Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
I may WANT to play nice with you, and I may TELL YOU that I'll play nice with you, but that doesn't extend to sticking around as you smack me with a baseball bat and yell to mom that I'm not playing nice with you.

At some point, there's a need for cooperation from your side to make an attempt worthwhile. After Florida, it became clear that the Bush-hate was going to be the predominant emotion. I may tell mom that I'll play nice with you, but, if you then stand there yelling "shithead!" at me, well, maybe our failure to play doesn't all rest on me.

Wait. What happens to the bees?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I ignored your post for a reason. Being the smartest at politics is different than being the smartest generally speaking. And if I refuse to change my positions because I live in a red state where all I have to do to win is say, "I will reduce taxes," [primarily for the rich without regard to the consequences], it doesn't make me stupid. It makes me principled.

TM

You're right, but thats not what the left is saying. They keep screaming about how dumb Bush or the voters are, as though the winner were to be decided based on which side has the most combined IQ points, when it knows full well that's not the way the game is played. I say its pretty dumb to engage in a game where you know you'll lose if you refuse to follow the rules, lose, and subsequently blame the game. Thats not being principled at all - thats being dumb. If they were objectively smart, they'd beat Bush at his own game.

Principle's a funny animal. I'd say it unfortunately has very little application in a debate about the smartness of political campaigns.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
I may WANT to play nice with you, and I may TELL YOU that I'll play nice with you, but that doesn't extend to sticking around as you smack me with a baseball bat and yell to mom that I'm not playing nice with you.

At some point, there's a need for cooperation from your side to make an attempt worthwhile. After Florida, it became clear that the Bush-hate was going to be the predominant emotion. I may tell mom that I'll play nice with you, but, if you then stand there yelling "shithead!" at me, well, maybe our failure to play doesn't all rest on me.

You are full of shit. Admit it was an empty campaign promise and move on. After you admit that to yourself, admit that Cheney was being a hypocrite when he tried to make a dig at Edwards as being not so memorable when he they met. If he had been doing his job of bringing the parties together (as promised and as he later said he regretted not doing a better job with) he wouldn't have said it.

TM

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ask youself this question... Who is smarter? The kid who got someone else to do his homework or the kid doing the homework for someone else?

The kid who read Tom Sawyer.

[Replaced_Texan]

According to Kos, the ethics committee is meeting now and will make a decision about DeLay today. There are quite a number of complaints against DeLay, so I'm not sure which one they're deliberating. Here's hoping it's Chris Bell's complaint.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
BTW, if the WH issues a statment announcing a "significant speech", why do the writers at AFP feel the need to change the wording and refer to it as a "major speech"? Does the word "significant" have too many letters?

Not sure what you mean here, but it appears that whichever descriptor you wish to assign to it, the talk was just a campaign stump speech.

And, apparently the TV media fell for it and televised the fucking thing. Nice, free advertising. It's a perk of the job, I guess. Think they'll televise a Kerry stump speech?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Whenever you hear Bush or Cheney or a campaign surrogate link Hussein and Zarqawi, or talk about how invading Iraq was supposed to help fight terrorism, remember that the White House blocked Pentagon efforts to take out Zarqawi for fear of undermining the case for the invasion:

• [A]s NBC News reported last March (and as almost nobody has picked up since), the Bush administration had several opportunities to bomb Zarqawi's camp well before the war. On at least two occasions the U.S. military drew up plans for an attack. But the White House rejected the proposals—mainly because shutting down Zarqawi's operation would have removed a key rationale for invading Iraq. This was a jaw-dropping bit of cynicism: Bush sold, and continues to sell, the war in Iraq as a major campaign in the global war on terrorism, yet he repeatedly passed up the chance to neutralize or kill one of the most dangerous terrorists (Zarqawi has spent much of his time lately chopping off the heads of foreign contractors) for fear of weakening the case for war.

Fred Kaplan in Slate today.

If the White House had let the Pentagon bomb Zarqawi's camp, maybe there'd be fewer people losing their heads these days.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Easy. Seb was speaking of how Ty's City on the Hill (New Ulm?) can only be reached if you, in fact, can win an election and put yourself into a position to help create that city. It's a lot like that SNL Dukakis debate line ("how the hell am I losing to this guy?!") He should have been winning, if voters valued the factors that he valued. Point was, they didn't. Lefty academics should be handsomely rewarded, if society valued the academics' gifts as highly as the academics do. Point was, they don't.

Ah. Had to go back and read Ty's post.

So if Bush wins a debate even though objectively speaking he is incapable of articulating his simple thoughts and wins because the average idiot out there has a knee-jerk reaction to "Vote for Kerry and we'll be attacked again" that amounts to pulling the lever for Bush, Kerry should adjust his approach -- in effect, lowering himself to the lowest common denominator.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're right, but thats not what the left is saying. They keep screaming about how dumb Bush or the voters are, as though the winner were to be decided based on which side has the most combined IQ points, when it knows full well that's not the way the game is played.

