Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I thought you said one of Bush and Congress were the puppet of the other. Hmmm. Maybe they should do what Dan Rather does to remain impartial- show up at fund raisers.

Uh, no.

Remember, Hank. Tell the barkeep -- "on the rocks, then straight water. On the rocks, then straight water."

It has the dual benefits of prolonging the drinking session, and also keeping posts more lucid longer into the evening.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I think saying that this admin has anything to do with hybrid cars, besides discouraging them, is kind of laughable. It's like saying Clinton had something to do with the boom economy of the 90s....oh wait....

Clinton is responsible for internet boom equals bush policy result in hybrids everywhere. Sorry Larry- you won't talk your way out of this one.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Until a worthy heir-apparent surfaces, the Chairman almost always maintains his seat.

Hence the reason for all the attacks on Kerry's character. W's policies are indefensible, so the only way he wins is by portraying Kerry as a less-than-worthy successor. It's nice to see your tacit admission that W is a failure. I wish you guys had cleaned house and found a worthy successor in your own party.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ok, who said this?



AEI.

Everybody OK with us characterizing this election as a referendum on the Chairman's leadership skills?

Does that surprise you? I would guess that close to a majority of true conservatives would rather us not have gotten involved in Iraq. See e.g., Pat Buchanan.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I wish you guys had cleaned house and found a worthy successor in your own party.

Pot - kettle. Although I guess Kerry is a worthy successor to Gore.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
....the only way he wins is by portraying Kerry as a less-than-worthy successor.

Portray?

Every time Kerry opens his mouth, he affirms it.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Does that surprise you? I would guess that close to a majority of true conservatives would rather us not have gotten involved in Iraq. See e.g., Pat Buchanan.

True conservative in some sense. Not with respect to his hatred of Jews (see, e.g., Buckley's conclusion 10 or more years ago) and immigrants (see, e.g., anything the guy says about em). That ain't conservative. That's just hatred. Pat can kiss my ass. Give me Rudy and/or the Chicago Boys, and find another way to describe Buchanan in a way that doesn't associate him with the true Right.

But yes, the true Right doesn't like foreign adventures that are based on faulty evidence (not that this necessarily fits the bill for Iraq). Either way, like you, the true Right doesn't believe in America cutting and running.

[Gattigap]

Heard an interview on hippie-liberal-hemp-in-your-Birkenstocks NPR this evening with James Fallows of the Atlantic that contained his analysis of Bush and Kerry's debating styles.

It was quite good. I recommend you listen to it here.

In sum, Fallows' observations were that (1) Bush is a better debater than his press conferences suggest, because (based on a review of his Guv debates plus the 2000 debates with Gore) he takes the time to prepare, and he is very on-message in sticking to the 3 or 4 points he wants to make, and anticipates making the connection between the questions and his message.

Kerry is also a better debater than his speeches suggest, because he acts more like a prosecutor than a Senator during debates, and he reveals a different personality during them (which is more interesting and compelling than the drone he gives us on the stump).

All in all, it sounds like the debates should be interesting ones.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But yes, the true Right doesn't like foreign adventures that are based on faulty evidence (not that this necessarily fits the bill for Iraq). Either way, like you, the true Right doesn't believe in America cutting and running.

Now that you've expended some effort in capitalizing your own definition of the Right, I cannot help but note that the "Right" has been crushed by the underside of Cheney's ass during the last 4 years, and under a Bush II term, would experience more of the same.

Enjoy the view.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Does that surprise you? I would guess that close to a majority of true conservatives would rather us not have gotten involved in Iraq. See e.g., Pat Buchanan.

Then supporting GWB this fall must be especially painful. Based on the amount of effort expended by the campaign, they're telling you to vote almost entirely based upon a decision with which you disagree.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
Does that surprise you? I would guess that close to a majority of true conservatives would rather us not have gotten involved in Iraq. See e.g., Pat Buchanan.

Buchanan is nothing more than an angry populist.

I think he stopped being a "true conservative" sometime around 88-89.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Now that you've expended some effort in capitalizing your own definition of the Right, I cannot help but note that the "Right" has been crushed by the underside of Cheney's ass during the last 4 years, and under a Bush II term, would experience more of the same.

Enjoy the view.

Its not just my definition of the Right. There are other words to describe racist attitudes which are, as so often pointed out on these boards, often the shared view of many Democrats who aren't otherwise considered part of the Right. There are other words to describe foreign adventurers which, as so often pointed out on these boards, were most heavily promoted by Clinton, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and otherw who aren't otherwise considered part of the Right.

The Right believes in:
Democracy;
Freedom;
Free Markets (including for drugs);
Equality for humans within a political system, with limited exceptions for felons and children (including for white-flight suburbanites);
Minimal Government; and
Not subsidizing our lazy, our stupid, the French (first Hyperbole in this post here) or other "allies" who do nothing but tell us how to use our troops and whether we can borrow their foreign legion of non_French troops;
and not sacrificing American lives for nought (which is a wide open statement that I will not define in this post).

