Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I thought Bush got rid of those turf wars with his Homeland Security stuff?

Weren't we going to win the war on terror by having our intelligence agencies talk with each other?

What everyone knows but no one wants to say is that if Bush were a strong and capable leader, the various parts of his government wouldn't be fighting so hard with each other.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What everyone knows but no one wants to say is that if Bush were a strong and capable leader, the various parts of his government wouldn't be fighting so hard with each other.

You really need to quit your day job and go into the spin business. This is some really good work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

The more complete quote from that Putin story in my earlier post:

• Putin's role in the blatantly misleading information issued by the government about the Chechnya offensive also has been criticized. His talent for creating legends has been evident in his explanations about the war. For example, Putin told the writers group that the military had been open with the news media, when the military has in fact hidden information about casualties, combat events, attacks on civilians and its goals and methods.
  
  Felix Svetov, a writer who spent time in Stalin's prison camps as a child and who lost his father in the purges, was present at the writers meeting. He said Putin's comment "does not correspond with reality." Putin is a typical KGB type, he added. "If the snow is falling, they will calmly tell you, the sun is shining."

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
What day is it? I'm a little disoriented when my conservative friends tell me I should trust the former head of the KGB. And so soon after we learned that Reagan is a saint for standing up to the Soviet Union.

You must be talking about Club.

In my book, Putin makes Schroeder look good.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You really need to quit your day job and go into the spin business. This is some really good work.

Do you not think it's just a wee bit disfunctional to have State, DoD and the CIA all openly fighting with each other? Do you not think a President who was just a little bit more in command of the situation wouldn't tell them to cut that shit out and get on the same page? This shit has been going on since Day One.

Maybe its an homage to Reagan. He was similarly detached from the day-to-day operation of his government, and you had the same fights, particularly over foreign policy. It was Cap vs. George instead of Rummy vs. Powell.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would it destroy it, as opposed to merely poisoning further the system as it stands? Do you really want a string of tell-all movies timed to coincide with elections, purporting to reveal the policy missteps, or perhaps even personal moral errors, of the candidates?

Instead of 30 second attack ads you'll have 2 hour attack movies.

I doubt this "nightmare: scenario pretty highly.

First, attack movies have been around for a long, long time, and have come from both the right and the left. Moore's movie is noticeable because Moore is an extreme rarity -- a guy who can make a 2-hour documentary that millions of people actually want to see. Unless that can somehow be bred -- and I don't it can -- then we won't be seeing a string of high-profile pre-election documentaries.

Second, the reason people use 30-second attack ads, and not 2-hour documentaries, is because the attention span of anyone who lingers in the "undecided" column five months before the election is, well, about 30 seconds.

Documentaries like Moore's, and like many other low-profile ones that have come before, don't change people's minds so much as they motivate the base. People get pissed off enough about the target to make damn sure they vote, tell their friends to vote, give money, volunteer, etc. Moore's movie might have a widespread effect in that regard. It's not going to sway a whole lot of undecideds.

Final point: Ross Perot self-financed a whole bunch of 30-minute and 1-hour Rossumentaries, that were primarily attack ads. Whatever effect those had, they didn't exactly start a trend.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you not think it's just a wee bit disfunctional to have State, DoD and the CIA all openly fighting with each other? Do you not think a President who was just a little bit more in command of the situation wouldn't tell them to cut that shit out and get on the same page? This shit has been going on since Day One.

Maybe its an homage to Reagan. He was similarly detached from the day-to-day operation of his government, and you had the same fights, particularly over foreign policy. It was Cap vs. George instead of Rummy vs. Powell.

I think this happens in every admin, though perhaps heightened abit here. But I suspect that if it wasn't, you would revert to the idea that he is either too stuborn or not curious enough to listen to the takes of his advisors.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The more complete quote from that Putin story in my earlier post:

• Putin's role in the blatantly misleading information issued by the government about the Chechnya offensive also has been criticized. His talent for creating legends has been evident in his explanations about the war. For example, Putin told the writers group that the military had been open with the news media, when the military has in fact hidden information about casualties, combat events, attacks on civilians and its goals and methods.
  
  Felix Svetov, a writer who spent time in Stalin's prison camps as a child and who lost his father in the purges, was present at the writers meeting. He said Putin's comment "does not correspond with reality." Putin is a typical KGB type, he added. "If the snow is falling, they will calmly tell you, the sun is shining."

So are you suggesting that Putin is lying now or was lying at the time?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think this happens in every admin, though perhaps heightened abit here. But I suspect that if it wasn't, you would revert to the idea that he is either too stuborn or not curious enough to listen to the takes of his advisors.

Heightened "a bit" here? DoD is paying Chalabi a retainer, the CIA raids his house, and that's all you can say? Um, OK.

Thanks for resorting so quickly to the hypothetical "but if this was medieval Europe you would be arguing" line of attack, usually a sure sign that there's nothing else left to say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So are you suggesting that Putin is lying now or was lying at the time?

I will suggest that if whatever Russia might have said at the time was important, we would have heard about it before now, and that Putin is a very clever man to have found a way to give some public support to his comrade, President Bush.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would it destroy it, as opposed to merely poisoning further the system as it stands? Do you really want a string of tell-all movies timed to coincide with elections, purporting to reveal the policy missteps, or perhaps even personal moral errors, of the candidates?

Instead of 30 second attack ads you'll have 2 hour attack movies.

I think anything that debases the political discourse further (if that's possible) also creates debate on fixing the system. I advocate running the present system straight into the ground, until all of its components are exhausted and everyone is so disgusted that they've no choice but to push for change. Leave the system dead and see what comes from its ashes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think anything that debases the political discourse further (if that's possible) also creates debate on fixing the system. I advocate running the present system straight into the ground, until all of its components are exhausted and everyone is so disgusted that they've no choice but to push for change. Leave the system dead and see what comes from its ashes.

In moderation, let me say that I think it's fantastic that Ralph Nader has finally found a voice on this board.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I will suggest that if whatever Russia might have said at the time was important, we would have heard about it before now, and that Putin is a very clever man to have found a way to give some public support to his comrade, President Bush.

Why would you think that? Seems to me that Russia may have had a need to protect human assets before now. Are you suggesting that this is a quid pro quo of some sort?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think anything that debases the political discourse further (if that's possible) also creates debate on fixing the system. I advocate running the present system straight into the ground, until all of its components are exhausted and everyone is so disgusted that they've no choice but to push for change. Leave the system dead and see what comes from its ashes.

Excellent. Long live Empress Jenna!!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In moderation, let me say that I think it's fantastic that Ralph Nader has finally found a voice on this board.

I think that I'm safe in speaking for Bilmore in saying "Hey!"