Debates #2
Question 3
"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?"
The Question presumes misjudgment and so allows a list as an answer rather than some argument to support the notion that any misjudgment was made. Kerry claims, "First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance." Apparently for Kerry a true alliance is not one where the participants share a worldview, wish to participate, and don't need coddling. A true alliance is one where consensus is achieved by all of the members of the security council, regardless of the fact that they often have irreconcilable policy goals, because we can have a summit. "...That he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections." On the contrary, Bush argued the opposite, that when the UN speaks, it has to mean what it says, and that he would enforce resolutions for the UN, even without the UN. "Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections.
We had Saddam Hussein trapped." A profound misreading of the situation. "He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. 'Last resort.'" Its means "after its too late". Kerry will wait until the costs of action have skyrocketed.
"You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, 'I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.'" This is a recipie for no action. Everything about Kerry says no action. His standard for consenus will prevent any action, waiting until action is absolutly neccesary will prevent action, and wanting to be able to look into the eyes of grieving parents means no action. This is the true Kerry, his claims that he intends to win, that he won't waver is just a lie. "And we pushed our allies aside." France and Germany are the only allies that matter to Kerry, and their illegal ties to Saddam don't give him a moment of pause. "And so, today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost: $200 billion." Kerry's failure to recognize that our wealth and power is perponderant is such a profound failure of understanding, one wonders if he thinks Elvis Presley will sing at his inauguration. "$200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq." Twenty years of Senate votes attest to the idea that Kerry would always prefer to defund defense and intelligence for social spending. News Flash Senator, this is not a road to victory. Forget Elvis, Kerry wants Bach to play. "And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. " Kerry either ignores the explanation of what Iraq is intended to do, he's a liar, or an idiot. Very likely all three.
Bush pointed out Kerry's earlier statements supporting deposing Saddam and intervening in Iraq. Sensible for a 30 second responce.
Question 4
"What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?"
Bush said, "Jim, we've got the capability of doing both." So obvious its stunning.
"As a matter of fact, this is a global effort." So it must be if victory is the goal.
"To say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror." Stunningly obvious.
Kerry repeats his embarassing analysis which is as off the mark as his analysis of Vietnam and the Cold War. If Kerry says the sun rises in the east, I advise you to verify that yourself.
"You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need." Armor of any kind has very specific advantages, normally being light and agile is better than being heavily armored. "10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored." We have armored vehicles. There is a reason we didn't armor the Humvee. There is a reason we don't have a completely mechanized and armored army.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Saturday, October 02, 2004
The Debates #1
Eighteen Questions and closing statements, lets have a look. I watched the debates, and will be following the text at CNN.com's transcript.
Question 1
"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"
This is a bad question. What idiot says no to this question? The whole series of debate quetsions are frequently bad examples of question framing because there is one obvious right answer. A good question is open-ended, such as "What is your plan to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States?" Such a question does not waste time with the "my plan can beat up your plan" part of the answer.
Kerry's plan here is to make us better liked by those who are alienated by Bush's Iraq policy. This will greatly reduce the chance of a 9/11 terrorist attack from French state terrorists. Its not likely to have any effect on states or groups that already hate us. Kerry will have a summit with allies and they will hold hands in a circle and a fairy will sprinkle magic dust on the participants. To take Kerry a little more seriously, Kerry's mistake here is to think that more could be done. People like the French, Germans, and Russians are already sharing intelligence on terrorists, where we have problems with the is our Iraq policy, not in fighting terrorists outside of Iraq. Kerry is offering a platiutude. Yeah, I like apple pie too. Apple pie doesn't stop terrorism. Kerry also claims he can do a better job training Iraqi's, preparing for election, and mixing a Tom Collins. He can say he sings better than Bing Crosby and dances better than Fred Astaire, but I didn't see him in Holiday Inn. Claims offered with no articulation of a plan are arguments about nothing more than character. Take my word for it. Rather than allowing citzens to evaluate evidence critically to determine which claims were sensible and which were preferable, we were given nothing but an empty claim.