I think they are actually trying to get people to vote for the person who they think is prepared to run, equipped to run and capable of running the country, not the guy they think would be fun to share a fucking beer with.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You sound like the idiot at work who measures his success by the value of the Bentley he drives.

Not only that, but you are probably the worst "schmoozer" within a 30 mile radius of yourself. You're the one who thinks he's getting over on everyone, schmoozing the cute female judge out of her robes with your lack of support for your arguments and your plain-speak when everyone else is wincing while they watch you make a fool of yourself.

TM

Either you are joking or you just proved my point abput the angry left.

Ty took a pass because I think my last little jibe hit too close to home.

This board is a prime example of people compartmentalizing the definition of "win" and missing the bigger picture. Whats a "win" in law? Being the smartest smarty pants with every fact and cite at the ready and appearing the smartest in the room at all times? Of course it is, you risk averse good little lawyer, you. Now, I may be a peacock, and I'm exactly the full of shit salesman you might loathe, but people remember me, and that gets even a young screwhead like me a little bit of business here and there, which the lefty kid sitting in the corner afraid to sound stupid ain't getting. But of course, you'll service whatever business is brought in much better than me. And thats good. For you. But my definition of winning is different than yours. I actually get a much bigger kick out of landing a client than I do in any other endeavor. Its only because I'm bored silly behind a desk that I even write on these boards.

People give money to people based on personality as much as skill. People vote on the same criteria. That may offend you intellectually, but denying it is pretty damn stupid. Stop. Thinking. Like. Such. A. Lawyer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Ah. Had to go back and read Ty's post.

So if Bush wins a debate even though objectively speaking he is incapable of articulating his simple thoughts and wins because the average idiot out there has a knee-jerk reaction to "Vote for Kerry and we'll be attacked again" that amounts to pulling the lever for Bush, Kerry should adjust his approach -- in effect, lowering himself to the lowest common denominator.

TM

Yes. That is the game. If every time you drive, you get an elbow in the mouth and the ref refuses to call it, do you just keep taking elbows to the teeth or elbow back?

[dtb]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think they are actually trying to get people to vote for the person who they think is prepared to run, equipped to run and capable of running the country, not the guy they think would be fun to share a fucking beer with.

TM

I can't remember who said this (maybe on TDS?), but someone pointed out, "I don't want my president to be the guy I'd like to have a beer with; I want my president to be the designated driver." Rather a nice way of putting it, I thought.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Either you are joking or you just proved my point abput the angry left.

Ty took a pass because I think my last little jibe hit too close to home.

This board is a prime example of people compartmentalizing the definition of "win" and missing the bigger picture. Whats a "win" in law? Being the smartest smarty pants with every fact and cite at the ready and appearing the smartest in the room at all times? Of course it is, you risk averse good little lawyer, you. Now, I may be a peacock, and I'm exactly the full of shit salesman you might loathe, but people remember me, and that gets even a young screwhead like me a little bit of business here and there, which the lefty kid sitting in the corner afraid to sound stupid ain't getting. But of course, you'll service whatever business is brought in much better than me. And thats good. For you. But my definition of winning is different than yours. I actually get a much bigger kick out of landing a client than I do in any other endeavor. Its only because I'm bored silly behind a desk that I even write on these boards.

People give money to people based on personality as much as skill. People vote on the same criteria. That may offend you intellectually, but denying it is pretty damn stupid. Stop. Thinking. Like. Such. A. Lawyer.

Once again, you miss the point. I think you are convinced that you are good at things that I do not think you're good at. That clear enough for you?

Hell, I'm not angry at people who are good at those things. Good for them. I'm not even angry at you. But you ain't one of them.

If you were, you wouldn't take every opportunity to tell everyone on this board about it, would you? You would know it was obvious to the rest of us.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think they are actually trying to get people to vote for the person who they think is prepared for, equipped to and capable of running the country, not the guy they think would be fun to share a fucking beer with.

TM

I think Nero said it first, but I first saw it on a Kinks disc back in the early 80s:

"Give the people what they want."

Its been the truest way to get power since men recorded history, and it ain't going to change because the left thinks its unfair.

Stand on principle if you like, but don't call your stand "smart" or gripe that you 'should've won". Although I guess you can claim "martyr" if you want.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think they are actually trying to get people to vote for the person who they think is prepared to run, equipped to run and capable of running the country, TM

This is why you think Kerry took the Primaries? He was the candidate who would be the best President, not the candidate they somehow thought most electable? You'll fit in well here.