Call them what you will, but Cheney and Bush are not part of the true Right. They are pretenders to the economic legacy of Reagan and Thatcher or the political and diplomatic legacy of no-one-who-comes-to-mind (in this regard, Buchanan's views of diplomacy are generally Right save his views of Israel).

Hello

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Its not just my definition of the Right. There are other words to describe racist attitudes which are, as so often pointed out on these boards, often the shared view of many Democrats who aren't otherwise considered part of the Right. There are other words to describe foreign adventurers which, as so often pointed out on these boards, were most heavily promoted by Clinton, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and otherw who aren't otherwise considered part of the Right.

The Right believes in:
Democracy;
Freedom;
Free Markets (including for drugs);
Equality for humans within a political system, with limited exceptions for felons and children (including for white-flight suburbanites);
Minimal Government; and
Not subsidizing our lazy, our stupid, the French (first Hyperbole in this post here) or other "allies" who do nothing but tell us how to use our troops and whether we can borrow their foreign legion of non_French troops;
and not sacrificing American lives for nought (which is a wide open statement that I will not define in this post).

Call them what you will, but Cheney and Bush are not part of the true Right. They are pretenders to the economic legacy of Reagan and Thatcher or the political and diplomatic legacy of no-one-who-comes-to-mind (in this regard, Buchanan's views of diplomacy are generally Right save his views of Israel).

Hello

I think you forgot "Sunsets and long walks on the beach."

In any event, I reiterate, enjoy the view. I hope Cheney doesn't eat any burritos over the next 4 years.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Though we tend to disagree on issues, you often have a point. Lately I can't figure out what the fuck you're talking about. Are you busy at work? How much sleep have you been getting lately?

Just in case anyone cares, I'll summarize my answers to these questions and statements, in reverse order, for you.

Not enough.
Insanely.
Ok.
True.

Regarding "OK", the issue is rather simple. My proposition is that we have public housing and section 8 due to a compromise. Namely, liberals who wanted something accepted it in its present form together with conserva... er, others, who just don't want it in their backyards. Problem #1. What we get is concentrated subsidized (and thus encouraged) poverty that grossly perpetuates itself, which is inefficient. Problem #2. What we get is subsidized poverty concentrated in only a few places. Public housing and section 8 is not just a benefit to the poor, its also a burden to everyone via taxes and a specific burden to the other residents in the neighborhoods in which the poverty is concentrated. The specific burden is unfair to those communities and their residents.

Fairness would require dispersing the subsidized as much as humanly possible to places where they won't overwhelm the neighborhood (take that to mean whatever you want). But the compromise included the NIMBY people. Here they argued that its OK to place the burden on other neighborhoods (as long as its gotta go somewhere), but don't place any part of it on them.

Result? We have an unworkable and inefficient system that has existed for 40 or more years with little positive result. We have the NIMBY people (read: suburbanites) joining a leftist coalition to tolerate the subsidies in the first place, as long as someone else (who just might be you or me) carries the burden of living amongst the subsidized and publicly housed.

Its really that simple. Inefficient and unfair to some neighborhoods and their residents. If people don't want some forms (i.e., able-bodied, working-age) public housing or section 8 in their neighborhood, they should vote against it in any neighborhood. Instead, the burden of this national program is involuntarily foisted onto the backs of the few, while the happy coalition of mostly-suburban "conservatives", in bed with the legacy the Great Society social experiment, chirp not a word unless someone suggests maybe they should bear the burden of their collusion with the Devil.

Either way, the only way the program works is if the recipients are spread out. But the above-noted "conservatives" accept the status quo for 40+ years, only as long as the recipients are not spread out, which is not a "fair" position that the Right accepts. Thus, I'm merely pointing out that there are two ways to be Right here:
1.) Get rid of this and all other boondoggles; or
2.) Spread it out so that it works, because this ain't what's happening now.

The secondary effects (e.g., white flight to the suburbs, increased driving, death of northern cities etc.) is largely attributable to the above-noted coalition agreement that tolerates the NIMBYs. All protests aside, numerous suburbs exist which are indistinguishable from the nearby cities in terms of land use etc., except for the absence of any significant public housing. Late protests regarding the desire for a large plot ring hollow when the underlying protest is to putting a section 8 renter or public housing unit on the plot next door. The fact is, some people tolerate the program only as long as the burden will only fall on others.

You want to see how quickly this country could get rid of public housing and most section 8? Propose to spread it out so that the recipients might show up as anyone's neighbor. In terms of bang for our bucks, it would be hard to get a record worse than this nation already has for these programs. Strangely, it shows the great dangers of consensus building in a democracy. 51% of the people can easily impose a burden on the other 49%, like building public housing in only the 49%'s neighborhoods.

Summary? It sure as hell ain't Right.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Then supporting GWB this fall must be especially painful. Based on the amount of effort expended by the campaign, they're telling you to vote almost entirely based upon a decision with which you disagree.

No they are not. I am not a conservative.