Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Buchanan is nothing more than an angry populist.

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

Fine (that goes for Gatti and Hello too). How bout John McGlaughlin (sp?)

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
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.

and "smiling children" too. I hate to say it, but like Sebby, this is the least of two evils for me. I'll take the undue tax burden just to avoid the increased risk of getting killed. Life itself is a nice prospect for 4 years, given the alternative non_plan proposed by Senator O'Kerrystein.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Fine (that goes for Gatti and Hello too). How bout John McGlaughlin (sp?)

Him I like.

[ilikenewsocks]

Originally posted by Gattigap
(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.

Whenever I watch Bush debate, I always think he looks like he's wearing a David Byrne suit, you know, where the shoulders are way too big for his tiny head? And then I start laughing and usually end up spitting diet Coke out the nose, which is painful.

I blame Gary Trudeau.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Buchanan is nothing more than an angry populist.

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

I'm an angry populist. Buchanan is an angry right-winger.

"True conservative"? How would you even know? You're a Bush supporter. That goddamned medicare fiasco is a democratic policy. Carter and Hill probably called each other to discuss how reading its fine print got them hornier than a pair of drunken newlyweds. And the Dept of Homeland Security? Fuck if that isn't the most classic knee-jerk Democratic reaction of all time.

"Sir, how shall we solve the dilemna of asshole bureaucrats mucking up our intelligence capabilities? I'm thinking we could fire a bunch of the bureaucrats and hold the survivors accountable for cooirdinating with one another."

"Neeewww, we won't be doing that. the economy's in the toilet... this is a great opportunity to pump prime it a bit with some senseless govt spending. Lets hire a new army of bureaucrats to oversee the other bureaucrats. Oh, and put Ridge in charge. Lock up that moderate Catholic vote and maybe make some headway in PA. We may need PA... Karl says folks in Ohio are beinning to pay attention to the facts Kerry's people have been throwing around."

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm an angry populist. Buchanan is an angry right-winger.

You are an angry loving populist. Buchanan is an angry hating populist. Neither of you is Right*.

How do I know you wouldn't know? Well, you just told us that Bush-supporters wouldn't know, and you've previously told us that you are likely a Bush-supporter (like Slave --I think-- for the purposes of this election):

'"True conservative"? How would you even know? You're a Bush supporter'.


Hello

*based on an assumption of equivalence between "conservative" and "Right"

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm an angry populist. Buchanan is an angry right-winger.

"True conservative"? How would you even know? You're a Bush supporter. That goddamned medicare fiasco is a democratic policy. Carter and Hill probably called each other to discuss how reading its fine print got them hornier than a pair of drunken newlyweds. And the Dept of Homeland Security? Fuck if that isn't the most classic knee-jerk Democratic reaction of all time.

"Sir, how shall we solve the dilemna of asshole bureaucrats mucking up our intelligence capabilities? I'm thinking we could fire a bunch of the bureaucrats and hold the survivors accountable for cooirdinating with one another."

"Neeewww, we won't be doing that. the economy's in the toilet... this is a great opportunity to pump prime it a bit with some senseless govt spending. Lets hire a new army of bureaucrats to oversee the other bureaucrats. Oh, and put Ridge in charge. Lock up that moderate Catholic vote and maybe make some headway in PA. We may need PA... Karl says folks in Ohio are beinning to pay attention to the facts Kerry's people have been throwing around."

Like I've said before, the Bush Administration displays the worst characteristics of both parties: it spends money and enlarges government like the Democrats, yet is socially controlled by Christian evangelists from the far right.

I think even the most staunch Bush supporters on this board would prefer the opposite. Of course, while I'm voting for him, I'm not sure Kerry will give us that.

Assuming Kerry spends like a motherfucker, that's a wash. This will happen no matter who is president. However, Kerry won't try to implement the Christian fundamentalist bigoted social agenda, which gives us this:

Bush: -1, -1
Kerry: -1, 1

Kerry gives us an expected outcome of 0 over Bush's -2. Zero is what I expect out of our checked and balanced government.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

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).

Hello

Actually, what you describe is almost the libertarian platform. Youmay feel the need to hang onto the semantic handle "right", but trust me, the above positions are not "right", and haven't been since the GOP adopted its Southern Strategy in the early 60s.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by 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.

