish for her to go for revenge. But now I see this is a wider spread phenomenum than I had realized, which I've now witnessed directly when I tell people that Hillary is a centrist. To quote Zeitgeist at Carpetbaggers "If you’ve ever read any of her early law reviews or articles about the rights of children she’s beyond liberal - she’s absolutely radical."
Early law reviews. Right. And I used to be a dittohead, and then moved directly from there to being into populist communism, and then finally settled into the track that I'm currently on, which occured sometime before Bill's re-election. But we're supposed to believe that these early law reviews are better indicators than...everything we've seen for the past fifteen years. And apparently, the idea is that all that conservative stuff from the 90's was just Bill's doing. As Jackie commented at TPM Election Central "Obama is probably even right of Mr. "Republican Lite" Bill Clinton."
Have I been missing something? She's been in the Senate for seven years now, and I don't remember her trailblazing any radical agenda. We all remember that she helped authorize some sort of war, as well as rejecting an amendment which would have forced Bush to be more diplomatic and obtain another authorization before war was allowed. She voted for the Patriot Act, as well as a revised renewal of it. In 2005, she was against the immediate withdrawal from Iraq that progressives had been demanding for awhile, and she voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, which was part of the neo-con saber rattleing progressives denounced. And I just picked all this up from a look at her Wikipedia page.
Oddly, if you mention any of this stuff to her supporters, you'll be told that other Dems did this stuff too. But I thought the whole point was that she was some sort of fighting radical. Someone who didn't just roll over to their Republican overlords. So what kind of defense is this?
Bizarro Hillary
And now I just feel like I've entered an alternative universe. How is it that people far to the left of me approve of this woman? Is there some secret Hillary chatroom where she's giving them the lowdown on what her true plans are? Is she planning a double-secret retroactive impeachment of Bush and Cheney? Sending them to Gitmo, perhaps? I don't get it. How is she winning them over?
And the best I can come up with is that they're overstating Obama's Nice Guy rhetoric and forgetting that this has been her mantra throughout most of her Senate career. It's like nothing before the presidential season counts and they like the fact that she's now pretending to be tough, even though she still won't take a stand on anything important, like the FISA telecom immunity thing.
Secondly, I think it's perhaps just holdover stuff from the Clinton era. They still have deepdown sympthies with her for what happened in the 90's, as well as the continuing attacks against her, while blaming Bill for all of the conservative stuff. But I can't imagine how this works. She's a Big Money candidate. She's the Queen of the DLC. She's the type of politician they should hate. But somehow, these people hate Obama more, and so Hillary has been turned into some sort of radical hero.
But even the Obama bashing doesn't quite make sense to me. Because it's based loosely on his nice guy rhetoric, and mostly consists of theories of what me might be. He might be more conservative than Bill Clinton. He might have skeletons in his closet which haven't been outed by any political opponents since 1996, including Hillary's own people during this election. But that's really the best attack Hillary has: That Barack is too good to be true and must have some big downside which will doom us all.
And so instead we're supposed to chose the candidate who seems to be exactly as conservative as Bill, and who has no skeletons left in the closet because everyone knows about them and continue to attack her with them. And I don't know why. This makes no sense. Because it just seems like it's the more radical progressives who are doing this, while the mainstream progressives and outright liberals are not. Anyway, I'm willing to listen to theories on this one. I'm usually the one with the answers, but this has me stumped. I'm going to bed.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Deep Thought of the Moment
If it's true, as Clinton supporter James Carville says, "No one has ever lost a media war with the Clintons," and that it's a "loaded deck" against them, wouldn't that be a strong argument against nominating Hillary? Because the fact is, I entirely agree with that. The media hates the Clintons, as does the D.C. Village. And that was the biggest problem we faced in the 90's, and is a problem that continues to this day; the media just enjoys ripping Democrats apart, and the Clintons most of all.
And while it's possible that'll happen to any Democrat, I don't see how it's smart for us to be starting off with the ball deep in our own territory, setting them up to sack the quarterback and score a safety on us. It just seems smarter to me to acknowledge that this bias is real and to pick someone the media likes a little better. And if Obama is as smooth in Washington as he is on the campaign trail (and was paying attention during the 90's), I could see him wooing over the Village with the appropriate lip service that they desire. Because they don't really understand results anyway, and just want to be liked and respected. And as long as they don't already hate you, that's a fairly easy thing to do.
So while I understand what Carville is saying and can imagine that media reports siding with Obama might just be due to anti-Clinton bias, I don't see how this is a particularly compelling argument in Hillary's favor. If anything, this is the bigger story than who won this particular battle. The media already loathes Hillary and will certainly do everything in their power to destroy her. And that's the best reason I can think of for rejecting her. Not that I think they should be picking our nominee, but if we've already got a strong candidate who they might like better...
And while it's possible that'll happen to any Democrat, I don't see how it's smart for us to be starting off with the ball deep in our own territory, setting them up to sack the quarterback and score a safety on us. It just seems smarter to me to acknowledge that this bias is real and to pick someone the media likes a little better. And if Obama is as smooth in Washington as he is on the campaign trail (and was paying attention during the 90's), I could see him wooing over the Village with the appropriate lip service that they desire. Because they don't really understand results anyway, and just want to be liked and respected. And as long as they don't already hate you, that's a fairly easy thing to do.
So while I understand what Carville is saying and can imagine that media reports siding with Obama might just be due to anti-Clinton bias, I don't see how this is a particularly compelling argument in Hillary's favor. If anything, this is the bigger story than who won this particular battle. The media already loathes Hillary and will certainly do everything in their power to destroy her. And that's the best reason I can think of for rejecting her. Not that I think they should be picking our nominee, but if we've already got a strong candidate who they might like better...
How Hillary Lost Her Narrative
Over at Carpetbagger Report, I was in a protracted debate with various Hillary supporters and others talking about the supposed "Catch 22" that Hillary's campaign says Obama is stuck in: That he claims to be a positive candidate, yet has said negative things against Hillary. And if you want to see details on my points, you can find them there.
But the main point I'd like to say is how Hillary's campaign is making a mistake with this one. Because the way life works is that you tell a story, and the details are expected to fit into that story. And if you don't tell your story, others will create one around you. And this isn't just in politics. When you're the new guy at a job or school or whatever, you need to give people the context for them to understand who you are; your background, likes, dislikes, that kind of thing. If they get a positive story about you, your interactions with them are more likely to be interpreted in a positive light. But if they're negative, they'll see negatives. That's just life. Context is everything and first impressions set the stage for everything that follows.
And in politics, the secret to winning is knowing how to use an opponent's story against them. And the trick is to turn their assets into liabilities, so they will be punished if they try to use their strengths. So if Gore or Kerry have a reputation for being honest boyscouts, you attack them for being lying flip-floppers; thus undermining their credibility. So every time they try to stand on their reputation as truth-tellers, jokes start flying because too many people are convinced that they aren't truth-tellers. And while that didn't work with most people, the media ate it up.
Streetfighter v. Nice Guy
And so for the current Democratic primary battle, the context for the two main campaigns is that Hillary is the streetfighter who has proven her ability to take it to her opponents, while Obama poses as the above-the-fray "post-partisan" good guy who will do what it takes to fix America's woes. And so Hillary's supporters will point out that Republicans are ruthless and we need a streetfighter to combat fire with fire; and that Obama is unproven and will get destroyed by Republican attacks. And Obama's supporters will say that we don't like the fight, and can achieve more with a positive message; and that Hillary will give us more of the fighting we saw in the 90's. And if you've read my previous post, you know which side I'm coming down on.