Bush offered the following: "Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." A doctrine that extends guilt to those who offer support or refuge, denying terrorists sanctuary in states where the "you're with us or against us" line has pushed the line of cooperation as far as it is likey to go. Is this a coalition of the coerced, yes. Lybia was coerced into abandoning terror sponsorships and WMD programs. Good thing, I say. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia went from being Taliban supporters to active allies in the war on terror. They didn't do that because we asked real nice. "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it." Solid explanation of the rational. He contines a few lines later by saying, "we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror." That's it in a nutshell.
Question 2
"Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?"
Another dumb question. Assuming that Kerry had offered a plan in question 1, this question would be unnecesary, even if rephrased into an open-ended question, like why is your plan better, point by point. As it is, this is just a restatement of the first question, an a waste of time.
For example, Bush just rejects the premise of a Kerry victory and goes on about what a leader he is. He says some good things, like, "This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," and, "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty." Good solid stuff, but its not an answer to the question. I will say that Bush was probabaly playing the nice guy by answer the question in some form of a "no". Pat Cadell suggests that Bush was wooing women and independents who didn't want to see the kind of toughness we saw at the Convention. There is a women who has said that several times on Brit Hume's show (not Maura Liason, maybe CeCe Conally?), and there may be others who thought he should. I think the better answer would have been, "Because the chance of another major attack decreases when we engage the enemy in the middle east, rather than allowing him to plan a major action, my more aggressive policy does a better job preventing a possible subsequent attack. Right now, many terrorists are too busy trying to prevent Iraq from building a foundation for democracy to attack us here. Suppose we both withdrew from Iraq and established a lasting peace, what would the terrorists do when they left? They would plan more attacks."
Eighteen Questions and closing statements, lets have a look. I watched the debates, and will be following the text at CNN.com's transcript.
Question 1
"Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?"
This is a bad question. What idiot says no to this question? The whole series of debate quetsions are frequently bad examples of question framing because there is one obvious right answer. A good question is open-ended, such as "What is your plan to prevent another 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States?" Such a question does not waste time with the "my plan can beat up your plan" part of the answer.
Kerry's plan here is to make us better liked by those who are alienated by Bush's Iraq policy. This will greatly reduce the chance of a 9/11 terrorist attack from French state terrorists. Its not likely to have any effect on states or groups that already hate us. Kerry will have a summit with allies and they will hold hands in a circle and a fairy will sprinkle magic dust on the participants. To take Kerry a little more seriously, Kerry's mistake here is to think that more could be done. People like the French, Germans, and Russians are already sharing intelligence on terrorists, where we have problems with the is our Iraq policy, not in fighting terrorists outside of Iraq. Kerry is offering a platiutude. Yeah, I like apple pie too. Apple pie doesn't stop terrorism. Kerry also claims he can do a better job training Iraqi's, preparing for election, and mixing a Tom Collins. He can say he sings better than Bing Crosby and dances better than Fred Astaire, but I didn't see him in Holiday Inn. Claims offered with no articulation of a plan are arguments about nothing more than character. Take my word for it. Rather than allowing citzens to evaluate evidence critically to determine which claims were sensible and which were preferable, we were given nothing but an empty claim.
Bush offered the following: "Seventy-five percent of known Al Qaeda leaders have been brought to justice." A doctrine that extends guilt to those who offer support or refuge, denying terrorists sanctuary in states where the "you're with us or against us" line has pushed the line of cooperation as far as it is likey to go. Is this a coalition of the coerced, yes. Lybia was coerced into abandoning terror sponsorships and WMD programs. Good thing, I say. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia went from being Taliban supporters to active allies in the war on terror. They didn't do that because we asked real nice. "In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously, before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it." Solid explanation of the rational. He contines a few lines later by saying, "we're pursuing a strategy of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror." That's it in a nutshell.
Question 2
"Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?"
Another dumb question. Assuming that Kerry had offered a plan in question 1, this question would be unnecesary, even if rephrased into an open-ended question, like why is your plan better, point by point. As it is, this is just a restatement of the first question, an a waste of time.
