Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
A question for the Con side: name five living people to whom you would award the Peace Prize. Note: Kissinger is already taken as a non-ironic answer.

Reagan
Bush
Sharon
Howard
Blair

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Simple-minded concsistency for its own sake is not the same as commitment, although the two are often confused.

I'll take simple-minded consistency in comparison to hypocricy any day of the week. In this regard, I like how you guys (used generically) are taking the abortion/gay marriage thing to (try and) show hypocricy in positions of state's righters, without acknowledging that the argument implicitly recognizes that either all or none of them belong in the Federal realm. But noooo, I don't hear y'all admitting that Roe was a mistake. All I'm hearing is y'all laughing about people on our side (and, uhm, yours) making the same inconsistent and fundamentally improper mistake with the gay marriage.

So yeah, if it keeps me from flip-flopping and appearing to find new meanings in the same words every other day, I'll take simple-minded consistency any day. You throw the charge at me from the scrap yard of democratic principles, and its probably the only thing y'all should be trying to keep.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't see a difference between the 2.

No offense intended, but of course you don't.

Would you look to me for a nuanced understanding of the various groups and sub-groups of the hard right wing of the GOP and/or the social conservative network supporting Bush?

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
A thirty-minute docu? I think it's going to start bumping up against outrage-fatigue. If this gets spun as just more shit from the Mad Swifties, he's gonna get the sympathy vote from it.

Agreed. I think the Dems played this one right by pushing Moore NOT to air F9/11 on regular television the night before the election, but instead put it on pay per view. On PPV, the curious and possibly truly undecided can screen it, whereas if its shoved onto their cable dial on free television, they'll probably get offended.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
4 come to mind quickly:

Leah Walesa

Is that his wife?

S_A_M

P.S. Didn't Pope John Paul II win one already?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
No offense intended, but of course you don't.

Do you honestly feel there is a strong Kerry base that isn't where it is simply out of ABB motivations? I think Dean had such a base, and maybe Edwards, but my impression was that Kerry has no real committed group of followers, and is the nominee only because people looked at the numbers and decided that he could draw a sufficiently wide vote to credibly challenge Bush.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Read this book by William Henry III.

It pretty much sums up the crux of the debate between the left and right on this board and anywhere else. Oh, and its not really partisan - it skewers the intellectual dishonesty of boths sides' positions. Damn fine book.

Of course, lefties will say its racist/classist/biased, but they always say that sort of shit when they have no argument. The right, of course, probably won't read it because its written by a Democrat.

And no, it is not defending the "elites" as the GOP describes them today. The title is a reference to the author's belief that our national obsession with creating an egalitarian society is (a) impossible and (b) destroying the country. Its even handed and very thought provoking.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Reagan
Bush
Sharon
Howard
Blair

Did you forget Vladimir Putin? How about Alexander Kwasniewski?

Reagan -- a defensible choice given a little historical distance, but he's dead.

Which one? Either way -- I don't think Bush I has quite the resume, and any mention of Bush II is risible.

Sharon -- As of now, he has way too much innocent blood on his hands and not enough serious efforts at peace over the course of a long career. Oddly enough, I think he's the one on your list with the best shot. If the Gaza pull-out goes through, and Israel under Sharon is able to reach some sort of accord on a Palestinian state -- he's a legitimate candidate.

Blair and Howard -- no way. Nice guys, and all that, but you don't get a Nobel Peace Prize for being sidekicks in one war.

Now, I guess I have to take my shot (sorry if this is derivative of others):

John Paul II (although he helped drive me from Catholicism)
Gates (might win one after about 10-20 more years of massive humanitarian efforts around the globe).
Doctors Without Borders

I can't come up with five -- perhaps my perspective is too First world-centric and I don't know enough about the various NGOs working hard throughout the world.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you honestly feel there is a strong Kerry base that isn't where it is simply out of ABB motivations? I think Dean had such a base, and maybe Edwards, but my impression was that Kerry has no real committed group of followers, and is the nominee only because people looked at the numbers and decided that he could draw a sufficiently wide vote to credibly challenge Bush.

What, you think he became nominee by default? Kerry built the kind of base that stayed with him when chips were down and Dean surged and Clinton's gang pushed Clark. Some of this was the passion of the Viet Vets on the trail, some of it a good solid field organization on the ground. In Iowa and NH, you'll find that despite Clinton's push for Clark, much of the grassroots Democratic faithful went with and stayed with Kerry.

On the other hand, from where I sit, it looks like W's base is pretty much a hand-me-down from Dad. Hell, even his VP is a hand-me-down.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you honestly feel there is a strong Kerry base that isn't where it is simply out of ABB motivations? I think Dean had such a base, and maybe Edwards, but my impression was that Kerry has no real committed group of followers, and is the nominee only because people looked at the numbers and decided that he could draw a sufficiently wide vote to credibly challenge Bush.

