Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 20

Journal by pudge

I've got an apparently sprained wrist, and it is in a splint; it is difficult and uncomfortable to type, so I will try to keep this brief (no, really, it would have been quite a bit longer otherwise). I won't comment on everything I want to, and I won't reply as much, and I will not flesh out arguments as I normally do; if I make points, they will be weaker and more unsupported than normal. :)

Howard Dean

Dean was on Fox News Sunday (with new host Chris Wallace, who conducted excellent interviews of both Dean and Andy Card). He amazes me every time I hear him. Wallace asked him about a radio interview Dean gave this week where he said "the most interesting theory" he's heard about 9/11 is that Bush was warned about it ahead of time by the Saudis. He said there's no proof, and he doesn't believe it, but it's interesting.

I don't recall ever hearing a Presidental candidate say something as irresponsible. No proof, no evidence, just "it's interesting." It was clearly meant only to impugn Bush, and had absolutely no other purpose. Wallace pressed him a few times: why did you say it? He said, well, because it's interesting!

If you were wondering what my previous journal entry was about (Otter wins), now you know. What I found especially interesting was that Wallace set up the question about this radio interview by saying many Democrats question if Dean is fit for the office of the President. I'd have to say the answer is no. YMMV.

Also, Dean was on Chris Matthews last week, being interviewed at Harvard U. as many other candidates have been (Clark is this Monday, on MSNC at 7 p.m. Eastern), and he said something else odd: he did not support repealing right to work (without joining a union) federally because he believes in states' rights, and that they should get to decide; but if he were given such a bill as President, he would sign it. This boggles my mind. "I believe the federal government shouldn't do this, but I would approve of it if I were in charge." Inscrutable.

Geneva Accords

The co-authors of the Geneva Accords -- a Palestinian and an Israeli -- were on This Week. If you don't know about it: it's a fake treaty by fake politicians (former cabinet members of their respective governments). But, it's a way to tell the peoples of the two lands that there is a way to peace, and to give them something for them to point at to their real politicians, saying, "What are you doing?" So hey, I'm all for it, even if I don't agree with the particulars. And I don't really care about the particulars, since, well, it's fake.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary was on both Meet the Press and This Week. I've not seen her on the Sunday shows in a long time, and now she's on two in a day. Kinda weird. Anyway, she was measured in her words and lacked some (though not all) of the inflammatory language she's engaged in previously. I keep getting the feeling something is going on with her. Gearing up for a VP nod? Merely trying to help the Democrats in 2004? Why all the additional exposure for her now?

Primarily, Clinton criticized the timetable to pull troops out, but conceded it should be done as soon as possible. But there is no "drop-dead" date for Iraq: the so-called timetable is merely a goal to shoot for. Attacking it by saying "we should do the job as soon as possible, but not force it before they are ready" is a straw man argument. The Bush policy for Iraq from day one has been to put Iraqis in control as quickly as possible, but not before they were ready. That's what she is saying the policy should be. That's what it is. Odd.

Tim Russert asked her about some comments she made in Iraq, where she (indirectly?) criticized Bush's policies, and apparently a bunch of commentators have been attacking her over it. One said it was "un-American." Her initial answer was reasonable enough, "I was asked a direct question, and I am going to be honest with our troops" or somesuch. But then she moved on to attribute the attacks to her infamous "right-wing conspiracy" (without using the phrase) and even said that it was directed by the Bush administration! Hillary: let it go. It makes you look like a crazy lady. You were doing so good up until that point.

She did say she shouldn't have called it a conspiracy in the past, but then she went off about how there is a "tremendous infrastructure" supporting certain "radical" ideas, and there are people in the Bush administration who are "working to implement (those ideas)." Wow. Call the papers, alert the media. She just sounded so completely ridiculous. This is how things have always worked, how they are supposed to work, and there's not a damned thing wrong with it.

Oh, but there's that little word "radical." Somehow that is supposed to make her seem right, and her opponents seem wrong. It'd be OK if it worked that way for her, because she isn't "radical," you see. It's only wrong when the ideas are "radical."

It's another example -- like with her colleague Sen. Schumer on the Judicial Committee -- of the Democrats these days attacking people merely for having "radical" ideas, when the real problem is simply that they disagree with those ideas. They call them "radical" just so they can seem justified in their vitriol. I don't know who they they think are fooling. Unfortunately, a lot of people, I imagine.

Newt Gingrich

Good ol' Newt was also on Meet the Press. He made an excellent point about installing a government in Iraq without popular elections: apart from the obvious -- we don't elect our President popularly -- for over 100 years, we didn't even elect our Senators popularly.

Gingrich -- who has authored the only consecutive balanced budgets since the 20s when he was Speaker in the 90s -- talked a bit about the budget, and said the deficits are the fault of a recession, a global war on terrorism, and the rise of health care.

That's all true. But how does spending money on Medicare help cut the government's costs? And yes, the recession was a huge factor, but there will be recessions in the future, and the debt didn't go down when we had surpluses, and even if it had for those few years, it still would have been up overall, and it would be climbing again now; the point is that if we have a balanced budget during good times only, our debt will keep increasing. And as to terrorism, the budget deficit exists apart from that anyway.

