Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not even. Hank C. UC Santa Cruz '91 florida coastal School of Law '94

prediction: TW will find this unintentionally funny cuz they're both bad schools.

Reality. TW finds it unintenionally not funny, because it's stoopid. Still overcompensating, eh, Hank?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You must have a really small penis.

fucker, you know how to hit where I'm vulnerable.
but you're right. Height wise I'm 99 percentile. but penis length only 87 percentile, and girth only 81 percentile. I hope you're proud to have outed me.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe you should follow the link before you ascribe to him ignorance about what "serious conservatives" have been saying.

Why in the world would I do that when he indicates, in the quote you provided, that serious conservatives will be asking after the election. In complete contrast to this quote, serious conservatives have been protesting the economic portions (and some social portions) here for more than a year.

So I don't care who he quotes (unless its Buckley). I'm sick of you guys calling people like Buchanan and Hitler or whoever-you-feel-like-and-know-does-not-represent-serious-conservative-thought conservatives. The converse would be if we started calling Pelosi, Byrd, Ho and Stalin serious liberals (in the modern day sense of the word). But we are the nice guys and we take your shrill insults with a big smile. After the election, no more Mr. nice guy pal.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While you are ignorant of Kerry's views on national security, Schmitt would probably agree with you about the centrality of the issue in this election.

Kerry'v views on national security depend on the day of the week, the hour of the day, and his target audience. The one thing I've been asking from you guys for weeks, which you still can't show me, is him advocating the "preemption" thing. We aren't safe unless we are willing to kick a terrorist in the groin before he does it to us. Kerry and his wife, apparently, wouldn't mind an occasional kick in the nuts.

Hello

PS OK OK, I'll follow the link. It better quote some real conservatives, or I'm coming back with more and then some more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Why in the world would I do that when he indicates, in the quote you provided, that serious conservatives will be asking after the election. In complete contrast to this quote, serious conservatives have been protesting the economic portions (and some social portions) here for more than a year.

Don't be stupid. He's not saying that conservatives are, perforce, blind to what's going on. He's just raising the issues in the present context -- in case you haven't noticed, there's a national election in ten days.

So I don't care who he quotes (unless its Buckley). I'm sick of you guys calling people like Buchanan and Hitler or whoever-you-feel-like-and-know-does-not-represent-serious-conservative-thought conservatives. The converse would be if we started calling Pelosi, Byrd, Ho and Stalin serious liberals (in the modern day sense of the word). But we are the nice guys and we take your shrill insults with a big smile. After the election, no more Mr. nice guy pal.

If I thought I or Schmitt had done something remotely like this, I would apologize. Instead, I think he has interesting things to say. If you don't want to engage, fine -- the Red Sox won, so I'm in a good mood -- but I don't want to defend the turf that you are trying to assign to me.

Kerry'v views on national security depend on the day of the week, the hour of the day, and his target audience. The one thing I've been asking from you guys for weeks, which you still can't show me, is him advocating the "preemption" thing. We aren't safe unless we are willing to kick a terrorist in the groin before he does it to us. Kerry and his wife, apparently, wouldn't mind an occasional kick in the nuts.

That's bullshit. He may not express himself well, but we're electing a President, not a Chief Public Relations Executive. He said in the debate that he would act unilaterally if necessary. He voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq when it appeared that force might be necessary to pre-empt the use of WMD against us. So what's your problem? His judgment couldn't be any worse than Bush's.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mark Schmitt is very smart:

• If Bush loses, serious conservatives, with the possible exception of extreme social conservatives, will have to ask themselves what they gained from four years of unfettered power, and ten years of domination of American politics. Government is "bigger" by every measure, and more intrusive. A pet idea, Social Security privatization, was actually discredited by their president's incompetence. Younger voters are increasingly turned off by the social conservatism, so the movement is not expanding its base. A huge new entitlement was created. The federal role in education expanded. And poor planning and dishonesty over Iraq weakened our defense, our credibility, and made it impossible to set a clear standard for when we would intervene and when not.
  
  All the tax cuts have done is to postpone the day we pay for these things.
  