For example, Bush just rejects the premise of a Kerry victory and goes on about what a leader he is. He says some good things, like, "This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate," and, "The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty." Good solid stuff, but its not an answer to the question. I will say that Bush was probabaly playing the nice guy by answer the question in some form of a "no". Pat Cadell suggests that Bush was wooing women and independents who didn't want to see the kind of toughness we saw at the Convention. There is a women who has said that several times on Brit Hume's show (not Maura Liason, maybe CeCe Conally?), and there may be others who thought he should. I think the better answer would have been, "Because the chance of another major attack decreases when we engage the enemy in the middle east, rather than allowing him to plan a major action, my more aggressive policy does a better job preventing a possible subsequent attack. Right now, many terrorists are too busy trying to prevent Iraq from building a foundation for democracy to attack us here. Suppose we both withdrew from Iraq and established a lasting peace, what would the terrorists do when they left? They would plan more attacks."
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Kofi fails to control his mouth
In the words of Mark Steyn, "The UN system designed to constrain Saddam was instead enriching him, through the Oil-for-Food programme, and enabling him to subsidise terrorism. Given that the Oil-for-Fraud programme was run directly out of Kofi Annan's office, the Secretary-General ought to have the decency to recognise that he had his chance with Iraq, he blew it, and a period of silence from him would now be welcome."
In the words of Mark Steyn, "The UN system designed to constrain Saddam was instead enriching him, through the Oil-for-Food programme, and enabling him to subsidise terrorism. Given that the Oil-for-Fraud programme was run directly out of Kofi Annan's office, the Secretary-General ought to have the decency to recognise that he had his chance with Iraq, he blew it, and a period of silence from him would now be welcome."
Saturday, September 18, 2004
First Hand Blog Reporting
My brother witnessed a fire, and got some pics. See what happened on my brother's blog.
My brother witnessed a fire, and got some pics. See what happened on my brother's blog.
O'Reilly losing his audience?
Bill O'Reilly has run afoul of people like Laura Ingraham, who criticize his embrace of terms of the left. I lost interest in him between April and July. I think that he became more interested in his posture as an independent that the truth of his analysis. More than anything, O'Reilly is just a contrarian. Click the July link to an article by VDH on people who float along following the news day, or in O'Reilly's case, opposed to the news day.
Bill O'Reilly has run afoul of people like Laura Ingraham, who criticize his embrace of terms of the left. I lost interest in him between April and July. I think that he became more interested in his posture as an independent that the truth of his analysis. More than anything, O'Reilly is just a contrarian. Click the July link to an article by VDH on people who float along following the news day, or in O'Reilly's case, opposed to the news day.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
The International Community?
Two articles have something very good to say on this subject. One is in Slate, which does a nice job on the inherent reasons broad coallitions are not capable of routine responce as needed. Anyone who has read up on the Napoleonic Wars can recognize that even when there are only four important players, getting them all together at once is just too much to ask most of the time. Of the seven coallitions formed, only the 6th, and 7th included all of the major powers, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. (The first coallition probabaly didn't need the strength of Russia, but the early withdrawl of Prussia doomed it.) Some more needs to be done on why we seem to be so in thrall of the idea of a consensus among the international powers. Victor Davis Hanson is probabaly the go to source for that.
Second is a six week old piece by Robert Kagan on the Kerry line, we should "only go to war because we have to." Kagan demonstrates that this reveals a more profound unilateralism than the Bush administration. Bush and his team is an internationalist one willing to work with those able to work with us at a given time. Kerry is arguing for an isolationist withdrawl from the international community. He knows full well, as Lee Smith pointed out in the piece mentioned above, that expecting the international community to ever form consensus is so rare that it nearly amonts to a guarantee of inaction. So Kerry's multilateralism is really just a mask for Jeffersonian isolationism.