But here's the problem for Hillary: This "Catch-22" argument goes completely against her story against Obama. Specifically, how can they claim that Obama can't fight, while complaining that he's attacking them? And this fits into Obama's story, because nobody can really expect him to not say anything about Hillary. And as long as he doesn't spend too much time fighting, he can just use this as an example of how he does things: He'll take the highroad, but isn't above throwing a punch when needed to protect himself.
And that's exactly what we need to see. The best defense is a good offense, and every defense requires a block followed by a counter-punch. And that's what we've seen from Obama. Hillary's side attacks, he blocks the attack and carries through with a punch of his own, which usually puts him back on message. Hillary can attack him for that, but as much as the attack will stick, she's only undermining her original argument against him.
Tunnel Politics
And the worst part for Hillary is that this confirms my suspicions about her: She's so busy trying to win every battle that she'll lose sight of the war. He makes a charge against her and so she makes a counter-charge, not realizing that she's undermining her case and bolstering his. And that's the overall effect we saw in the 90's. Sure, Clinton remained popular throughout much of his presidency and is now more popular than ever, but we saw the goalposts move to the right throughout that time.
And for as much as they triangulated into victory, they didn't do much to help Democrats, liberals, or Gore. It was just a tunnel-vision view of surviving by always taking a battle position on the moderate side of Republicans. And while they won most battles, the goalposts continued to be moved further to right. In essence, they helped conservatives in order to defeat Republicans. And all the same, they gave them almost everything, while duking it out in bloody Battle Royale style every time.
And the trick here is that you've got to be able to focus on the day-to-day fight, but without losing your big picture. You've got to remember what the narrative is and how your daily battles fit into it. And I'm not sure that's something the Clintons have ever figured out. But with Obama, we've almost got the opposite. He's a Big Picture guy, yet despite the meme that he's not good at fighting, I haven't seen that. From the little I've seen, he looks pretty good.
Nice Guy Fights Back
Overall, I think the issue here is that Obama's pushing a Nice Post-Partisan Guy narrative, and people assume that means he's soft. And because Hillary mocks him for that and acts tough, they assume she's a fighter. But what have we seen her fight for? What Senate battles has she lead? And I think the only reason people assume she's a fighter is because she's taken a beating over the years and acts tough. But as I said at Carpetbagger's, for as much as we've seen her fight, she's not fighting for us; she'll only have us fighting for her.
And of course, a problem is that if you sell yourself as a fighter, everything you do looks like a fight. And with Hillary, she is promising us at least four years of bitter fights, and I have no doubts thats what we'll get. But Obama's positioned himself as the guy who is above all that, which means he's not expected to fight all the time, but makes his punches more effective when he does. And that's the problem with the constant War Room attitude started with the Clintons and perfected with the Bushies: The war never ends.
And as I've said before, the secret to fighting isn't knowing how to keep fighting, but knowing how to end it. Obama's positioned himself in a way that makes him capable of doing that. Hillary was mocking him for that under the assumption it meant he was soft, but just recently reversed herself and now tells us that he can fight. And not only does this confirm why he'd make the better nominee, but shows us why she does not.
But the main point I'd like to say is how Hillary's campaign is making a mistake with this one. Because the way life works is that you tell a story, and the details are expected to fit into that story. And if you don't tell your story, others will create one around you. And this isn't just in politics. When you're the new guy at a job or school or whatever, you need to give people the context for them to understand who you are; your background, likes, dislikes, that kind of thing. If they get a positive story about you, your interactions with them are more likely to be interpreted in a positive light. But if they're negative, they'll see negatives. That's just life. Context is everything and first impressions set the stage for everything that follows.
And in politics, the secret to winning is knowing how to use an opponent's story against them. And the trick is to turn their assets into liabilities, so they will be punished if they try to use their strengths. So if Gore or Kerry have a reputation for being honest boyscouts, you attack them for being lying flip-floppers; thus undermining their credibility. So every time they try to stand on their reputation as truth-tellers, jokes start flying because too many people are convinced that they aren't truth-tellers. And while that didn't work with most people, the media ate it up.
Streetfighter v. Nice Guy
And so for the current Democratic primary battle, the context for the two main campaigns is that Hillary is the streetfighter who has proven her ability to take it to her opponents, while Obama poses as the above-the-fray "post-partisan" good guy who will do what it takes to fix America's woes. And so Hillary's supporters will point out that Republicans are ruthless and we need a streetfighter to combat fire with fire; and that Obama is unproven and will get destroyed by Republican attacks. And Obama's supporters will say that we don't like the fight, and can achieve more with a positive message; and that Hillary will give us more of the fighting we saw in the 90's. And if you've read my previous post, you know which side I'm coming down on.
But here's the problem for Hillary: This "Catch-22" argument goes completely against her story against Obama. Specifically, how can they claim that Obama can't fight, while complaining that he's attacking them? And this fits into Obama's story, because nobody can really expect him to not say anything about Hillary. And as long as he doesn't spend too much time fighting, he can just use this as an example of how he does things: He'll take the highroad, but isn't above throwing a punch when needed to protect himself.
And that's exactly what we need to see. The best defense is a good offense, and every defense requires a block followed by a counter-punch. And that's what we've seen from Obama. Hillary's side attacks, he blocks the attack and carries through with a punch of his own, which usually puts him back on message. Hillary can attack him for that, but as much as the attack will stick, she's only undermining her original argument against him.
Tunnel Politics
And the worst part for Hillary is that this confirms my suspicions about her: She's so busy trying to win every battle that she'll lose sight of the war. He makes a charge against her and so she makes a counter-charge, not realizing that she's undermining her case and bolstering his. And that's the overall effect we saw in the 90's. Sure, Clinton remained popular throughout much of his presidency and is now more popular than ever, but we saw the goalposts move to the right throughout that time.
And for as much as they triangulated into victory, they didn't do much to help Democrats, liberals, or Gore. It was just a tunnel-vision view of surviving by always taking a battle position on the moderate side of Republicans. And while they won most battles, the goalposts continued to be moved further to right. In essence, they helped conservatives in order to defeat Republicans. And all the same, they gave them almost everything, while duking it out in bloody Battle Royale style every time.
And the trick here is that you've got to be able to focus on the day-to-day fight, but without losing your big picture. You've got to remember what the narrative is and how your daily battles fit into it. And I'm not sure that's something the Clintons have ever figured out. But with Obama, we've almost got the opposite. He's a Big Picture guy, yet despite the meme that he's not good at fighting, I haven't seen that. From the little I've seen, he looks pretty good.
Nice Guy Fights Back
Overall, I think the issue here is that Obama's pushing a Nice Post-Partisan Guy narrative, and people assume that means he's soft. And because Hillary mocks him for that and acts tough, they assume she's a fighter. But what have we seen her fight for? What Senate battles has she lead? And I think the only reason people assume she's a fighter is because she's taken a beating over the years and acts tough. But as I said at Carpetbagger's, for as much as we've seen her fight, she's not fighting for us; she'll only have us fighting for her.
And of course, a problem is that if you sell yourself as a fighter, everything you do looks like a fight. And with Hillary, she is promising us at least four years of bitter fights, and I have no doubts thats what we'll get. But Obama's positioned himself as the guy who is above all that, which means he's not expected to fight all the time, but makes his punches more effective when he does. And that's the problem with the constant War Room attitude started with the Clintons and perfected with the Bushies: The war never ends.
