Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 53
Super Bowl
I am quite glad that kept the political ads off the Super Bowl. I wish they'd have kept other ads off too, as well as the halftime show, but as Howard Fineman said, the Super Bowl has become an American secular holiday, and most people don't want to watch political ads.
Chris Matthews added, if the anti-Bush went on, you'd see an arms race, which would just ruin the Super Bowl. Can you imagine? Instead of waiting until Iowa, or New Hampshire, or South Carolina, we'd wait until the Super Bowl before candidates would drop out. They'd have a special Super Bowl fund. It'd be ridiculous.
Matthews' two guests who don't care about football thought the ads should air; no surprise there, I suppose. Norah O'Donnell said something inane, though: she said if they have the money, they should be allowed to have an ad. That's not how real life works. People have the right to refuse your money, and when the money is that big, that right is often exercised. There is no right for these ads to be accepted, nor any right of the viewers to have them shown.
Not that any of this really matters: the Patriots won! All else is just irrelevant.
Democrats for President
It's over; Kerry's won. He may not sweep this week, but he's won. Dean won't win a single state. Edwards and Clark might win one apiece, but Clark probably won't.
Kerry certainly isn't invulnerable as a candidate against Bush, but he has the best mix of experience and respectability and ideas. I'm sure we'll see mostly lame attacks on Kerry's post-Vietnam-war record and his first marriage. I'm also sure we'll see less lame attacks on his voting record in the Senate, and his ties to special interests. (I am hoping we also see real debate about his views, and how they differ from Bush's; it could happen!)
Kerry is far less vulnerable than the other three candidates left (sorry Joe, I can't include you). I suppose Edwards' lack of experience makes him less vulnerable to the attacks Kerry will be open to, but I think it's a net loss to him.
Dean, One More Time
Speaking of vulnerability, I love how it's now been shown that Dean favored unilateral action in Bosnia even though NATO and the UN wouldn't act, despite now saying such a thing is anathema. And he wanted to do it for reasons unrelated to any American interests! So he goes around using the word "ideological" as an epithet, and it is telling: he has no ideology, no principles, no guiding philosophies. He changes with the tides.
Let's be clear: there's not a damned thing wrong with ideology. Kennedy was very ideological. All of our leading Founding Fathers were ideological, except for maybe Benjamin Franklin. The question is not whether you are ideological, it is what your ideology is. Frankly, a man in power without ideology scares me, which is why I have been so adamant in my opposition to Dean these many months, and why -- despite the fact that I want Bush to win, and that Dean would be an easy candidate to beat -- I am glad he is finished.
He was on Meet the Press for a final interview this weekend. He was better than his previous attempts: more confident, quicker and more certain answers. But he still flunked in some serious ways.
The best part -- and that which sinks him as the party favorite -- was his hiring of Roy Neal as his new campaign manager. This guy was the assistant chief of staff to Clinton and chief of staff to Gore in the White House, and went from there to the head of the U.S. Telecom Association, a DC lobbyist group. This is precisely what Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) is attempting to do, but for a medical industry PAC instead, and the Democrats are ready to use that against the Republicans this fall.
There's no way to sugar-coat it so that Neal's deal is acceptable and Tauzin's is not. His answers to this were horrible: when Russert asked him about going to be a lobbyist directly from being a top White House staffer, Dean replied that he's been a college professor the last few years, as if that made it OK. Russert noted that he lobbied Congress, giving money to Gingrich and DeLay; Dean replied, "What's that got to do with being a college professor or working for several years under Clinton and Gore?" Nothing, Howard, nothing at all.
And then Dean was asked about his charge that Cheney "berated" CIA agents "because he didn't like their intelligence reports." Russert asked him for evidence, and Dean refused. The fact is, there is more evidence of WMD in Iraq than there is that this incident ever occurred, but that won't stop Dean from impugning Cheney!
Despite looking more confident and certain, he also exuded a strong stench of desperation. And desperation is never attractive, whether in a singles' bar or a voting booth. It's a sad end to an entertaining campaign.
Speaking of the DNC
Terry McAuliffe really needs to stop going on TV. He makes the Democrats look bad. Not that I am a big fan of RNC head Ed Gillespie, but Ed went out the other day and attacked Kerry's Senate record for votes on national security. McAuliffe said Kerry's patriotism was questioned. No, it wasn't: Gillespie was questioning his suitability to be commander in chief. There's a difference. Kerry's patriotism was not questioned by Gillespie. It didn't happen.