Two articles have something very good to say on this subject. One is in Slate, which does a nice job on the inherent reasons broad coallitions are not capable of routine responce as needed. Anyone who has read up on the Napoleonic Wars can recognize that even when there are only four important players, getting them all together at once is just too much to ask most of the time. Of the seven coallitions formed, only the 6th, and 7th included all of the major powers, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. (The first coallition probabaly didn't need the strength of Russia, but the early withdrawl of Prussia doomed it.) Some more needs to be done on why we seem to be so in thrall of the idea of a consensus among the international powers. Victor Davis Hanson is probabaly the go to source for that.
Second is a six week old piece by Robert Kagan on the Kerry line, we should "only go to war because we have to." Kagan demonstrates that this reveals a more profound unilateralism than the Bush administration. Bush and his team is an internationalist one willing to work with those able to work with us at a given time. Kerry is arguing for an isolationist withdrawl from the international community. He knows full well, as Lee Smith pointed out in the piece mentioned above, that expecting the international community to ever form consensus is so rare that it nearly amonts to a guarantee of inaction. So Kerry's multilateralism is really just a mask for Jeffersonian isolationism.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Brooks on Hawk vs. Hawk
In this space I pointed to this NYTimes column by David Brooks. He argues that Hawks break down into gradualists and the confrontationalists. The gradualists argue for constant pressure, but against confrontation, because its frequently conter-productive. The confrontationalists argue for clearing out the enemy when we know where he is.
I will say that talking like a gradualist and occasionally being a confrontationalist is walking softly and carrying a big stick. Its the best of all possible policies. People like Bill Bennett rightly complain that talking like a confrontationalist and acting like a gradualist makes us look weak.
For myself, I'd say that my instincts tend more toward confrontationalism and my intellect tends to favor gradualism. I have no problems with confrontationalism per se, but I do agree with the gradualists that these things are won over the long term. I also dislike talking like a confrontationalist and acting in any other fashion. I'd rather talk like a gradualist, expect and plan for a long term commitment, and occasionally, unexpectedly, confront our enemies forcefully.
In this space I pointed to this NYTimes column by David Brooks. He argues that Hawks break down into gradualists and the confrontationalists. The gradualists argue for constant pressure, but against confrontation, because its frequently conter-productive. The confrontationalists argue for clearing out the enemy when we know where he is.
I will say that talking like a gradualist and occasionally being a confrontationalist is walking softly and carrying a big stick. Its the best of all possible policies. People like Bill Bennett rightly complain that talking like a confrontationalist and acting like a gradualist makes us look weak.
For myself, I'd say that my instincts tend more toward confrontationalism and my intellect tends to favor gradualism. I have no problems with confrontationalism per se, but I do agree with the gradualists that these things are won over the long term. I also dislike talking like a confrontationalist and acting in any other fashion. I'd rather talk like a gradualist, expect and plan for a long term commitment, and occasionally, unexpectedly, confront our enemies forcefully.
Theory
Kerry's strategy was to A) establish his bone fides as a warfighter, in order to B) criticize the Iraq war and the while Bush foriegn policy without being tarred as a loopy peacenik. It worked once, when Kerry testified in the Senate in '71. The strategy is being derailed because this time around Kerry can't establish his bone fides. His '71 testimony, his other anti-Vietnam activities, his career in the Senate all undermine the notion that Kerry is who he says he is. Most recently his own waffling on Iraq prevents him from establishing his hawkish credentials. Perhaps he keeps trying to move on to phase B only to realize that he hadn't completed A.
Kerry's strategy was to A) establish his bone fides as a warfighter, in order to B) criticize the Iraq war and the while Bush foriegn policy without being tarred as a loopy peacenik. It worked once, when Kerry testified in the Senate in '71. The strategy is being derailed because this time around Kerry can't establish his bone fides. His '71 testimony, his other anti-Vietnam activities, his career in the Senate all undermine the notion that Kerry is who he says he is. Most recently his own waffling on Iraq prevents him from establishing his hawkish credentials. Perhaps he keeps trying to move on to phase B only to realize that he hadn't completed A.