I was referring to the Democratic party base more generically, not a "Kerry base" -- and I don't think it is correct or fair to view the Democratic base as operating principally based on "ABB motivations" any more than it is correct or fair to view the GOP base as motivated principally by "ABK motivations."

I think there are also some ABB voters who are not part of the Democratic Party's traditional base.

I agree that Dean and Edwards had stronger and more committed groups of supporters in and out of the Democratic Party. Kerry is not a particularly inspiring leader in a large group setting. Sure, perceived electability was the key to Kerry's victory -- just as it was the key to the annointing of Bush II by the bulk of the GOP leadership well before the primaries.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You mean a real one? Or a faked one, like Fahrenheit

I don't have a fact sheet for either the Swiftie's epic or F9/11, but I do know this... Such pieces don't get made out of thin air. Where there is smoke there is fire. I saw F9/11. There's a lot of very damaging shit there, and so far, all I've heard in rebuttal is "Moore is a propagandist." The only facts I've heard refuted were Moore's claims about the Taliban gas pipeline and Carlyle's purchase of a defense contractor. What about the other 200 damaging facts laid out against Bush in the movie? Are they all just inventions of Moore's imagination?

As to the Swifties, these people didn't throw out these charges solely at the behest of Bush and Rove. Nobody puts himself on national television and lays his credibility out to be picked apart by the media just because he wants to see a certain candidate get elected. Are they connected to Bush? Sure they are, but does that automatically mean their stories are utter crap? Hell no. Kerry is clearly a grandstander who probably did ask for medals he might not have deserved.

The difference between Kerry and Bush, however is that Kerry did deserve at least one or two of his medals, and he was there, grandstander or not. Bush, OTOH, was... well, no one knows where he was.

The Swifties vs. F9/11 lays bare a question the Bush people might not want asked: "Is it a greater sin to exploit one's military career for political gain or to repeatedly be caught lying to the American people?"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The only facts I've heard refuted were Moore's claims about the Taliban gas pipeline and Carlyle's purchase of a defense contractor. What about the other 200 damaging facts laid out against Bush in the movie? Are they all just inventions of Moore's imagination?

There are entire web sites devoted to laying out all of the alleged inaccuracies, partial statements, and plain lies. If this really is what you think about the movie, you really should go look at some of those sites.

(ETA: At least, go read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ )

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Reagan -- a defensible choice given a little historical distance, but he's dead.

Well, they gave Carter one.

Which one? Either way -- I don't think Bush I has quite the resume, and any mention of Bush II is risible.

The risible one. For undertaking a huge step towards world peace.

Sharon -- As of now, he has way too much innocent blood on his hands and not enough serious efforts at peace over the course of a long career. Oddly enough, I think he's the one on your list with the best shot. If the Gaza pull-out goes through, and Israel under Sharon is able to reach some sort of accord on a Palestinian state -- he's a legitimate candidate.

Unfortunately, he's from Israel, and so the one least likely to be nominated.

Blair and Howard -- no way. Nice guys, and all that, but you don't get a Nobel Peace Prize for being sidekicks in one war.

Throwaways. I couldn't think of five.

Now, I guess I have to take my shot (sorry if this is derivative of others):

John Paul II (although he helped drive me from Catholicism)

Not sure what he's actually done. Seems to have been fairly ineffectual, but, then, he's definitely out of my area of expertise.

Gates (might win one after about 10-20 more years of massive humanitarian efforts around the globe).

I'm thinking they make a big distinction between humanitarian, and pro-peace. Besides, if one counts all of the pro-and-anti-Windows conflagrations over the years, he's disqualified.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
There are entire web sites devoted to laying out all of the alleged inaccuracies, partial statements, and plain lies. If this really is what you think about the movie, you really should go look at some of those sites.

(ETA: At least, go read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ )

I've read the Hitchens' piece before. Hitchens falls apart at the end by arguing that the war in Iraq was good because we should be about the business of disposing of "evil dictators" around the world. OK, but that's not the reason we went to iraq originally, is it? When you change the justification after the fact, you throw your credibility out the window. And as to the facts Hitchens' proves wrong, again, the only material ones are the Taliban pipeline and the Carlyle group stuff. I agree - Moore overreached there.

Perhaps I should qualify my remark - what "material" facts are untrue in F9/11?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

OK, how come no one is nominating Karzai?

A prior peace prize doesn't disqualify you from later ones. The UN Comm. on Refugees has two. That said, it is unlikely that there will be individual repeats. Likewise, they can be awarded posthumously, but it is unusual and it would likely happen very soon for Reagan if it were to happen.

Drs. w/o Borders already has one, and Israelis have only gotten them in combination with others (Arafat, Sadat), so Sharon probably would have to talk to someone to get one.