Then -- and this was one literally made me laugh out loud -- McAuliffe accused Bush of going negative against Kerry first, implying that now the gloves are off, and Kerry is free to attack Bush. He must not have heard any Kerry speech over the last half year, where he's consistently launched very nasty atttacks at Bush, calling his administration inept and the like. Anyone who believes Bush went negative against Kerry first -- where negative is saying bad things about the other's positions and policies -- either hasn't been paying attention, or is intentionally blind to the facts.
I've always disliked McAuliffe, but I have to think this sort of thing doesn't help Kerry at all.
Iraq's Threat
A lot of people have questioned what Kay meant last week when he talked about Iraq being a greater threat than previously thought. Kay was on Fox News Sunday and discussed it; I quote him here, without comment.
I think Iraq was a dangerous place, becoming more dangerous, because in fact what we observed was that the regime itself was coming apart, it was descending at the worst part of moral depravity and corruption. Saddam Hussein was isolated in fantasy land, capable of wreaking tremendous harm and terrorists on his individual citizens, but corruption and money gain was the root cause. At the same time that we know there were terrorist groups and states still seeking WMD capability. Iraq -- although I found no weapons -- had tremendous capabilities in this area. A marketplace phenomena was about to occur -- if it did not occur -- sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been very dangerous, if the war had not intervened.
Chris Wallace: But what could the sellers had sold, if they didn't have actual weapons?
Kay: The knowledge of how to make them, the knowledge of how to make small amounts, which is, after all, mostly what the terrorists want; they don't want battlefield amounts of weapons. Iraq remained a very dangerous place in terms of WMD capabilities, even though we found no large stockpiles of weapons.
Investigations
I am not smart enough to know how feasible an independent investigation of the intelligence failures is. One thing I am smart enough to know is that we do need to have an investigation, independent or not.
But what troubles me is that so many Bush-haters (you know who you are! I SEE YOU!) are willing to pass judgment without facts. Al Hunt, a big-time liberal, said this week that everyone he knows, including sources from both the Bush and Clinton administrations, told him that they were sure Hussein currently had WMD (only Scott Ritter and Bob Novak believed otherwise, he said). He isn't going to jump on Bush for the failures of intelligence until actual information justifies it.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey and former UN weapons inspector Richard Holbrooke were on This Week, and both agreed we need an investigation of the WMD intelligence, as pretty much everyone does (Bush will supposedly make an announcement about this soon, if he hasn't already). Both asserted we should seek to find out what went wrong, not whom to point fingers at. Imagine that. It sounds positively archaic!
Holbrooke wants an investigation immediately; Woolsey wants to wait a few months, as there are several active investigations in both the executive and legislative branch, that he'd like to see wrapped up. I doubt that will happen; the public wants a response immediately, with answers as soon as possible, and for good reason.
But we don't have answers yet. It's pretty ridiculous how Bush-haters jump from "the information was wrong" to "Bush deceived us." What's wrong with waiting to find out for sure?
And so too with the Joe Wilson matter. In this, we actually have an ongoing investigation. Would it hurt so much to just wait for its results?
In other words: chill. Have some patience. I know the upcoming election brings with it a sense of urgency to "get Bush," but your hatred combined with the political urgency is driving you to madness, and you need to let it go.
addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issues (Score:2)
First, there is this: [bradenton.com]
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
which is also very unlikely because the only terrorists in the region were seeking to destabilise his own regeme
No: Hussein's government supported anti-Israeli, anti-Iranian, and anti-Turkish terrorists. And even if it wer
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:1)
I'd also like to see the 9/11 investigation finally be cooperated with. They can move that report to after the election as well(although that's a bit silly, it's been long enough we should've had a lot more done by now).
I would also like to see Plame resolved and the leaker(traitor) punished.
I have lots of questions and no one seems to be
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Yes I am; and it's not you, it's Bush: [whitehouse.gov]
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
I don't think that's clear at all. I interpreted that odd sentence as him recognizing the fact that what we thought is not what the survey group has found, when I heard him give it on News Hour this evening.
"al-Qaida wants Bush to win next November's presidential election and continue his interventionist policies in the Middle East for another four years, and will act to save
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
I don't think Bush has ever directly helped terrorists. I am ambivalent on the 9/11 "Let It Happen On Purpose" conspiracy-of-neglect theories. I had never considered the possibility that U.S. interventionism has so significantlty increased al-Qaida's recruitment rate until I read Dyer's column two days ago.