And as I've said before, the secret to fighting isn't knowing how to keep fighting, but knowing how to end it. Obama's positioned himself in a way that makes him capable of doing that. Hillary was mocking him for that under the assumption it meant he was soft, but just recently reversed herself and now tells us that he can fight. And not only does this confirm why he'd make the better nominee, but shows us why she does not.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Obama for President
Republicans like to fight. Moreover, they need to fight. That's how they do their thing. Not just in Washington, where they use gridlock and partisanship the way pornstars use condoms. Individual Republicans do the same thing. They like to think they're open-minded. They insist that they're only interested in learning the unvarnished truth and that they're perfectly willing to listen to it, just as long as you're not an ass about it.
And that's why they have to insult you and play childish games and other ruses, in order to allow them to continue to act as if they're open-minded, but without actually having to open their minds to the truth. If you weren't insulting them at the beginning of the discussion, you will be by the end. That's what they're counting on, as a defense mechanism against facing reality. They'll do anything to find an excuse to not listen to you.
And that's their main gimmick in elections and all the rest of the time. They will attack and attack and attack and never stop attacking, in order to throw you off your game and put you on the defensive. And in their best case scenario, your defense will be paltry and you'll waste all your time futilely defending yourself against relentless attacks that completely swamp you. But, they'll keep doing it anyway, even if you effectively defend yourself and even if you put them on the defensive.
Because the truth of the matter is: They just want to fight. And while they prefer to win the fight, they win when they lose too. Because all they really wanted to do was to throw you off your game. And if you're spending your time putting them on the defensive, then you're diverting energy from governing or implementing effective policies. So even if they lose elections and aren't able to impeach you, you still weren't able to accomplish what you wanted to accomplish. And that's good enough for them.
Sure, they'd rather run the government, so they can milk it for all it's worth. But all they were looking for was a good fight to distract you. Plus, it helps them distract their base. Why ban abortion when you can denounce Democrats for allowing them?
Why I Don't Support Hillary
And that's why I would prefer that Hillary Clinton not win the Democratic nomination. Because, while she's an excellent fighter, that's all she really does. That's mostly what the Clinton presidency was about. After they pulled their head out of their asses in the middle of their first term and realized they were getting reamed in the public arena, survival became the name of the game. To take the fight to their opponents, and make them fight for every inch.
And that was necessary. The media didn't like them. The D.C. "Village" despised them. Talk Radio had them on the BBQ grill every day. And even Democratic politicians were really getting antsy with them. And so they found themselves on the ropes and had to keep throwing punches at every turn. Even now, many people get the impression that Clinton was unpopular because he always seemed like he was on the verge of getting knocked-out, and that shouldn't happen to popular presidents. Not in democracies, anyway.
But all the same, the Clintons didn't win. They didn't achieve what they had set out to achieve. As much as America approved of Clinton, he was never able to turn that approval into outright victory. We considered it enough that he could institute conservative policies on his terms. Welfare Reform that wasn't too stingy. Tax cuts that also helped middle class and poor people. Spending increases which were below the inflation rate. And he was constantly forced to play games with Saddam, in order to knock the legs out from under the war mongers who would only be satisfied with invasion, but eventually used his words to justify their war. Was any of this why he was elected in '92?
And for as much as we can now look back at the Clinton Presidency as a success, it sure didn't feel that way at the time. I was constantly embarrassed to defend him. I was a Republican when Clinton took office, and while I quickly saw the light, there were only two times I was truly a proud Democrat in the nineties. The first was the day we learned Clinton won the 1996 election (which was the first election I ever voted in), and the other was the day the Senate didn't remove Clinton from office. And even still, the only reason I felt proud of his victories was because I really wanted to stick-it to all the conservative creeps I was debating with at the time. Those were firewall events, protecting the rear; not game changing events that you tell your grandkids about.
Looking back, I realize that the best thing Clinton was good at was winning battles. But most of those battles were little more than putting himself in a position to stop Republicans from raping the country, and not actually much pushing of any liberal agenda. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. He did well with what he had to work with, but he didn't really do that well. If the best we have to show eight years from now is that our Democratic President doesn't get impeached, I'll be a very sad man.
Because as I said at the beginning, that's exactly what the Republicans want. They might lose most of the battles, but you still didn't get to fix what you wanted to fix. And that's all they were really interested in. Again, this isn't to desparage Clinton too much. I supported him in the nineties and like him now better than I ever did. But his success was limited to little more than saving his own skin and preventing Republicans from doing what Bush eventually did.
Partying Like It's 1999
And now here we are in 2008, and I'm seriously worried that a Hillary nomination will be a repeat of the last Clinton presidential win. It'll be just like 1996, where a Clinton victory only enraged their attackers; except this time, we'll be starting up where we left off in 1999; with the Villagers storming the castle and the media chomping at the bit to do their bidding. Sure, any Democrat may have trouble with them and the Republicans will surely attack; but at least we're not starting off against the ropes. It always felt like third and long during the Clinton presidency, and I'm tired of waiting for the Hail Mary on every play to pull us through.
And the problem is that I think the Clintons actually like it this way. They prefer being behind the eight ball and have grown so accustomed to the battle that they think the battle is what they're there for and have lost sight of everything else. And we've all seen that kind of thing happen before. Two people get into a stupid debate over a stupid thing, and before you know it, they're arguing against their own points and can't even remember where they got started or what they were trying to prove. It's no longer about trying to convince their opponent of anything; they just want to win, yet no longer remember what the victory might be. And so you get "victories" that involve taxcuts and spending "increases" which give less money to Medicare.
And that's the exact vibe I get from Hillary. I'm not saying she's a bad person. I'm not saying that she'd be a bad president. What I'm saying is that she's been in the fight too long and now all she's seeing is the fight. Everything is about finding the best position to wage battle from while finding her opponent's every weakness. And she's quite good at it. I'm not suggesting that she's blind with rage or anything. She's good at winning these battles, and as president, is likely to win more battles than she loses. And that's not a bad thing.
Why I Support Obama
Now if Hillary was the only good candidate to choose from, I'd support her the way I supported Bill. But I happen to think there were several better candidates for us to choose from (particularly Dodd), and am now more than happy to support Obama. In fact, while I preferred Dodd's policies, I now loooove Obama's entire schtick. I was always a bit skittish that he might be a little lightweight, but have now seen enough to believe that he can seal the deal.
He has a positive optimism that I find refreshing (almost as positive as myself), and he seems quite good at analyzing the political scene well enough to know which notes of his opponent's to steal without selling himself out. Like with the whole "Reagan - Party of Ideas" thing that Hillary wrongly tried to nail him with. She let her fighter instincts get the best of her and she thought she had a knock-out punch which really only reinforced his good side.
And the only reason why she imagined that Barack had said anything wrong was because she's too accustomed to hearing the phony language of centrism and didn't understand that he was using the standard meaning of these words. If anything, the centrists were always pulling a sham anyway, which Barack is now doing correctly. They pretended they were liberals using conservative rhetoric as a gimmick to trick liberals into supporting conservative policies. And so here we have Barack using conservative language to sell liberal policies, and centrist Hillary is throwing a shit fit.
This was supposed to be her schtick, yet he's selling it far more successfully because he actually means what he's saying. And I know exactly what he's talking about. I was a Republican for YEARS because I liked Reagan so much. I was a kid and knew nothing about politics, but I liked him, even though I shouldn't have. And even now I have admiration for him. He was a very positive guy, who I believe was seriously led astray by wily people (I wouldn't rule out brainwashing), and that if his policies matched his optimistic rhetoric, he'd have been the greatest president in history, and very liberal.
And the 80's were a HUGE change in direction for America and Reagan was the right guy to pull it off. He didn't make it happen, but he was the perfect orchestra leader for it. But like Obama, that's not to say that I agree with his policies. Only to point out what Reagan meant to people and how the right leader at the right time can have a huge impact. And that's a perfect match-up for what Obama's trying to do for us, except the tides have changed and for the first time in decades, we're poised to see a huge burst in liberal energy, with Obama positioned to help lead the way.