Monday, September 13, 2004
A Pattern Emerges
It seems there are a number of people who are reputed to have said one thing, then "recanted". I wonder. Recently, there is the case of Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor, and so well up the chain of command at the Texas National Guard for then Lt George Bush, now himself Commander-in-Chief. Originally CBS claimed Hodges as part of their authentication of the memos critcal of Bush's service. But, as ABC reports, "he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered." ABC also observes, "CBS responds: 'We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.'"
CBS is claiming that Hodges is changing his story, Hodges is claiming the press misled him. "According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'" ABC goes on to say, "His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer generated' and are a 'fraud'."
So, did Hodges change his tune, as CBS claims, or did CBS lie to him to get him to say what they wanted? And how prevelent is it for these supposed recantations to be media misquotes or distortions? And how often does the press describe a correction of its own errors as a recantation by a source? "We didn't err, our source recanted." Or perhaps, more honestly, "Our source caught us lying about what they said, but that won't match our story, so we'll attempt to discredit them."
Also, check out Mark Steyn on this subject
It seems there are a number of people who are reputed to have said one thing, then "recanted". I wonder. Recently, there is the case of Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor, and so well up the chain of command at the Texas National Guard for then Lt George Bush, now himself Commander-in-Chief. Originally CBS claimed Hodges as part of their authentication of the memos critcal of Bush's service. But, as ABC reports, "he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered." ABC also observes, "CBS responds: 'We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.'"
CBS is claiming that Hodges is changing his story, Hodges is claiming the press misled him. "According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'" ABC goes on to say, "His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer generated' and are a 'fraud'."
So, did Hodges change his tune, as CBS claims, or did CBS lie to him to get him to say what they wanted? And how prevelent is it for these supposed recantations to be media misquotes or distortions? And how often does the press describe a correction of its own errors as a recantation by a source? "We didn't err, our source recanted." Or perhaps, more honestly, "Our source caught us lying about what they said, but that won't match our story, so we'll attempt to discredit them."
Also, check out Mark Steyn on this subject
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Cheney v Edwards
This Monday, Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq," Kerry said. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops "the phoniest thing I've ever heard." Apparently, Kerry thinks that the war has consequences, and that there is a difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Indeed, Kerry told a West Virginia rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong -- wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.
It turns out that Dick Cheney also thinks the war has consequences and that there is a right way and a wrong way to prosecute the war. It therefore follows that if the two candidacies have such differing visions, the Kerry vision might well be consequencial and wrong. That adds up to dangerous. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting.
Kerry claims he would do everything differently, including pulling out of Iraq and claiming to be able to internationalize the war. Kerry claims to be able to bring the troops home with honor and quickly, he claims to be able to bring in new international partners. To many of us this sounds like a combination of fantasy (there simply are no available troops to replace Americans) and cutting and running. Consequential and wrong: dangerous.
John Edwards replied, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
So, apparently, Kerry can suggest that Bush's policy is harmful, risky, and a distraction, which is to say that it risks harmful consequences, but heaven forbid the other guys say this about Kerry. To suggest that is an unAmerican scare tactic. Edwards may think that the Kerry/Edwards program would do that, but reasonable people might believe its harmful, risky, and dangerous. You simply can't call the other guy's policy bad without expecting him to call your plan bad.
This Monday, Kerry called Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in a first White House term. "I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq," Kerry said. He called the president's talk about a coalition fighting alongside about 125,000 U.S. troops "the phoniest thing I've ever heard." Apparently, Kerry thinks that the war has consequences, and that there is a difference between doing it right and doing it wrong. Indeed, Kerry told a West Virginia rally the "W" in Bush's name stood for "wrong -- wrong choices, wrong judgment, wrong priorities, wrong direction for our country" on everything from jobs to Iraq.
It turns out that Dick Cheney also thinks the war has consequences and that there is a right way and a wrong way to prosecute the war. It therefore follows that if the two candidacies have such differing visions, the Kerry vision might well be consequencial and wrong. That adds up to dangerous. "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting.