  And if Bush wins, all this will still be true. Especially after a vicious campaign that offered no clear and persuasive conservative vision, it will be no easier for Bush to enact a conservative mandate. The corrupt short-term political bargains will only continue. If Bush wins, Karl Rove may be deemed a tactical genius, but the chances of a significant ideological realignment of American politics are lower than at any time since 2000. A smart conservative would surely prefer Bush to lose, if only to get the long process of intellectual rebuilding started right away.

more

I agree with a lot of this (though not the foreign policy characterizations). The GOP has gotten fat and happy and has been terrible ever since Newt left. Problem is, the DEMs have yet to prove to me that they are the better alternative.

In related news, I was speaking to a GOP friend of mine last night about the election. This is a guy with a picture of Bush and Laura on his fridge. He admitted to me that if if Lieberman or Gephart was running, he would vote for either over Bush, but just can't vote for Kerry.

[sgtclub]

This is just as bad as what Cheney has been saying:

RENO, Nev. - Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) said Friday that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) would be in captivity or dead if Kerry had been president during the war against Afghanistan (news - web sites).

Kerry accused President Bush (news - web sites) of allowing bin Laden to escape by relying on Afghan warlords to try to hunt the al-Qaida chief down in the caves of Tora Bora in December 2001.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ry_bin_laden_3

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

PS OK OK, I'll follow the link. It better quote some real conservatives, or I'm coming back with more and then some more.

OK, first of all, you should have warned us that its a page for the "Decembrist". Despite this insane name, I read the first few pages. He characterizes people as "serious conservatives" etc. etc. etc. in order to use their words of desparation to send up the signal.

He also acknowledges that most conservative commentators like Will are not sounding an alarm. My guess is that Will, like most Americans, is trying to make sure we are all alive next year to debate social programs (and hopefully end or limit most of them).

He also acknowledges that there is no concept of liberalism left after it was destroyed in the mid-90's. In fact, the irony that Bush & Co. have taken up where Conservatives made the liberals get off might be his central point in one of his pieces.

Who did you guys run for President again? Among the other reasons I'd tolerate Dean over our current contenders, is because you know exactly where he's coming from (straight Liberal). The choice we are left with without him is this current horrible, but easy, choice. We don't know where either of these clowns really stands on anything because Bush lies and Kerry promises things domestically that he could never deliver and shouldn't be attempting to deliver. But Bush is just crazy enough to go after our enemies wherever feasible. Amen.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is just as bad as what Cheney has been saying:



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ry_bin_laden_3

What's your problem with this? Kerry's complaint -- that OBL was at Tora Bora and that we let him get away by relying on Afghan irregulars and failing to deploy enough troops to block the exits -- echo what was widely reported at the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
OK, first of all, you should have warned us that its a page for the "Decembrist". Despite this insane name, I read the first few pages. He characterizes people as "serious conservatives" etc. etc. etc. in order to use their words of desparation to send up the signal.

He also acknowledges that most conservative commentators like Will are not sounding an alarm. My guess is that Will, like most Americans, is trying to make sure we are all alive next year to debate social programs (and hopefully end or limit most of them).

He also acknowledges that there is no concept of liberalism left after it was destroyed in the mid-90's. In fact, the irony that Bush & Co. have taken up where Conservatives made the liberals get off might be his central point in one of his pieces.

Who did you guys run for President again? Among the other reasons I'd tolerate Dean over our current contenders, is because you know exactly where he's coming from (straight Liberal). The choice we are left with without him is this current horrible, but easy, choice. We don't know where either of these clowns really stands on anything because Bush lies and Kerry promises things domestically that he could never deliver and shouldn't be attempting to deliver. But Bush is just crazy enough to go after our enemies wherever feasible. Amen.

Congratulations. You've taken a relatively serious post about where the conservative movement is headed, whatever happens in this election, and responded to it by pointing out that you like Bush more than Kerry because he's "just crazy enough." And you think this refutes Schmitt's point that the conservative movement is bankrupt.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What's your problem with this? Kerry's complaint -- that OBL was at Tora Bora and that we let him get away by relying on Afghan irregulars and failing to deploy enough troops to block the exits -- echo what was widely reported at the time.

1. It suggests that it was permissive

2. It says that Kerry would have caught him (this is the reverse of Cheney's line that I don't like)

3. It blames Bush for a military, rather than a policy decision. So really he is blaming the brass.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't be stupid. He's not saying that conservatives are, perforce, blind to what's going on. He's just raising the issues in the present context -- in case you haven't noticed, there's a national election in ten days.