And that's just not something I see with Hillary, who seems poised for a long, hard slog in which she "wins" by adopting a watered down version of what conservatives wanted, just like we saw in the nineties. And so she's doing victory laps while Republicans laugh all the way to the bank. I know we can do better.
Mr. Optimism
And overall, I just get a big Can Do attitude from the Obama. While Hillary comes off as the rough and tumble street fighter who learned how to handle herself the hard way and is always ready to attack, Obama has the wise, but immaculate confidence of someone who knows what it's like to fight, but hasn't been damaged by it. He'll fight if he has to, and fight well; but only if he has to.
And that's what I'd prefer in a president. Someone who can stand-up for himself, but understands that the fight isn't the prize. That politics are just the tactics we use to get what we want. And realizes that while people will support him in his battles, that they'd prefer something a little stronger to tide them over. I don't want to go back to being a loyal foot soldier defending my president. I want to be a part of a political movement that changes how America works and shows people that politics can be more than partisan squabbling and name calling. Like all people, I want to be a part of something bigger than myself and I firmly believe that Obama is the man who can give us that.
And who knows, maybe Obama can't produce. Maybe he'll fold under the constant attacks (though I'm convinced that the toughest hits he'll take are the ones his fellow Democrats are laying on him, and that general election smears will only work on the more rabid Republicans who already hate him). But he looks like the real deal and I think he can be the start of something new. Something better. This isn't the nineties. Democrats are no longer on the defensive, and we need a president who acts like that. Again, I will fully support another Clinton presidency, but am firmly convinced that an Obama presidency can be something much better.
This isn't about playing offense or defense. This is about going beyond politics. And only in the past few weeks have I become convinced that Obama has the fighting skills to not only handle himself in a battle, but to be able to pull himself back out again. I only hope that he's given the chance.
And that's why they have to insult you and play childish games and other ruses, in order to allow them to continue to act as if they're open-minded, but without actually having to open their minds to the truth. If you weren't insulting them at the beginning of the discussion, you will be by the end. That's what they're counting on, as a defense mechanism against facing reality. They'll do anything to find an excuse to not listen to you.
And that's their main gimmick in elections and all the rest of the time. They will attack and attack and attack and never stop attacking, in order to throw you off your game and put you on the defensive. And in their best case scenario, your defense will be paltry and you'll waste all your time futilely defending yourself against relentless attacks that completely swamp you. But, they'll keep doing it anyway, even if you effectively defend yourself and even if you put them on the defensive.
Because the truth of the matter is: They just want to fight. And while they prefer to win the fight, they win when they lose too. Because all they really wanted to do was to throw you off your game. And if you're spending your time putting them on the defensive, then you're diverting energy from governing or implementing effective policies. So even if they lose elections and aren't able to impeach you, you still weren't able to accomplish what you wanted to accomplish. And that's good enough for them.
Sure, they'd rather run the government, so they can milk it for all it's worth. But all they were looking for was a good fight to distract you. Plus, it helps them distract their base. Why ban abortion when you can denounce Democrats for allowing them?
Why I Don't Support Hillary
And that's why I would prefer that Hillary Clinton not win the Democratic nomination. Because, while she's an excellent fighter, that's all she really does. That's mostly what the Clinton presidency was about. After they pulled their head out of their asses in the middle of their first term and realized they were getting reamed in the public arena, survival became the name of the game. To take the fight to their opponents, and make them fight for every inch.
And that was necessary. The media didn't like them. The D.C. "Village" despised them. Talk Radio had them on the BBQ grill every day. And even Democratic politicians were really getting antsy with them. And so they found themselves on the ropes and had to keep throwing punches at every turn. Even now, many people get the impression that Clinton was unpopular because he always seemed like he was on the verge of getting knocked-out, and that shouldn't happen to popular presidents. Not in democracies, anyway.
But all the same, the Clintons didn't win. They didn't achieve what they had set out to achieve. As much as America approved of Clinton, he was never able to turn that approval into outright victory. We considered it enough that he could institute conservative policies on his terms. Welfare Reform that wasn't too stingy. Tax cuts that also helped middle class and poor people. Spending increases which were below the inflation rate. And he was constantly forced to play games with Saddam, in order to knock the legs out from under the war mongers who would only be satisfied with invasion, but eventually used his words to justify their war. Was any of this why he was elected in '92?
And for as much as we can now look back at the Clinton Presidency as a success, it sure didn't feel that way at the time. I was constantly embarrassed to defend him. I was a Republican when Clinton took office, and while I quickly saw the light, there were only two times I was truly a proud Democrat in the nineties. The first was the day we learned Clinton won the 1996 election (which was the first election I ever voted in), and the other was the day the Senate didn't remove Clinton from office. And even still, the only reason I felt proud of his victories was because I really wanted to stick-it to all the conservative creeps I was debating with at the time. Those were firewall events, protecting the rear; not game changing events that you tell your grandkids about.
Looking back, I realize that the best thing Clinton was good at was winning battles. But most of those battles were little more than putting himself in a position to stop Republicans from raping the country, and not actually much pushing of any liberal agenda. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. He did well with what he had to work with, but he didn't really do that well. If the best we have to show eight years from now is that our Democratic President doesn't get impeached, I'll be a very sad man.
Because as I said at the beginning, that's exactly what the Republicans want. They might lose most of the battles, but you still didn't get to fix what you wanted to fix. And that's all they were really interested in. Again, this isn't to desparage Clinton too much. I supported him in the nineties and like him now better than I ever did. But his success was limited to little more than saving his own skin and preventing Republicans from doing what Bush eventually did.
Partying Like It's 1999
And now here we are in 2008, and I'm seriously worried that a Hillary nomination will be a repeat of the last Clinton presidential win. It'll be just like 1996, where a Clinton victory only enraged their attackers; except this time, we'll be starting up where we left off in 1999; with the Villagers storming the castle and the media chomping at the bit to do their bidding. Sure, any Democrat may have trouble with them and the Republicans will surely attack; but at least we're not starting off against the ropes. It always felt like third and long during the Clinton presidency, and I'm tired of waiting for the Hail Mary on every play to pull us through.
And the problem is that I think the Clintons actually like it this way. They prefer being behind the eight ball and have grown so accustomed to the battle that they think the battle is what they're there for and have lost sight of everything else. And we've all seen that kind of thing happen before. Two people get into a stupid debate over a stupid thing, and before you know it, they're arguing against their own points and can't even remember where they got started or what they were trying to prove. It's no longer about trying to convince their opponent of anything; they just want to win, yet no longer remember what the victory might be. And so you get "victories" that involve taxcuts and spending "increases" which give less money to Medicare.
And that's the exact vibe I get from Hillary. I'm not saying she's a bad person. I'm not saying that she'd be a bad president. What I'm saying is that she's been in the fight too long and now all she's seeing is the fight. Everything is about finding the best position to wage battle from while finding her opponent's every weakness. And she's quite good at it. I'm not suggesting that she's blind with rage or anything. She's good at winning these battles, and as president, is likely to win more battles than she loses. And that's not a bad thing.
Why I Support Obama
Now if Hillary was the only good candidate to choose from, I'd support her the way I supported Bill. But I happen to think there were several better candidates for us to choose from (particularly Dodd), and am now more than happy to support Obama. In fact, while I preferred Dodd's policies, I now loooove Obama's entire schtick. I was always a bit skittish that he might be a little lightweight, but have now seen enough to believe that he can seal the deal.