Kerry claims he would do everything differently, including pulling out of Iraq and claiming to be able to internationalize the war. Kerry claims to be able to bring the troops home with honor and quickly, he claims to be able to bring in new international partners. To many of us this sounds like a combination of fantasy (there simply are no available troops to replace Americans) and cutting and running. Consequential and wrong: dangerous.
John Edwards replied, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that. John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it."
So, apparently, Kerry can suggest that Bush's policy is harmful, risky, and a distraction, which is to say that it risks harmful consequences, but heaven forbid the other guys say this about Kerry. To suggest that is an unAmerican scare tactic. Edwards may think that the Kerry/Edwards program would do that, but reasonable people might believe its harmful, risky, and dangerous. You simply can't call the other guy's policy bad without expecting him to call your plan bad.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
EU President: Smooth Operator
The EU President, the Dutch Bernard Bot, put out a statement about the school siege in Beslan which said, "We would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." The Russians were not amused. According to EUObserver, the Russian Foriegn Minister replied, "In a situation when the whole world knew that the main priority was saving children, and that there would be no storming, to hear such words from a minister seems to us to be blasphemy." Bot promised to smooth things over with the Russian Foriegn Minister, but the Russians aren't in any apparent hurry to actually make contact with Bot. According to the Financial Times, "Bot's aides said Mr Lavrov was travelling in the Middle East and was hard to contact, shrugging off suggestions of a possible snub." Uh huh.
The EU President, the Dutch Bernard Bot, put out a statement about the school siege in Beslan which said, "We would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened." The Russians were not amused. According to EUObserver, the Russian Foriegn Minister replied, "In a situation when the whole world knew that the main priority was saving children, and that there would be no storming, to hear such words from a minister seems to us to be blasphemy." Bot promised to smooth things over with the Russian Foriegn Minister, but the Russians aren't in any apparent hurry to actually make contact with Bot. According to the Financial Times, "Bot's aides said Mr Lavrov was travelling in the Middle East and was hard to contact, shrugging off suggestions of a possible snub." Uh huh.
Democrats for Bush
Google the phrase 'Democrats for Bush' and what you find is entirely based on terror, foriegn policy, and embrace of the Truman-Kennedy strength and committment to democracy. No one other than Zell Miller talks about how the President represents the values of the heartland. Zell is a dinosour and if he had much more of a public career ahead of him would end up switching parties. Democrats for Bush, or 9-11 Democrats are voting on the issue of foriegn policy.
Google the phrase 'Democrats for Bush' and what you find is entirely based on terror, foriegn policy, and embrace of the Truman-Kennedy strength and committment to democracy. No one other than Zell Miller talks about how the President represents the values of the heartland. Zell is a dinosour and if he had much more of a public career ahead of him would end up switching parties. Democrats for Bush, or 9-11 Democrats are voting on the issue of foriegn policy.
More and more Dems drink the Kool-Aid
The party of McGovern seems more and more unhinged. Loopy partisans are always out there in the wings, but they seem to be going mainstream, while the mainstream Dems go loopy. The Vince-Foster-was-murdered people never gained a central place in the party. As the American Spectator began to devote itself to Clinton conspiracy theories, it lost readership. The Left, starting with paranoid delusions of a "great right-wing conspiracy", through anguish at their failure to steal the election (a theft which they then projected on the Republicans) in Florida, through 9-11, Iraq, and Michael Moore have gone so far off the deep end, I think they are performing miracles of self-destruction.
I accept the conventional wisdom that the country was evenly divided and that the margin of undecideds was small. So my own explanation of the 11 point Bush lead is that Democratic frothing at the mouth is killing them. Some voters either vote Democratic or go fishing. More and more are staking out a spot by the lake. Some voters are undecided and are going for Bush. And non-voters may come out to support the President rather than see the party of madness and lunacy (I'm referring to Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and most recently, and regrettably, Susan Estrich) gain control of the White House.