The clear implication of the quote you gave is that conservatives aren't paying attention and will wke up after the election. Even the text of the blog says most conservative commentators aren't addressing this yet. All I'm saying is that he's bringing up a point that's been discussed here for quite awhile, so he shouldn't pretend like he's seeing into the future about how we'll feel after Bush wins.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's bullshit. He may not express himself well, but we're electing a President, not a Chief Public Relations Executive. He said in the debate that he would act unilaterally if necessary. He voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq when it appeared that force might be necessary to pre-empt the use of WMD against us. So what's your problem? His judgment couldn't be any worse than Bush's.

Depends which day it is. More than half of the days since he's said it was the wrong thing to do. Will he do it next time given the same set of facts, and no knowledge that its all a bluff?

Hello


PS and sorry for questioning his characterizations of who is a "serious conservative". Not that he's trustworthy, and not that I even recognized the names of more than half of the people he cites, but I'm not sure there are even 10 household recognizable true and serious conservatives left in the public realm in this country.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
1. It suggests that it was permissive

2. It says that Kerry would have caught him (this is the reverse of Cheney's line that I don't like)

3. It blames Bush for a military, rather than a policy decision. So really he is blaming the brass.

As for your 1. and 2., whatever. Semantic quibbles, I say.

As for 3., I guess it's your view that when these wars go well, Bush gets the credit, but when they go poorly, it's the military's fault? Where does the buck stop? Wasn't that what Bush said when he landed on the aircraft carrier -- we've done pretty well so far in Iraq, and the military -- not we politicians -- deserve all the credit?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Congratulations. You've taken a relatively serious post about where the conservative movement is headed, whatever happens in this election, and responded to it by pointing out that you like Bush more than Kerry because he's "just crazy enough." And you think this refutes Schmitt's point that the conservative movement is bankrupt.

I've already covered the serious stuff about the conservative movement before. The military stuff is the only issue left here, and you have been repeatedly invited to seriously address this to bolster your boy.

As for the "conservative movement" being bankrupt, what in the world else do you think I've been saying for the last month? Maybe not bankrupt, but hijacked. Others here were more vocally making this point almost a year ago vis a vis spending. So no, I don't think Schmitt's point is refuted, ahhh I'm just repeating myself about his framing it as a forward-lookng prognostication.

Hello

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As for your 1. and 2., whatever. Semantic quibbles, I say.

Words mean something. Cheney's could be a semantic quibble.

As for 3., I guess it's your view that when these wars go well, Bush gets the credit, but when they go poorly, it's the military's fault? Where does the buck stop? Wasn't that what Bush said when he landed on the aircraft carrier -- we've done pretty well so far in Iraq, and the military -- not we politicians -- deserve all the credit?

Policy successes and failures = Bush
Execution/strategy = Brass

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The clear implication of the quote you gave is that conservatives aren't paying attention and will wke up after the election.

I really don't think so, but if you're intent on arguing about what you see between the lines in his piece instead of what he actually says, so be it.

Depends which day it is. More than half of the days since he's said it was the wrong thing to do. Will he do it next time given the same set of facts, and no knowledge that its all a bluff?

He's said that the vote to give Bush the authority was the right thing to do, but that Bush mis-used that authority. What's confusing about that?

Are we really going to have this conversation again? The foreign-policy difference between Bush and Kerry is really very clear. Bush articulates policy in simple, clear terms, and knows what he wants to do. He also has terrible judgment and execution, and cannot hold his subordinates accountable. Kerry cannot articulate a simple, broad rational for the foreign-policy he advocates, but his instincts clearly belong in the moderate mainstream of Democrats and Republicans who led this country for the fifty or so years before W. There's no reason to think he would be as ragingly incompetent in the execution as Bush has been. Neither is perfect.

Not that he's trustworthy, and not that I even recognized the names of more than half of the people he cites, but I'm not sure there are even 10 household recognizable true and serious conservatives left in the public realm in this country.

I don't know a lot about Schmitt, but he was a congressional staffer for a while, and his posts are more thoughtful and rewarding than 90% of political blogs of either political stripe.