He has a positive optimism that I find refreshing (almost as positive as myself), and he seems quite good at analyzing the political scene well enough to know which notes of his opponent's to steal without selling himself out. Like with the whole "Reagan - Party of Ideas" thing that Hillary wrongly tried to nail him with. She let her fighter instincts get the best of her and she thought she had a knock-out punch which really only reinforced his good side.
And the only reason why she imagined that Barack had said anything wrong was because she's too accustomed to hearing the phony language of centrism and didn't understand that he was using the standard meaning of these words. If anything, the centrists were always pulling a sham anyway, which Barack is now doing correctly. They pretended they were liberals using conservative rhetoric as a gimmick to trick liberals into supporting conservative policies. And so here we have Barack using conservative language to sell liberal policies, and centrist Hillary is throwing a shit fit.
This was supposed to be her schtick, yet he's selling it far more successfully because he actually means what he's saying. And I know exactly what he's talking about. I was a Republican for YEARS because I liked Reagan so much. I was a kid and knew nothing about politics, but I liked him, even though I shouldn't have. And even now I have admiration for him. He was a very positive guy, who I believe was seriously led astray by wily people (I wouldn't rule out brainwashing), and that if his policies matched his optimistic rhetoric, he'd have been the greatest president in history, and very liberal.
And the 80's were a HUGE change in direction for America and Reagan was the right guy to pull it off. He didn't make it happen, but he was the perfect orchestra leader for it. But like Obama, that's not to say that I agree with his policies. Only to point out what Reagan meant to people and how the right leader at the right time can have a huge impact. And that's a perfect match-up for what Obama's trying to do for us, except the tides have changed and for the first time in decades, we're poised to see a huge burst in liberal energy, with Obama positioned to help lead the way.
And that's just not something I see with Hillary, who seems poised for a long, hard slog in which she "wins" by adopting a watered down version of what conservatives wanted, just like we saw in the nineties. And so she's doing victory laps while Republicans laugh all the way to the bank. I know we can do better.
Mr. Optimism
And overall, I just get a big Can Do attitude from the Obama. While Hillary comes off as the rough and tumble street fighter who learned how to handle herself the hard way and is always ready to attack, Obama has the wise, but immaculate confidence of someone who knows what it's like to fight, but hasn't been damaged by it. He'll fight if he has to, and fight well; but only if he has to.
And that's what I'd prefer in a president. Someone who can stand-up for himself, but understands that the fight isn't the prize. That politics are just the tactics we use to get what we want. And realizes that while people will support him in his battles, that they'd prefer something a little stronger to tide them over. I don't want to go back to being a loyal foot soldier defending my president. I want to be a part of a political movement that changes how America works and shows people that politics can be more than partisan squabbling and name calling. Like all people, I want to be a part of something bigger than myself and I firmly believe that Obama is the man who can give us that.
And who knows, maybe Obama can't produce. Maybe he'll fold under the constant attacks (though I'm convinced that the toughest hits he'll take are the ones his fellow Democrats are laying on him, and that general election smears will only work on the more rabid Republicans who already hate him). But he looks like the real deal and I think he can be the start of something new. Something better. This isn't the nineties. Democrats are no longer on the defensive, and we need a president who acts like that. Again, I will fully support another Clinton presidency, but am firmly convinced that an Obama presidency can be something much better.
This isn't about playing offense or defense. This is about going beyond politics. And only in the past few weeks have I become convinced that Obama has the fighting skills to not only handle himself in a battle, but to be able to pull himself back out again. I only hope that he's given the chance.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Happy Milk Day, Everyone!
I'm not sure why milk gets its own federal holiday, but I'll take whatever I can get. I suppose it is a pretty decent drink (though less healthy than many imagine), and it gives us butter, cheese, and cream, and I can't complain about that. So I guess it really is deserving of a special day of recognition. I'm not sure why retailers haven't gotten into this by putting up pictures of cows and udders everywhere, but perhaps that'll be next. This is a relatively new holiday and I understand that some southerners have found it to be somewhat controversial, for reasons I can't quite fathom. Perhaps they're lactose intolerant, I don't know. But whatever the case is, I hope you have an excellent Milk Day and drink a tall glass of the white stuff for me!
Update: Sorry. I really don't know what I'm talking about and I apologize.
Update: Sorry. I really don't know what I'm talking about and I apologize.
Huckabee's Evolution
Not trying to follow-up my last Huckabee post, but I just read a comment by the guy and had to say something. Apparently, his anointer, Chuck Norris, stated that McCain is too old to be president because he might die in office (despite the fact that Norris is only four years younger than McCain), and Huckabee backtracked from this, saying:
"I'm not going to say he's too old. I think he's got a lot of inner strength, good genetic factors by his mom."
Genetic factors?? But...I thought he believed in the whole creationism/God thing. If anything, shouldn't that read "good health factors from God"? What do genes have to do with anything if you've already rejected evolution? Either God gave it to you or he didn't, and your parents didn't have a damn thing to do with it.
Of course, the truth is that old Huckabee's just being a huckster. For this post, I violated blogger ethics by doing a little research, just to make sure that Huck is on the pro-creationist side, and found this article where he tries to walk a fine line by saying that while he doesn't believe in evolution, he doesn't oppose evolution being taught in school or think creationism must be taught. Instead, he thinks kids are smart enough to make this determination on their own, which is why I've instructed my children to write on every history test that time only really began yesterday and that everything they're being tested on is an illusion. Hell, all education should be ala carte. Take the parts you want; reject the rest.
But the truth is that this is another of Huckabee's religious con jobs and he's not even smart enough to pull it off. Because while he acted as if he doesn't believe in evolution, he also made sounds in that article as if he believes in Intelligent Design, saying "I believe that there is a God and that he put the process in motion," Huckabee said.
But of course, that means he believes in evolution. I mean, saying that God "put the process in motion" means that he doesn't even think God's hand is actively guiding our development, but instead is going with the Catholic's idea of completely giving up on the evolution debate and moving into the debate on origins, which has nothing to do with evolution. But apparently he's too dumb to know it. He's just borrowing different pieces of the fundamentalist rhetoric and doesn't see how it all fits together.
God's Law of Evolution
And the problem is that in order to con people, you have to have some idea of what the truth is. In this case, I suspect Huckabee doesn't really know much about evolution, but has enough knowledge to understand basic genetics and has it hardwired in his brain as being part of reality. And he's even less familiar with the creationism he's pretending to accept, as he seems unaware that straight creationism has no evolutionary aspects at all, and that even most Intelligent Design proponents believe that God had an active hand in evolution.
But if you're going with the idea that God set everything in motion, then you're supporting straight evolution. That's all there is to it. If you think He set it in motion, then science class is just a matter of explaining God's law of evolution to us. But you still have to explain it. While he obviously thinks he's been clever by dodging this issue, all he's done is expose that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Hell, even religious leaders should be upset about this fraud, and the only reason they're not is because he's the best candidate they've got. But I'm sure they'll get a bit antsy if he keeps repeating this stuff about God setting the process in motion. After all, Intelligent Design is just a firewall to stop science from encroaching further into their territory and isn't supposed to be taken literally. For fundamentalists, it's just a new word for creationism, and that's clearly not how Huckabee was using it. He's dumb enough to believe that it's really the religious breakthrough they pretend it is, and still hasn't figured out that it's already part of a separate con job.
And I have no doubt in my mind that he's even lying about his belief in God. Because if he did believe in God, he'd at least have some sort of consistent worldview on this stuff. And he'd certainly know better than to lie to people about religion or autograph bibles. No, he's just taking advantage of believers and thinks we're all too stupid to know any better. And like I said, he's having trouble selling this even in a Republican primary. If he makes it into the general election, he'll be eaten alive.