Responsible Democrats have two choices. One, they can opt for the approach taken by Randy Kelly, Ron Silver, or Ed Koch, and support the President on the issues of terror and democracy abroad while opposing him on issues like abortion or stem cell research. Two, they can lament the hate so many in their party have towards so many Republicans, and hope that once in power their leaders will be forced to adopt a more responsible policy and tone. Voting Democratic implies that you either agree with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, or believe that they will come to their senses once they win.
I strongly believe that once a politician goes over the deep end, they are broken and cannot be put back together. Some of these people, say Gore, are so damaged by the contested election of 2000 that they can never be let near to the levers of power again. This is the central lesson of Nixon. Others were never on an even keel, and should never have been let in in the first place. These wackos are generally not politicians but activists and propagandists.
As more and more Dems cut loose their ties to responsible politics and give in to hate and venom, the party faces a longer and more profound wander in the woods. This may well be neccesary to purge the party of its madness and help the party re-invent itself. The Democrats chose not to embrace the Clintonian Third Way without Clinton. So, some new approach will have to be discovered.
The party of McGovern seems more and more unhinged. Loopy partisans are always out there in the wings, but they seem to be going mainstream, while the mainstream Dems go loopy. The Vince-Foster-was-murdered people never gained a central place in the party. As the American Spectator began to devote itself to Clinton conspiracy theories, it lost readership. The Left, starting with paranoid delusions of a "great right-wing conspiracy", through anguish at their failure to steal the election (a theft which they then projected on the Republicans) in Florida, through 9-11, Iraq, and Michael Moore have gone so far off the deep end, I think they are performing miracles of self-destruction.
I accept the conventional wisdom that the country was evenly divided and that the margin of undecideds was small. So my own explanation of the 11 point Bush lead is that Democratic frothing at the mouth is killing them. Some voters either vote Democratic or go fishing. More and more are staking out a spot by the lake. Some voters are undecided and are going for Bush. And non-voters may come out to support the President rather than see the party of madness and lunacy (I'm referring to Terry McAuliffe, Michael Moore, and most recently, and regrettably, Susan Estrich) gain control of the White House.
Responsible Democrats have two choices. One, they can opt for the approach taken by Randy Kelly, Ron Silver, or Ed Koch, and support the President on the issues of terror and democracy abroad while opposing him on issues like abortion or stem cell research. Two, they can lament the hate so many in their party have towards so many Republicans, and hope that once in power their leaders will be forced to adopt a more responsible policy and tone. Voting Democratic implies that you either agree with the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, or believe that they will come to their senses once they win.
I strongly believe that once a politician goes over the deep end, they are broken and cannot be put back together. Some of these people, say Gore, are so damaged by the contested election of 2000 that they can never be let near to the levers of power again. This is the central lesson of Nixon. Others were never on an even keel, and should never have been let in in the first place. These wackos are generally not politicians but activists and propagandists.
As more and more Dems cut loose their ties to responsible politics and give in to hate and venom, the party faces a longer and more profound wander in the woods. This may well be neccesary to purge the party of its madness and help the party re-invent itself. The Democrats chose not to embrace the Clintonian Third Way without Clinton. So, some new approach will have to be discovered.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Mark Steyn
Somehow he manages to write about the Beslan school business rather than the hurricane. As usual he's right on.
Somehow he manages to write about the Beslan school business rather than the hurricane. As usual he's right on.
All Hurricane All the Time
Who is this constant hurricane coverage for? What about the school takeover in Beslan? The downed Russian planes? The Kerry campaign shakeup? The campiagning in the Ohio Valley by both candidates? The new polls showing Bush up by 11 points? An election in Mexico? The Sudan genocide? And there are other natural disasters, a flood in China and an earthquake in Japan. Hello? Is there more to news than pictures of Florida hurricanes?
Who is this constant hurricane coverage for? What about the school takeover in Beslan? The downed Russian planes? The Kerry campaign shakeup? The campiagning in the Ohio Valley by both candidates? The new polls showing Bush up by 11 points? An election in Mexico? The Sudan genocide? And there are other natural disasters, a flood in China and an earthquake in Japan. Hello? Is there more to news than pictures of Florida hurricanes?
