Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Mark Kleiman quotes Amy Zegart (a former student of Condi Rice's) as saying the following: . . .

See, now, she's someone I would listen to over a blogger.

(Great book on the CIA, BTW.)

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
By the way, are any of you concerned that nfh's posts are now prior PB posts? That is not a positive reflection on our unique style.

Posts, plural? Meaning more than one post? You're killing me. I know you're just dying to tell me about a rule. I told you, I don't come to this neighborhood - it's full of lies and backstabbing and venom. You're as bad as ATticus.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This article has its moments. The first two paragraphs:

• Strip away the job titles and party labels, and you will find two kinds of people in Washington: political hacks and policy wonks. Hacks come to Washington because anywhere else they'd be bored to death. Wonks come here because nowhere else could we bore so many to death. These divisions extend far beyond the hack havens of political campaigns and consulting firms and the wonk ghettos of think tanks on Dupont Circle. Some journalists are wonks, but most are hacks. Some columnists are hacks, but most are wonks. All members of Congress pass themselves off as wonks, but many got elected as hacks. Lobbyists are hacks who make money pretending to be wonks. The Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the entire political blogosphere consist largely of wonks pretending to be hacks. "The Hotline" is for hacks; National Journal is for wonks. "The West Wing" is for wonks; "K Street" was for hacks.
  
  After two decades in Washington as a wonk working among hacks, I have come to the conclusion that the gap between Republicans and Democrats is as nothing compared to the one between these two tribes. We wonks think we're smarter than hacks. Hacks think that if being smart makes someone a wonk, they'd rather be stupid. Wonks think all hacks are creatures from another planet, like James Carville. Hacks share Paul Begala's view that wonks are all "propeller heads," like Elroy on "The Jetsons." Wonks think the differences between hacks and wonks are as irreconcilable as the Hutus and the Tutsis. Hacks think it's just like wonks to bring up the Hutus and the Tutsis.

The author (Bruce Reed) goes on to argue that the Bush Administration's problem is that the hacks have too much clout over the wonks.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This article has its moments. The first two paragraphs:

Reed's a tremendously funny guy, but I think he's wrong on this one. I think Rummy and Wolfy and Cheney are complete wonks. They are policy-and-philosophy-driven people. They just wonk to a different drummer than does Reed. What Reed's trying to build here is the "we're the thinking person's party" theme.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Reed's a tremendously funny guy, but I think he's wrong on this one. I think Rummy and Wolfy and Cheney are complete wonks. They are policy-and-philosophy-driven people. They just wonk to a different drummer than does Reed. What Reed's trying to build here is the "we're the thinking person's party" theme.

I think he's talking about domestic policy, not foreign policy, and the guys you mention are all on the latter side. I say that without going back to check the article to confirm that I'm right, but all the examples I can think of off the top of my head were domestic. (This was surely written long before the events of this week.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Only 60 (oops, 59) more posts left in this thread. If you have a good suggestion for the name of the next one, PM me.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think he's talking about domestic policy, not foreign policy, and the guys you mention are all on the latter side. I say that without going back to check the article to confirm that I'm right, but all the examples I can think of off the top of my head were domestic. (This was surely written long before the events of this week.)

I think you're largely right in that Reed uses DiIulio and O'Neill as examples (and, I think, focused on O'Neill's domestic concerns instead of Iraq).

Reed does have a gift for the turn of phrase, though. My favorite observation:

O'Neill becomes so desperate for an honest broker that he pleads with, of all people, Vice President Cheney: "[We] need to be better about keeping politics out of the policy process. We need firewalls. The political people are there for presentation and execution, not for creation." By the time he left, O'Neill actually pined for the less political days of the Nixon White House: "The biggest difference between then and now is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis, and Karl, Dick, Karen, and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Text of a letter from the mother of Kobe Bryant's accuser, dated Wednesday, that was included in a court filing Thursday seeking a swift trial date:

• Your Honor,
  
  I would like to share with you the reality of my daughter's life.
  
  You are aware of 3 people that have been arrested for threatening her life. She has received literally hundreds of death threats on the phone, in the mail and e-mail. In addition, she has received thousands of obscene messages. We are constantly worried about her safety.
  
