Epistole Antifon
Friday, September 03, 2004
I'd forgotten I had this. Which goes to show you how closely I've been paying attention.
It's a tossup as to whether I do most of my writing here, or in my DailyKos diary. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
For those of you just arriving, bear with me while I get the hang of spewing bile in an organized fashion, versus my current habitual chaos.
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
I'd just like to make a key point here: Presidents aren't responsible for how the economy behaves. They just get blamed for it. Blaming Bush for the current recession is like crediting Clinton for the boom: it just ain't factually correct.
The boom got started, most likely, under Reagan's watch. The bust, in all likelihood, became inevitable somewhere in Clinton's first term.
Okay, at some point are we all (that is, the non-neocon crowd) going to wake up and stop eating our own, or is this kind of puerile bullshit going to continue through the next election we lose because of it? I'm academically curious.
I have this wacky idea. How about we spend our time figuring out the best way to beat President Codpiece, instead of the best way to take other Democrats out of the race? Is anyone here seriously ready to say that having FEWER Democratic voices on the national scene is a benefit?
So, anyway, addressing the Dean/Clark issue: for the love of all that is holy, you 'It's an INSULT' people need to get out more and get some oxygen to your brains. First off, the Vice Presidency does not have to be token any more than the First Ladyship has to be token. Second, the Vice President is, as was so often invoked during the years of the Bush/Quayle Toad Frog Massacree, one bullet away from the Presidency.
But, most importantly, if you're a rabid Dean supporter, are you seriously going to put Clark first when he's done no campaigning? Of COURSE not. If you're a rabid Dean supporter, right now you're trying to figure out the best possible VP candidate for the-sit down for this, I know it may come as a shock-BEATING OF BUSH.
That's right, kids and old ladies, the real point is to beat Bush. And if you're a Dean supporter, it is ALL about adding more and more weapons to the armory. And, from that perspective, Dean's existing strength needs to be coupled with a hellaciously strong VP candidate.
(Frankly, anyone who says that Dean isn't the strongest candidate out there right now clearly hasn't been reading the media, who have basically anointed him so, and we all know how it goes: the media say it, the people believe it.)
Simply, the continued references to a Dean/Clark campaign from Dean supporters are a huge vote of CONFIDENCE in Clark. They are, more or less explicitly, saying 'We think that next to our chosen candidate, Wes Clark is going to take it right up the snoot of the Boy King and pals'.
I want you to think about this: when was the last time you heard this kind of stuff about potential VPs? Think hard. From my perspective, I seem to recall the VP choice usually being along the lines of 'Who the hell is that? *reads Google* Oh, he's not too bad,' followed by instant amnesia.
Dean has substantive policies: unfortunately, Dean's rhetorical gifts and willingness to swing hard for the fences will always, always overshadow them. People right now know Dean as the Candidate Who Personally Wants To Kick George Bush In The Balls, not the Candidate Who Wants To Redefine Our Foreign Policy and Get The Economy Going and Incidentally, If You See George Tell Him He'll Need That Codpiece.
And, by the way, the people LOVE Dean as the Groinbats for Bush guy. He does it very, very well, and people tap into that. Frankly, I think just about every unemployed person right now would give, um, their left nut for a chance to punt Bush's tackle into low orbit.
Dean/Clark, summarized, is a hearts-and-minds campaign. You have Dean for the hearts, the blood-boiling populist stump speeches that make people feel like their voice actually matters, and you have Clark for the morning after, when people wake up and say 'God damn, that was cathartic, but what about the real positions?'
Friday, June 13, 2003
Some things are funny. This picture, and story, are not.
Remind me again: why are we in Iraq? Oh, yes. To make us safer. You mean, to protect us from people like this, right? Right? Hey, where are you going?