Then Gingrich said that we could be heading for a long-term deflationary cycle which would require us to rethink our monetary policies ... he didn't explain what that meant, though, in terms of the deficit. Does that mean we should be deficit spending? Why?

Mr. Gingrich, your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to take your pamphlet and read more about them.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • Probably makes it difficult to dig yourself out. Or maybe you were digging yourself out and that is how you hurt yourself. In any case, hope you get to have some fun in the snow.
  • LOL, you are seriously questioning whether the right-wing media attacks on Sen. Hillary Clinton are in part directed by the Bush administration?

    You don't get out much, do you?

    I thought you knew that, every morning, Fox News staffers get a talking-points memo that pretty much mirrors the administration's spin for that day. To name one example.

    • LOL, you are seriously questioning whether the right-wing media attacks on Sen. Hillary Clinton are in part directed by the Bush administration?

      I am questioning whether the attacks on her regarding what she said in Iraq are directed by the Bush administration, and implying -- but now stating -- that there is absolutely no evidence supporting it.
      • Well, you haven't read the books that describe the extent of the right-wing conspiracy, so I won't try to argue with you.

        In other Hillary news, don't you find it amazing how much the media wants this woman to be their bete noire? They are desperate to get her to run for President, even to hint that maybe she would think about running, just so they could have the opportunity to wail about what a socialist she is and isn't it terrible. Over and over she gets asked to run for President in '04, and over and o

  • he said something else odd: he did not support repealing right to work (without joining a union) federally because he believes in states' rights, and that they should get to decide; but if he were given such a bill as President, he would sign it. This boggles my mind. "I believe the federal government shouldn't do this, but I would approve of it if I were in charge." Inscrutable.

    Of course he would sign it. Vetos are really rare and it would be foolish for a president, or candidate, to threaten it for ever
    • Vetos are really rare and it would be foolish for a president, or candidate, to threaten it for everything they don't like.

      No, they are quite common when the bill at issue is contrary to a fundamental principle, such as Dean describes with this in regard to states' rights.

      Also, as to rarity, Bush I vetoed almost once a month (44), and Reagan three times every four months (72). Clinton vetoed about half as often as Reagan (35), but threatened the veto a lot more often than that (one source says 140 bills
    • Huh. I learned something here. I always thought that the terms "radical" and "liberal" were synonymous. They really aren't? I mean, when you talk about someone having a "radical idea," that could be either side of the spectrum, but when someone is called a "radical," that's like mud slung at the left side, eh? Is that what you meant in your bottom paragraph?

      Is Hillary's use of the word as referenced in this JE one that can be commonly understood by the American public? I ask because I really sort of
      • I always thought that the terms "radical" and "liberal" were synonymous. ... Does anybody ever talk about the "radical right?"

        Yes. "radical" is more like a synonym for "exreme," where that term might be "different from the mainstream" and radical is "different from the status quo." And so in a sense, yes, liberals would tend to be more radical, if we accepted the old definitions of "liberal" as wanting to change things and "conservatives" as not wanting change, but I don't think those definitions are ve
      • I think the term "radicals" became common in the Sixties and did refer to leftist revolutionary types. Or campus radicals, "agitators." Radicals hold extreme positions by definition. Liberals or most people's liberal views are on the left but are not necessarily exteme (usally not, I think). However if someone is a "Leftist" that implies they have some extreme views, usually Socialist or communist beliefs, sometimes anarchists. I think pudge is correct that many liberals are fighting to maintain a status qu
        • The fact that you considered "radical" and "liberal" synonymous is another example that the right has been winning the war over words.

          Or, that they didn't think of either as pejorative. :-)
  • You misunderstood. Here's the accusation thrown at Hillary Clinton, and here's what she said:

    MR. RUSSERT: This is the way one Republican, Scott Reed, responded. He said the comments you made were "un-American." "Any member of the U.S. Senate should be supporting our troops 100 percent. It sounds like Senator Clinton has been stung by the fact that President Bush overshadowed her trip to Iraq and left her as an after-story, so to break into the debate, she had to take the low road."

    SEN. CLINTON: Oh, that

    • en. Clinton was perfectly justified.

      No, she wasn't. Anyone who has a label of "advisor" is speaking for the Administration? So since Gingrich is on the Defense Policy Board, and is therefore a Bush advisor, he speaks for Bush when he says Bush's policy in Iraq is failing?

      I don't question that Reed is a Republican insider; and fine, maybe he does sometimes advise the President. But that does not in any way justify saying that this came from the Bush administration. Sorry.
      • "that does not in any way justify saying that this came from the Bush administration. Sorry."

        I don't see the relevance, since Sen. Clinton did not say that it came from the Bush administration.

        • Then what did she mean by Reed's comments being "reflective of the efforts by (the Bush) administration"? Was she just saying, in essence, "well, the Bush administration tries to make Democrats look bad, and that this influences others in the Republican party to do the same?" If so, then, who the hell cares? More blowing smoke from Hillary.
  • I think the biggest impact of the Geneva Accord will come not from the specific content but from the mere fact that it exists. It blows up the notion that it is impossible to for Palestinians and Isreallis to ever negotiate an agreement of any sort -- the current tactics of the leaders on both sides depend upon a large segment of their constituents believing this. If the people believe that negotiating an agreement that answers all the important questions is actually possible, then the leaders will have to

Slashdot Top Deals

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.

Close