"I'm not going to say he's too old. I think he's got a lot of inner strength, good genetic factors by his mom."
Genetic factors?? But...I thought he believed in the whole creationism/God thing. If anything, shouldn't that read "good health factors from God"? What do genes have to do with anything if you've already rejected evolution? Either God gave it to you or he didn't, and your parents didn't have a damn thing to do with it.
Of course, the truth is that old Huckabee's just being a huckster. For this post, I violated blogger ethics by doing a little research, just to make sure that Huck is on the pro-creationist side, and found this article where he tries to walk a fine line by saying that while he doesn't believe in evolution, he doesn't oppose evolution being taught in school or think creationism must be taught. Instead, he thinks kids are smart enough to make this determination on their own, which is why I've instructed my children to write on every history test that time only really began yesterday and that everything they're being tested on is an illusion. Hell, all education should be ala carte. Take the parts you want; reject the rest.
But the truth is that this is another of Huckabee's religious con jobs and he's not even smart enough to pull it off. Because while he acted as if he doesn't believe in evolution, he also made sounds in that article as if he believes in Intelligent Design, saying "I believe that there is a God and that he put the process in motion," Huckabee said.
But of course, that means he believes in evolution. I mean, saying that God "put the process in motion" means that he doesn't even think God's hand is actively guiding our development, but instead is going with the Catholic's idea of completely giving up on the evolution debate and moving into the debate on origins, which has nothing to do with evolution. But apparently he's too dumb to know it. He's just borrowing different pieces of the fundamentalist rhetoric and doesn't see how it all fits together.
God's Law of Evolution
And the problem is that in order to con people, you have to have some idea of what the truth is. In this case, I suspect Huckabee doesn't really know much about evolution, but has enough knowledge to understand basic genetics and has it hardwired in his brain as being part of reality. And he's even less familiar with the creationism he's pretending to accept, as he seems unaware that straight creationism has no evolutionary aspects at all, and that even most Intelligent Design proponents believe that God had an active hand in evolution.
But if you're going with the idea that God set everything in motion, then you're supporting straight evolution. That's all there is to it. If you think He set it in motion, then science class is just a matter of explaining God's law of evolution to us. But you still have to explain it. While he obviously thinks he's been clever by dodging this issue, all he's done is expose that he doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Hell, even religious leaders should be upset about this fraud, and the only reason they're not is because he's the best candidate they've got. But I'm sure they'll get a bit antsy if he keeps repeating this stuff about God setting the process in motion. After all, Intelligent Design is just a firewall to stop science from encroaching further into their territory and isn't supposed to be taken literally. For fundamentalists, it's just a new word for creationism, and that's clearly not how Huckabee was using it. He's dumb enough to believe that it's really the religious breakthrough they pretend it is, and still hasn't figured out that it's already part of a separate con job.
And I have no doubt in my mind that he's even lying about his belief in God. Because if he did believe in God, he'd at least have some sort of consistent worldview on this stuff. And he'd certainly know better than to lie to people about religion or autograph bibles. No, he's just taking advantage of believers and thinks we're all too stupid to know any better. And like I said, he's having trouble selling this even in a Republican primary. If he makes it into the general election, he'll be eaten alive.
Bibles by Huckabee
I wrote this as a comment to this Bagnews article which shows presidential contender Mike Huckabee autographing bibles!!! Unfortunately, I was having trouble posting the comment, but seeing as how I have my own blog, I guess I can just write it here.
Autographing bibles?!? Holy jesus, that's messed up. It's like he just wants people to think of him as a religious huckster. But he's so obvious about it already. That's one reason I'd like him best of all in the general election. His political compass has been thrown so far off the mark due to the wackos that congregate around him that he has no clue how ridiculous it is. But I guess that's the case with all the other Republican candidates too. The only difference is that his wackos are religious, rather than obsessed with war or money. And while war and money can still be seen as legitimate goals, even most Christians aren't fond of religious wackos. It's like how some vegetarians hate vegans; there's nothing worse than having someone outdo your righteousness.
As for the headline, I'd have to say that by autographing bibles, Huckabee has taken the fine line between pulpit and podium and blasted it with a bazooka. It's gone. All we need next is to see him try to appeal to Southerners by suggesting that his college-day squirrel eating habits show that he's one of them. Honestly, the only reason why Huckabee has lasted this long is because the journalists that cover these people love to be a part of a good con game. Unfortunately, Huck is so obvious that his schtick is getting exposed even in a Republican primary. He'll get entirely swamped in a general election.
Part of a good con is knowing when to pull back from the edge. Right now, thanks to a faith-based community and a media which loathes boring policy debates, Huckabee is the Wile E. Coyote of candidates: He's left the edge far behind while running further over nothing.
Autographing bibles?!? Holy jesus, that's messed up. It's like he just wants people to think of him as a religious huckster. But he's so obvious about it already. That's one reason I'd like him best of all in the general election. His political compass has been thrown so far off the mark due to the wackos that congregate around him that he has no clue how ridiculous it is. But I guess that's the case with all the other Republican candidates too. The only difference is that his wackos are religious, rather than obsessed with war or money. And while war and money can still be seen as legitimate goals, even most Christians aren't fond of religious wackos. It's like how some vegetarians hate vegans; there's nothing worse than having someone outdo your righteousness.
As for the headline, I'd have to say that by autographing bibles, Huckabee has taken the fine line between pulpit and podium and blasted it with a bazooka. It's gone. All we need next is to see him try to appeal to Southerners by suggesting that his college-day squirrel eating habits show that he's one of them. Honestly, the only reason why Huckabee has lasted this long is because the journalists that cover these people love to be a part of a good con game. Unfortunately, Huck is so obvious that his schtick is getting exposed even in a Republican primary. He'll get entirely swamped in a general election.
Part of a good con is knowing when to pull back from the edge. Right now, thanks to a faith-based community and a media which loathes boring policy debates, Huckabee is the Wile E. Coyote of candidates: He's left the edge far behind while running further over nothing.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Republican Photo Magic
I just read about how a former mayor of Sugarland is trying to win the Republican nomination to win back Tom DeLay's old Congressional seat, and sent out a mailer with his head Photoshopped on some skinnier dude's body. And while the initial reaction is to want to laugh at this bozo, that is, in fact, the correct reaction and you can keep laughing.
But is this really too surprising? I mean, it doesn't really matter who Republicans send to Congress, they're all speaking from the same brain. The only difference here is that you've got the right dude's head on the wrong dude's body, but once he's in office, it'll be his fat ass body taking orders from somebody else's head. And rather than sharing body parts with just one dude, it'll be thousands of Republicans talking from this same head. So I really don't see what the big deal here is. It doesn't matter if it's Dean Hrbacek or Tom DeLay or Karl Rove himself running against Nick Lampson, they'll all be repeating the same damn lies no matter who wins the nomination.
Hell, I don't even see why we need to see what they look like anyway. They should just go ahead and use photos of the people you see in picture frames at the store, including the family shots. These aren't real people, anyway. They're just actors, hired for their ability to say lines convincingly and without laughing too much. And they'll attack the gays they want to sleep with and denounce the immigrants they'll hire to mow their lawn and raise their children. The only thing these people bring to Congress is a warm body able to say "yea" or "nay" on command. And so with Dean Hrbacek, it's going to be a slightly bigger warm body than his constituents realized.
For posterity's sake, below are fake and real pictures of the dude. Guess which is which. And is it just me, or does his face look thinner in the doctored picture; so much so that you might think they're different people? Even weirder, doesn't the body in the thin picture look like Governor Perry's in the thick pic? You decide.