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
His reasons are speculation and assumption. It's hard to poke holes in that, and hard to believe, too.
As to being a "well-respected global strategy journalist," I don't know how anyone who asserts that "al-Qaeda wants George W. Bush to win next November's presidential election
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Not exactly:
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Not exactly
Yes, exactly. He may have a reasonably accurate description of their motives, but then assumes and speculates the ways in which they will manifest themselves in specific desires and actions. There is not one shred of evidence that they want Bush in the White House, there is not one shred of evidence they would act to "help" keep him there. None. And this guy treats it like a fact that everyone should agree upon. That alone makes him not well-re
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Is there any evidence that they do not or would not?
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Hey! Let's arrest John Smith! There's not ONE shred of evidence he wasn't behind the grassy knoll with a rifle!
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Pudge's original assertion that there is "not a shred" of evidence they want Bush in office or would work to achieve that is the greater fallacy, because the fact of their larger recruitment under occupation is in fact such evidence.
evidence (Score:2)
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
No, it certainly is not. Most big businesses did better under Clinton than under Bush, yet they still favor Republicans. Big deal. You haven't tied the threads together. You haven't shown anything that says al Qaeda distinguishes between different American Presidents, let
Re:evidence (Score:2)
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Yet another blatent fallacy. [fallacyfiles.org]
But lets go back to your statement. You were asking for proof of a negative. That's just plain bad logic.
Now, on to your current claim. Unless I'm wrong, you are making an assurtions that:
al-qaida has had greater recruitment under Bush (at least within Iraq). (which I question the validity of such a claim).
You further suggest that this supports your claim t
Re:evidence (Score:2)
Osama bin Ladin, or whoever is issuing statements for him [aljazeera.net], does draw a distinction:
Presumably if "the Zionist lobby" helped Bush into the
Re:evidence (Score:2)
According to whom? The Big Book Of Making Stuff Up? Please stop wasting my time.
Re:evidence (Score:2)
Re:evidence (Score:2)
We can stop right there. This is my point. We do not know what Bin Laden thinks about all this guy says he knows. It's one thing to say, "I think there's a good chance Bin Laden wants Bush to remain in power, and if that is the case, there's also a good chance he might try to act out to help him win re-election."
But that is not what was said. He stated as fact the "obvious point" that "al-Qaeda wants George W. Bush to win next November's presidential election and continue
Re:evidence (Score:2)
Re:evidence (Score:2)
He used similar language of American forces long before Bush took office. So what?
If I'm not allowed to draw inferences from those rather plain and outright expressions of his worldview
The problem is that your inferences are highly selective, drawn to support only what you want to believe.
Re:evidence (Score:2)
(A) Osama calls U.S. forces "Crusaders".
(B) Osama asserts Bush follows order for "Zionist lobby".
Your conclusion:
(C) Osama wants Bush to stay in office.
If this were Logic 101, I'd say you were using the principle of WT (wishfull thinking). You, frankly, are making stuff up when clearly your premises do not support your conclusion.
Amen, brother.
you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
Bin Laden got exactly what he wanted from 9/11.
Re:you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
I'm not going to try and navagate that site -- i've got much better things to do with my time, but it appears that after several hours of you posting that blog comment, no one seems to have bothered to comment on it. Perhaps i'm missing something.
If nobody has bothered commenting on it, it is yet again fallacous
Re:you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
Re:you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
Example of a "ad hominem" fallacy:
Js7a is a tin-foilhat wearing nut job who see's Bush conspiracies coming out of his ears and therefore anything he says is pointless drivel.
(i.e. js7a can't be believed because he is a tinfoil hat wearing nut job).
Needless to say, I'v
Re:you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
Yes, but the problem with your hyopthesis is that 9/11 was planned long before Bush was elected President. Your last statement there only helps prove my rebuttal to your hyopthesis -- which you've done nothing significant to argue against -- that Bin Laden probably doesn't distinguish between different U.S. Presidents.
Re:you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
You recognized incorrectly. An ad hominem is when you argue the man to win the argument, to make your point. E.g., "I'm right because you're stupid." But I wasn't doing that. I first argued against your nutty proposition, and then I gave up and noted that you were being foolish. At that point I was not attempting to make an argument, I was just "attacking you" for the heck
Re:you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
And Jhon -- I'm gui
Re:you missed a premise or two (Score:2)
As you wish. It's your Journal/watering hole, and I'll not foul it.