  My daughter has lived in four different states in the past six months. She is followed everywhere by the defense and the media. The defense begins to question everyone she meets. The media reveals her location. Her safety is at risk and she has to move again. She can't live at home, she can't live with relatives, she can't go to school, or talk to her friends.
  
  When she moves to a new location she doesn't know anyone. As soon as she gets a job or makes a few acquaintances someone figures out who she is and the media arrives. The last time she got a job the second day she was there the media found her and began following her. Most employers are not willing to deal with the problems this brings to their business.
  
  My daughter has been home for two days. Last night, she tried to have dinner with a friend and her friend's mom. On the way into the restaurant a man came up to them pulled out a camera and began taking pictures and questioning them. They asked him to stop, they tried to walk away he followed them and would not stop until she used a cell phone to call for help. First there is the fear when someone walks up to her and pulls something out of their pocket. Are they going to hurt her? She has received more than enough death threats that those thoughts are now a required part of her daily life.
  
  When the immediate fear of being harmed subsides, she is left with the frustration of knowing that she can't go anywhere, even have a simple dinner with a friend.
  
  No one else involved in this case has had to make the life changes and compromises that my daughter has had to make and will need to continue to make until this case is over. Even the defendant is able to continue living in his home and continue with his employment.
  
  My daughter has plans for her future. She wants to continue her education. However, her life is on hold and her safety is in jeopardy until this case is over. I am asking that the court do whatever possible to bring this case to trial as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration.
  
  Sincerely, (name withheld)

link

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Fresh off the revelation that Britain's military is so strapped by its involvement in Iraq that it won't be able to take on another comparable mission before the second term of a Jeb Bush presidency comes the news that Britain's invasion of Mexico is going very poorly.


Also from NZ, good news for Club.

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by bilmore

Rice rather resoundingly contradicted that particular assertion, and I give her a lot of credence. If Cheney has some explanation of this conflict that shows how he was speaking in some other context that leaves his statement not at odds with Rice, he should give it, but if his contribution to the debate is merely to make angry, baseless slurs, he should sit this one out.

You can't trust Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They think they're entitled to spin anything and everything. They have never provided credible evidence that the attack against Iraq was justified. Ever. They have never provided credible evidence that a strike on OBL risked unacceptable casualties. Ever. Fuck, the sanctions against Iraq killed more children than a piddly strike on OBL would have. They have never provided credible evidence that the Bushies policy of free trade with countries that have a low standard of living and a highly educated workforce is good US workers. Ever.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Fresh off the revelation that Britain's military is so strapped by its involvement in Iraq that it won't be able to take on another comparable mission before the second term of a Jeb Bush presidency

No worries- if the crown were theatened, the tommies'll be there.

The Brits are just letting us down easy, in a dodge confrontation sort of way, that they won't be there for our big invasion of Indonesia in '05, and also setting up the "dear W" regrets for the whole Saudi oil-well grab of '07

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
You can't trust Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They think they're entitled to spin anything and everything. They have never provided credible evidence that the attack against Iraq was justified. Ever. They have never provided credible evidence that a strike on OBL risked unacceptable casualties. Ever. Fuck, the sanctions against Iraq killed more children than a piddly strike on OBL would have. They have never provided credible evidence that the Bushies policy of free trade with countries that have a low standard of living and a highly educated workforce is good US workers. Ever.

Well, doesn't getting rid of the sanctions justify the attack then? As to free trade, was part of their evil plot getting clinton to sign NAFTA?

[SlaveNoMore]

Question:

What do you get when you cross an Internet Pioneer, a Man who can never make up his mind, a Black man and an Illiterate Farmer?


Answer:

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
You can't trust Rice, Rumsfeld and Cheney. They think they're entitled to spin anything and everything. They have never provided credible evidence that the attack against Iraq was justified. Ever.

Oh, yeah, next time I ask for non-cynical centrist types to pop up, please do.

Or, maybe, just shut the fuck up, partisan hack.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Shit

Would you please clarify that I did not post the shit that it seems i did here?