But is this really too surprising? I mean, it doesn't really matter who Republicans send to Congress, they're all speaking from the same brain. The only difference here is that you've got the right dude's head on the wrong dude's body, but once he's in office, it'll be his fat ass body taking orders from somebody else's head. And rather than sharing body parts with just one dude, it'll be thousands of Republicans talking from this same head. So I really don't see what the big deal here is. It doesn't matter if it's Dean Hrbacek or Tom DeLay or Karl Rove himself running against Nick Lampson, they'll all be repeating the same damn lies no matter who wins the nomination.
Hell, I don't even see why we need to see what they look like anyway. They should just go ahead and use photos of the people you see in picture frames at the store, including the family shots. These aren't real people, anyway. They're just actors, hired for their ability to say lines convincingly and without laughing too much. And they'll attack the gays they want to sleep with and denounce the immigrants they'll hire to mow their lawn and raise their children. The only thing these people bring to Congress is a warm body able to say "yea" or "nay" on command. And so with Dean Hrbacek, it's going to be a slightly bigger warm body than his constituents realized.
For posterity's sake, below are fake and real pictures of the dude. Guess which is which. And is it just me, or does his face look thinner in the doctored picture; so much so that you might think they're different people? Even weirder, doesn't the body in the thin picture look like Governor Perry's in the thick pic? You decide.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
It Ain't Begun
I don't know if I've mentioned this or not (I actually have quite a few posts lately I haven't finished), but I've come down strongly on Obama's side. I'll support Hillary if she wins, but it will be the same way I supported Bill: Reluctantly.
So perhaps I'm a bit biased when I say this, but I really don't like how everyone keeps treating these individual primaries as if they're all or nothing. As if coming in second place is some sort of campaign threatening catastrophe. Now, if you come in second in a state you were supposed to sweep, that's bad. Or a front-runner coming in a distant third, as Dean did in Iowa in 2004. But losing by a few points isn't the end of the world.
In particular, people keep treating this as if you either win all the delegates or you win nothing. But that's not how this work. Second place isn't a huge loss if got almost as many delegates as the winner. And right now, both Barack and Hillary have 37 delegates. And in Nevada, Obama apparently picked up more delegates than Hillary. So why is everyone acting as if this is some defeat for Barack? Sure, perhaps there's something wrong with a delegate system that can give more points to the second place finisher, but in any case, this wasn't a big defeat.
Losing by one vote in a real election is still a loss, but in a state-by-state system, this shouldn't even be a setback. The only reason these early primaries are so important is only because of the appearance of how the election will shape up; but they haven't been decisive. Sure, in prior elections, the nominee was pretty much determined after New Hampshire sealed the deal. But we've got two strong candidates duking it out for once, and it looks like we're just going to have to wait to see how this turns out, and hope they don't get too nasty about it. Sure, we can decide this in one candidate's favor if we really want to, but it'd be better to just wait.
So perhaps I'm a bit biased when I say this, but I really don't like how everyone keeps treating these individual primaries as if they're all or nothing. As if coming in second place is some sort of campaign threatening catastrophe. Now, if you come in second in a state you were supposed to sweep, that's bad. Or a front-runner coming in a distant third, as Dean did in Iowa in 2004. But losing by a few points isn't the end of the world.
In particular, people keep treating this as if you either win all the delegates or you win nothing. But that's not how this work. Second place isn't a huge loss if got almost as many delegates as the winner. And right now, both Barack and Hillary have 37 delegates. And in Nevada, Obama apparently picked up more delegates than Hillary. So why is everyone acting as if this is some defeat for Barack? Sure, perhaps there's something wrong with a delegate system that can give more points to the second place finisher, but in any case, this wasn't a big defeat.
Losing by one vote in a real election is still a loss, but in a state-by-state system, this shouldn't even be a setback. The only reason these early primaries are so important is only because of the appearance of how the election will shape up; but they haven't been decisive. Sure, in prior elections, the nominee was pretty much determined after New Hampshire sealed the deal. But we've got two strong candidates duking it out for once, and it looks like we're just going to have to wait to see how this turns out, and hope they don't get too nasty about it. Sure, we can decide this in one candidate's favor if we really want to, but it'd be better to just wait.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Jonah Goldberg: The Black Klansman
Jonah Goldberg is an amazingly stupid man. With most conservatives, you never really know if they’re drinking the Kool-Aid or just serving. The "Lying v. Incompetent" argument has been going on for some time, and even conservatives often forget which side they're on. But there are some conservatives who clearly belong on one side or the other.
NY Times' recent op/ed hire Bill Kristol is an example of a conservative who only serves the Kool-Aid. He’s a smart man who says dumb things because there are no smart things conservatives can say anymore. He's just doing the best he can with the crappy material he has to work with and the fact that he isn't continuously laughed at by everyone is a testament to his genius. He might not be right about anything, but he sounds right to people who don't know what they're talking about; and that's an unfortunately large group of people.
And two of those people are David Brooks and Jonah Goldberg, who are serious Kool-Aid drinkers but somehow imagine that they’re servers. And that's primarily because they're not really conservatives and don't understand how the conservative mind thinks; and therefore can only crib notes from real conservatives, without really understanding what they're saying or why. They're like parrots who imagine they're having a conversation, simply because intelligent people keep laughing every time they talk.
And the few times they actually try to create source material, they come off sounding either liberal or entirely incoherent. The only thing conservative about them is their rhetoric; which is why it rarely makes any sense. Besides, with Jonah anyway, all they really care about is the mud he throws. As I've mentioned before, the strongest principle of all conservatives is their loathing of liberals and/or Democrats. Jonah could be a gay communist for all they care; as long as he's insulting libs, he's in the club. Just ask Andy Sullivan, who became "liberal" the moment he wrote "Bush Sux" on his blog.
Liberal Republican in Hiding
And the problem for Jonah is one I’ve mentioned earlier: Jonah Goldberg is a liberal Republican in a world in which Republicans are not allowed to be liberal. And I say that because Jonah believes that the government should fix problems that it can fix, but that it's done a poor job at fixing things. But for real conservatives, there are only three things our government should ever do: Help rich people, help religious people, and hurt brown people. And that's it. If one of those three things aren't happening, the government shouldn't be doing it. It's not that they think the government sucks at solving problems; it's that they think it shouldn't solve problem.s And they oppose successful government programs more than crappy ones.
Goldberg, in contrast, believes in a limited government that solves problems that it's able to solve effectively. And if you could show him that the government did something effectively, he'd think it was a good idea. But there's already a word for people who believe that, and that word is Liberal. The difference is that Jonah's a liberal who only accepts data from conservative sources, and that data tells him that government doesn't work. But all the same, he'd like it if government did work, and that's just not what conservatives think.
But not only does Goldberg not know this, he has completely shifted the ideological spectrum in order to make him look conservative. As I've shown before, he defines liberals as people who believe "government can have a role in any problem" and have "a well-deserved reputation for bringing a hammer to every problem." See, he defines liberals as being just like him, but more absurd; and is oblivious to the fact that conservatives aren't like him at all. It's not just that they only use a hammer when it's necessary; they don't think the government should have a hammer.
And the funniest part of all: He's so liberal that he considers the true conservative position to be a fake strawman designed to make conservatives look dumb. He still doesn't realize that conservatives did that all on their own. And the only reason why he associates with them is that he just likes being a Republican. For him, conservatism is just a social scene; not an ideology. Many people are that way about religion too, I've found. They're not looking for the answers. They just need a friend.
Throwing Around Fascism
And that's how we can read things like this, from his visit on The Daily Show:
Most touchy moment for Jonah came when Stewart asked him if one of the things he was against was people throwing around the charge "fascism" far too easily. Jonah said yes, then Stewart picked up a copy of the book and simply pointed to the title, "Liberal Fascism" -- adding, so why are you doing this?