Agreed. I basically gave up on pointing out erroneous information provided by js7a, or better sourced material with conflicting information as he refused to accept it. I figured pointing out flawed reasoning would would turn him around. My bad. While I believe js7a isn't stupid (actually
Re: (Score:1)
Re:addressing Iraqi threat and investigation issue (Score:2)
Exactly. Assuming. We don't know.
The question here is would that help, and would OBL be convinced it would help?
Well, not would it help, but would Bin Laden think it would help (perception is all that matters). And we do not know.
that's a switch (Score:1)
BTW, check CNN (I assume it's there, I'm watching the DC news); seems Risin (sp?) has turned up on Capitol Hill. Who will be the first politician to ask about the point of DHS if it can't protect Congress (I suspect a Democratic presidential candidate), and who will be the first politician to use this to argue for Patriot III or something similar.
Of course, I heard a bit of absurdity on the news. Seems the president's proposed budget was delivered
Re:that's a switch (Score:2)
As to the budget, yeah, it'd be nice if more people would use digital forms, but it's always been done this way, and frankly, I would much rather read paper than a computer screen. OTOH, I'd much rather do research in a document that's digital.
Re:that's a switch (Score:1)
At this stage, I suspect that's about 99% what's done. Without any experience or qualified report, I assume the following:
1. 'real' budget IS submitted electronically.
2. Congressional staffers split relevant section to topic chiefs. IOW, the pages on Social Security are given to the part of your staff in charge of Social Security.
3. That person works on an electronic copy, and provides congresscritter with talking points.
etc.
IOW, is anyone a
You might like this site (Score:1)
Columbia Journalism Review's Campaign Media Coverage Critique Blog [campaigndesk.org].
Pretty good stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eye them warily (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eye them warily (Score:2)
Simply balancing the budget is easy: increase taxes until they match or exceed that year's spending, or just cut spending to match tax revenues. The tricky part is balancing it without taxes reaching the point of driving people and businesses out to other jurisdictions, while also avoiding cutting spending enough to be damaging (roads going unrepaired, crime becoming ex
Re:Eye them warily (Score:2)
You've not looked very closely.
Re:Eye them warily (Score:2)
I was surprised, too, but those results were national polls, during the NH primary - probably before "I have a scream" really kicked in, as well as before Edwards' boost from Iowa. Losing Iowa and NH certainly doesn't rule him out (way back in 1992, so
Re:Eye them warily (Score:2)
Right, but he also doesn't appear able to win any of the primaries this week. He may not be able to win any until Feb. 17, two weeks from now, and that means he is done. But he spent all his money already: he had more than $40m, and now he is down to about $3m. Oops.
Re:Eye them warily (Score:2)
Yeah, too bad he couldn't have handled his campaign finances like he claimed he handled Vermont's.
Re:Eye them warily (Score:2)
I think there are two problems with this.
First, Vermont is sparsely populated compaired to the nation as a whole. I don't think balancing Vermonts budget scales up nationally.
Second, Vermont has historically not had the large numbers living in poverty as either the nation as a whole or compaired to other individual states. See HERE [kff.org] and HERE [kff.org]. You'll notice that Vermont has about 1% the number of people in poverty compaire
Fantastic (Score:2)
I absolutely look forward to reading your summary of the Sunday morning news shows and the week in politics. You seem to have a knack for being fairly objective and neutral in your reporting without being stale.
I do disagree on Kerry being a strong candidate. I do think the election will be close, but I think people are really underestimating the "liberalness" of Kerry. Honestly, looking at both records, I would say Dean is more of a moderate politically than Kerry. Yes, Dean has run a more liberal c
Re:Fantastic (Score:2)
And yeah, Kerry's gonna get hit hard, but he has shown remarkable resiliency/teflonness thus far. He handles criticism very well. It's the kind of poli
Re:Fantastic (Score:2)
I agree, he would have done a great job raking in senior and labor votes. It's the opposite of Dean's appeal to mostly young voters.
and Edwards is stronger in many areas, except for experience
Don't forget the charisma and good looks. I hate to say it, but it does an excellent job raking in the female votes (JFK is a great example of that, and Clinton is sorta a good example as far as charisma is concerned).
I think Kerry's biggest problem is that he has a
Re:Fantastic (Score:2)
I don't recall flip-flops. He does have a penchant for using dumb and annoying rhetoric, though, like you gave an example of.
Bush under 50 in Gallup approval... (Score:2)
Gallup has Kerry/Bush at 53-to-46 [pollingreport.com] with likely voters nationwide.
Re:Bush under 50 in Gallup approval... (Score:2)