January 31, 2004
... And lo and behold, Dean started saying some weird things.Wackiness ensues when the party of ideas becomes consumed with only one idea: Beat Bush. Even though this isn't a TV Guide description of this week's episode of Democrat Party Primaries, it well could be.These weird things didn't really bother Democratic primary voters, but primary voters imagined they might bother general election swing voters. And since electability is all about Iowa and New Hampshire liberals trying to imagine what Palm Beach County, Fla., independents will want in a presidential candidate nine months from now, this created ripples of concern that Dean might not be so electable after all. The media picked up on the doubts, which created a downward unelectability spiral.
[...]
And, what do you know, Kerry won the Iowa caucuses, and from that moment on the election turned into a postmodernist literary critic's idea of heaven. It became an election about itself, with voters voting on the basis of who could win votes later on.
It's the tautology, stupid.
Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail column by Rex Murphy examines another facet of the single-mindedness of Bush-haters in Bush-haters, you're running out of esteem.
Posted by: Debbye at
05:35 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 2 kb.
... then there were the linguistic dirty tricks of the 1950 U.S. Senate race in Florida. George Smathers criticized his opponent, Claude Pepper, because Pepper's sister, according to Smathers, was a "thespian." Not only that, Smathers said, Pepper's brother was "a practicing Homo sapiens." Further, Smathers charged that Pepper himself had gone to college and openly "matriculated."More shocking election hijinks stories related by Eric Burns here.Smathers won the election.
Posted by: Debbye at
03:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
January 29, 2004
Posted by: Debbye at
11:53 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.
January 28, 2004
Kay pointed out (and I agree) that an inquiry might be useful, but a witchhunt wouldn't. I'm weary of the witchhunt mentality of the past 10 years which overshadowed the bombing of the WTC early in the last decade as well as the escalating terrorist attacks on US interests which, by our inability or unwillingness to respond, culminated on Sept. 11.
I've don't fault the Clinton administration so much for not responding to the attacks so much as I fault the leaders of both parties for being incapable of understanding which issues are fair partisan game and which aren't. There has got to be continued recognition that, when a national crisis occurs, responsibile leadership dictates that we drop the partisan games. It's hurting us that some still haven't reached that understanding.
The problem is that criticisms based on partisanship are too easily dismissed (which was similar to the findings of the Hutton Inquiry - see post below) and that problem, more than anything else, threatens our ability to properly assess and respond to events.
David Kay has pointed out that the strategies employed during the war indicate how strongly we believed in the existence and willingness of Saddam to use WMD on our troops and many of the criticisms being raised now about securing sites and offices fail to take that into account. That's something so glaringly obvious that I have to conclude that even those who criticize those failures know it to be so.
(UPDATE: CNN's wrap-up of Kay's testimony is here and Fox's coverage is here.)
(UPDATE: The transcript of David Kay's opening statement to the committee is here. Note it doesn't include the questions and answers, unfortunately.)
During Sen. Kennedy's questions I found myself reflecting on the Cuban Missile Crisis as well as the Bay of Pigs mess and wondered if he had thought about those events lately. (I'm not saying there are grounds for analogy. I'm just saying.)
There has to be points at which partisan interests, which are by definition narrow and selfish, are set aside for the common good. I'm baffled that we evidently haven't reached that point yet, although I suspect the American people are considerably farther ahead in that respect than some political leaders.
The president has thus far stood above the chatter and clatter, but he hasn't begun to campaign as of yet (at least to the same degree as the Dems, which in all fairness, is due to the primaries) so the Republicans are still holding the higher moral ground but it will be a delicate balancing act once the Democrats select a candidate and the presidential campaign begins in earnest.
I was sorry to see that Sen. Lieberman couldn't break the 10% barrier in the New Hampshire primary. Do the Dems have any special awards for principled consistency? I believe the senator is preserving the future of the Democrats which is also true for Bill Clinton also but not true for Gore.
Maybe I should make a full disclosure: I voted for Nader in 2000. When Gore decided to endorse Dean, it confirmed for me the main reason I didn't vote for him: he's an unprincipled opportunist. (I didn't even consider voting for Bush because I had never voted Republican. In 2000, some things were sacrosanct, but it's not 2000 any more and I'm not in Kansas any more - or Georgia or California.)
I think what irritates me the most is the heightened rhetoric. For example, does Sen. Kerry truly believe that the Bush administration is a regime? Of course he doesn't. Do those who say that the US has become a police state actually believe that? Of course they don't. (They are as aware as I that they aren't in jail.)
I also didn't believe that Dean's speech after the Iowa caucus was as dreadful as CNN in particular insisted (although that may be because I lived in Georgia, have seen other politicians behave similarly, and recognized his speech for what it was - a boisterous effort to raise the spirits of his supporters and redirect their temporary disappointment to the future. Were I such to have been in that crowd, it would have raised my spirits!)
Anyway, I think the sound bite approach to leadership is just plain irresponsible.
Americans are facing unanticipated challenges these days which go to the heart of who we are, where we are headed and what we aspire to be. We need to find solutions that are based less in partisanship and more to determining "the common weal." I get that, most Americans get that, and anyone who would be our leader needs to get that.
It's stopped snowing for now. The snow plow did its usual damage, so I'm going to finish clearing up out there.
Posted by: Debbye at
01:10 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 884 words, total size 5 kb.
January 03, 2004
Good read for Canadians, by the way, because I think that this shift may happen here, although the first signal will be law and order candidates in Toronto.
Posted by: Debbye at
10:16 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
60 queries taking 0.0499 seconds, 126 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.