Monday, August 30, 2004
Posner on the 9-11 Commisison Report
Its in the NYTimes and its quite perceptive.
Most interesting to me was his description of the FBI's limitations, especially in the area of counter-terrorism. "The F.B.I. is an excellent police department, but that is all it is."
Its in the NYTimes and its quite perceptive.
Most interesting to me was his description of the FBI's limitations, especially in the area of counter-terrorism. "The F.B.I. is an excellent police department, but that is all it is."
More on the committed voter
Most voters are committed, and a plurality are probabaly strongly committed. The truely undecided are smallish, probabaly less than 10%. As a result, when network execs and print editors consider whether to cover the issues or the horserace, they opt for the horserace, because the audience is bigger. If 50% is strongly committed, 40% is weakly committed, and 10% is undecided, I would expect 75% of the coverage to be horserace, and 25% to be a mixture of serious and attractive issues. Attractive issues, those which attract viewers but don't really have any bearing on the capacity to govern, are neccesary for ratings. Serious issues are complex and require sustained attention. People who pay close attention to issues and read the kinds of sustained issue oriented pieces tend to be the cmmitted voters, strongly or weakly. The true undecided often is either not paying attention until the last minute or is only paying a scant bit of attention.
So its natural that television coverage and a good deal of the daily press will cover the horserace and will not do a good job with the issues. There just isn't an audience for it. The political press, be it The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, or whatnot, is being read by active political people, not undecideds.
Most voters are committed, and a plurality are probabaly strongly committed. The truely undecided are smallish, probabaly less than 10%. As a result, when network execs and print editors consider whether to cover the issues or the horserace, they opt for the horserace, because the audience is bigger. If 50% is strongly committed, 40% is weakly committed, and 10% is undecided, I would expect 75% of the coverage to be horserace, and 25% to be a mixture of serious and attractive issues. Attractive issues, those which attract viewers but don't really have any bearing on the capacity to govern, are neccesary for ratings. Serious issues are complex and require sustained attention. People who pay close attention to issues and read the kinds of sustained issue oriented pieces tend to be the cmmitted voters, strongly or weakly. The true undecided often is either not paying attention until the last minute or is only paying a scant bit of attention.
So its natural that television coverage and a good deal of the daily press will cover the horserace and will not do a good job with the issues. There just isn't an audience for it. The political press, be it The New Republic, the Weekly Standard, or whatnot, is being read by active political people, not undecideds.
Conventions and their Moderate Speakers
People said that the Democratic delegates were far more liberal than the Convention presented. They shifted toward the center. Now the same is being said about the Republicans, especially in terms of their speakers. I would think this is obvious, but it seems to confound many observers. The activists of both parties will by necessity be less centrist than the country. For one thing, the parties are more ideological, as Jim jeopardize and Zell Miller illustrate. This is a problem for the two-party system, but parties don't represent ideological diversity any more. So who will take the time and trouble to participate in political campaigns? Who will go to conventions? The ideologically committed. Ideologically committed centrist don't have a party. They cross back and forth, they are swing voters. So the parties, with a base on the left and right then reach out to the center to win them over to their side for this or that election. So of course parties will put on a more moderate face as they reach out to the center. How else could it be? Any discussion that fails to recognize this seems to me to be fundamentally confused.
People said that the Democratic delegates were far more liberal than the Convention presented. They shifted toward the center. Now the same is being said about the Republicans, especially in terms of their speakers. I would think this is obvious, but it seems to confound many observers. The activists of both parties will by necessity be less centrist than the country. For one thing, the parties are more ideological, as Jim jeopardize and Zell Miller illustrate. This is a problem for the two-party system, but parties don't represent ideological diversity any more. So who will take the time and trouble to participate in political campaigns? Who will go to conventions? The ideologically committed. Ideologically committed centrist don't have a party. They cross back and forth, they are swing voters. So the parties, with a base on the left and right then reach out to the center to win them over to their side for this or that election. So of course parties will put on a more moderate face as they reach out to the center. How else could it be? Any discussion that fails to recognize this seems to me to be fundamentally confused.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)