But in the context of Jonah being a closet-liberal, it makes perfect sense. Because the problem with his recent book is that he's not a fascist conservative, but it disturbs him that conservatives are so frequrently tagged with the fascist label. So he decided to write a book which countered that impression by associating liberals with fascists. But an honest conservative really only objects to the fascist label because it's as accurate as it is damning.
But he doesn't really mean that liberals are fascist. He's just trying to create a parallel argument which shows that it's just as easy to attack liberals as fascists as it is to attack conservatives. It's not really an argument, as much as it is a diversion. Like the guilty person in a murder-mystery who fingers an innocent person; he doesn't care if he's guilty, he just wants to put the spotlight on someone who isn't him.
And that's why Jonah Goldberg is still insisting that he disapproves of the fascist label being thrown around as easily as it is, while promoting a book which did exactly that. Because the real point of the book is to stop liberals from calling conservatives fascist. That's it. That's the real intent (well that, plus Jonah just wanted some greenbacks for a book idea he successfully pitched, but couldn't really write).
Lumberjack as Tree
And that's all because he imagines that he's a conservative. It's as if a black man who looked white got accepted into the KKK and imagined that the Klan isn't racist because he's a Klan member who likes black people and thinks the anti-Klan people were unfairly smearing the Klan with the racist label. And in Jonah's case, they accepted him as a conservative because he was anti-Clinton and a loyal Republican; and so he imagines that he must be one of them and that they think the way he does. And that's why he's so entirely confused and why his arguments never make a lick of sense.
And that includes this new book, which would have disgraced any man of integrity; while a man like Goldberg will just use it to further his victim complex. His argument is like a man walking through a forest and declaring that a lumberjack is a tree because he's wearing green and brown; and using that to defend clearcutting by saying that environmentalists are anti-tree because they won't let trees chop down other trees. But some attributes are more important than others, and finding attributes which link liberals to Hitler won't stop liberals from noticing that conservatives are fascists.
As usual, Jonah's entire premise is muddled, because he's a liberal living in a conservative world. And so he comes off yet again looking like a complete dumbass, simply because he's entirely confused and doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
NY Times' recent op/ed hire Bill Kristol is an example of a conservative who only serves the Kool-Aid. He’s a smart man who says dumb things because there are no smart things conservatives can say anymore. He's just doing the best he can with the crappy material he has to work with and the fact that he isn't continuously laughed at by everyone is a testament to his genius. He might not be right about anything, but he sounds right to people who don't know what they're talking about; and that's an unfortunately large group of people.
And two of those people are David Brooks and Jonah Goldberg, who are serious Kool-Aid drinkers but somehow imagine that they’re servers. And that's primarily because they're not really conservatives and don't understand how the conservative mind thinks; and therefore can only crib notes from real conservatives, without really understanding what they're saying or why. They're like parrots who imagine they're having a conversation, simply because intelligent people keep laughing every time they talk.
And the few times they actually try to create source material, they come off sounding either liberal or entirely incoherent. The only thing conservative about them is their rhetoric; which is why it rarely makes any sense. Besides, with Jonah anyway, all they really care about is the mud he throws. As I've mentioned before, the strongest principle of all conservatives is their loathing of liberals and/or Democrats. Jonah could be a gay communist for all they care; as long as he's insulting libs, he's in the club. Just ask Andy Sullivan, who became "liberal" the moment he wrote "Bush Sux" on his blog.
Liberal Republican in Hiding
And the problem for Jonah is one I’ve mentioned earlier: Jonah Goldberg is a liberal Republican in a world in which Republicans are not allowed to be liberal. And I say that because Jonah believes that the government should fix problems that it can fix, but that it's done a poor job at fixing things. But for real conservatives, there are only three things our government should ever do: Help rich people, help religious people, and hurt brown people. And that's it. If one of those three things aren't happening, the government shouldn't be doing it. It's not that they think the government sucks at solving problems; it's that they think it shouldn't solve problem.s And they oppose successful government programs more than crappy ones.
Goldberg, in contrast, believes in a limited government that solves problems that it's able to solve effectively. And if you could show him that the government did something effectively, he'd think it was a good idea. But there's already a word for people who believe that, and that word is Liberal. The difference is that Jonah's a liberal who only accepts data from conservative sources, and that data tells him that government doesn't work. But all the same, he'd like it if government did work, and that's just not what conservatives think.
But not only does Goldberg not know this, he has completely shifted the ideological spectrum in order to make him look conservative. As I've shown before, he defines liberals as people who believe "government can have a role in any problem" and have "a well-deserved reputation for bringing a hammer to every problem." See, he defines liberals as being just like him, but more absurd; and is oblivious to the fact that conservatives aren't like him at all. It's not just that they only use a hammer when it's necessary; they don't think the government should have a hammer.
And the funniest part of all: He's so liberal that he considers the true conservative position to be a fake strawman designed to make conservatives look dumb. He still doesn't realize that conservatives did that all on their own. And the only reason why he associates with them is that he just likes being a Republican. For him, conservatism is just a social scene; not an ideology. Many people are that way about religion too, I've found. They're not looking for the answers. They just need a friend.
Throwing Around Fascism
And that's how we can read things like this, from his visit on The Daily Show:
Most touchy moment for Jonah came when Stewart asked him if one of the things he was against was people throwing around the charge "fascism" far too easily. Jonah said yes, then Stewart picked up a copy of the book and simply pointed to the title, "Liberal Fascism" -- adding, so why are you doing this?
But in the context of Jonah being a closet-liberal, it makes perfect sense. Because the problem with his recent book is that he's not a fascist conservative, but it disturbs him that conservatives are so frequrently tagged with the fascist label. So he decided to write a book which countered that impression by associating liberals with fascists. But an honest conservative really only objects to the fascist label because it's as accurate as it is damning.
But he doesn't really mean that liberals are fascist. He's just trying to create a parallel argument which shows that it's just as easy to attack liberals as fascists as it is to attack conservatives. It's not really an argument, as much as it is a diversion. Like the guilty person in a murder-mystery who fingers an innocent person; he doesn't care if he's guilty, he just wants to put the spotlight on someone who isn't him.
And that's why Jonah Goldberg is still insisting that he disapproves of the fascist label being thrown around as easily as it is, while promoting a book which did exactly that. Because the real point of the book is to stop liberals from calling conservatives fascist. That's it. That's the real intent (well that, plus Jonah just wanted some greenbacks for a book idea he successfully pitched, but couldn't really write).
Lumberjack as Tree
And that's all because he imagines that he's a conservative. It's as if a black man who looked white got accepted into the KKK and imagined that the Klan isn't racist because he's a Klan member who likes black people and thinks the anti-Klan people were unfairly smearing the Klan with the racist label. And in Jonah's case, they accepted him as a conservative because he was anti-Clinton and a loyal Republican; and so he imagines that he must be one of them and that they think the way he does. And that's why he's so entirely confused and why his arguments never make a lick of sense.
And that includes this new book, which would have disgraced any man of integrity; while a man like Goldberg will just use it to further his victim complex. His argument is like a man walking through a forest and declaring that a lumberjack is a tree because he's wearing green and brown; and using that to defend clearcutting by saying that environmentalists are anti-tree because they won't let trees chop down other trees. But some attributes are more important than others, and finding attributes which link liberals to Hitler won't stop liberals from noticing that conservatives are fascists.
As usual, Jonah's entire premise is muddled, because he's a liberal living in a conservative world. And so he comes off yet again looking like a complete dumbass, simply because he's entirely confused and doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