I think that part of Bush's success in his initial debates is that, given his lack of verbal dexterity in the public eye, no one really expects him to do very well. So he manages to pleasantly surprise everyone when he gets through them without too much embarassment. (I think that a lot of his gaffes are done on purpose in order to lull the public into thinking he's an idiot that they can relate to. The "Bushism" calendars and quote books that liberals pass on to one another and chuckle over I think serve to help the President's image, not hurt him, but I digress... ) I'm not quite as certain that he will get as much of a pass in these debates, though. Kerry and the Dems are already building him up as a master orator (or at least they tried to on the Daily Show a few weeks back), and they've pointed out that he's won every debate he's ever been in. I think that Gore's smugness last time around hurt considerably, and I think the approach will be totally different. I'm irritated that I have a work thing to go to on Thursday night, so I'll have to rely on Tivo instead.

Is Nader part of these debates?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You are an angry loving populist. Buchanan is an angry hating populist. Neither of you is Right*.

How do I know you wouldn't know? Well, you just told us that Bush-supporters wouldn't know, and you've previously told us that you are likely a Bush-supporter (like Slave --I think-- for the purposes of this election):

'"True conservative"? How would you even know? You're a Bush supporter'.


Hello

*based on an assumption of equivalence between "conservative" and "Right"

If I haven't made it clear, let me clarify:

I dislike Bush's social policies with every fiber of my being, but I hate Kerry's economic policies more, so I'm stuck voting for W.

Simply put, I'm picking what I view as the lesser of two evils, like 99.9% of people voting this Fall.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think that part of Bush's success in his initial debates is that, given his lack of verbal dexterity in the public eye, no one really expects him to do very well. So he manages to pleasantly surprise everyone when he gets through them without too much embarassment. (I think that a lot of his gaffes are done on purpose in order to lull the public into thinking he's an idiot that they can relate to. The "Bushism" calendars and quote books that liberals pass on to one another and chuckle over I think serve to help the President's image, not hurt him, but I digress... ) I'm not quite as certain that he will get as much of a pass in these debates, though. Kerry and the Dems are already building him up as a master orator (or at least they tried to on the Daily Show a few weeks back), and they've pointed out that he's won every debate he's ever been in. I think that Gore's smugness last time around hurt considerably, and I think the approach will be totally different. I'm irritated that I have a work thing to go to on Thursday night, so I'll have to rely on Tivo instead.

Is Nader part of these debates?

Kerry is too vulnerable in this debate.

The debates are less about substance and more about composure. Kerry never smiles, he just makes that face where he looks like he's about to take a shit. He just doesn't look comfortable. Bush is loosey goosey, almost goofey at times. But he smiles and looks in control. So even if Kerry whips him substantively, the debate will still be viewed as very close because Bush will look control.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If I haven't made it clear, let me clarify:

I dislike Bush's social policies with every fiber of my being, but I hate Kerry's economic policies more, so I'm stuck voting for W.

Simply put, I'm picking what I view as the lesser of two evils, like 99.9% of people voting this Fall.

Fair enough, and you and I agree. My overall point in the post was that its unfair to single out Slave as a Bush supporter.


FWIW, I think the social policies of both parties are totally fucked up. The Republicans have compromised for so long that they have forgotten where they stood originally. Which is exactly how we get to the spot where Atticus can sit on a stoop and make fun of them for endorsing measures that are at-least-arguably anti-states-rights. Or for coming up with expensive Medicare programs. Or absolutely insane drug enforcement policies. Or...

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Like I've said before, the Bush Administration displays the worst characteristics of both parties: it spends money and enlarges government like the Democrats, yet is socially controlled by Christian evangelists from the far right.

I think even the most staunch Bush supporters on this board would prefer the opposite. Of course, while I'm voting for him, I'm not sure Kerry will give us that.

Assuming Kerry spends like a motherfucker, that's a wash. This will happen no matter who is president. However, Kerry won't try to implement the Christian fundamentalist bigoted social agenda, which gives us this:

Bush: -1, -1
Kerry: -1, 1

Kerry gives us an expected outcome of 0 over Bush's -2. Zero is what I expect out of our checked and balanced government.

Because the Democrat's social policies are a "1"? Dude, look around you. Your city is dying because of Democratic social policies. Even as the working class returns to downtown, the businesses are leaving. The absolute fundamental flaw of the Democrats social policy is that you cannot give something to someone for nothing. In Chicago, you have Daley giving money to his friends, his families and selected constituents as "social policy". The city is rapidly running out of taxpayers which is why its continually raising taxes and fees etc. on those who remain The fact is, if people have alternatives to paying for a Democrat's social policies, they will take them, even if means moving far away.

At best, Kerry's social policies would just be a different form of tyranny. Except its not selected illegal immigrants who would be the tyrannized.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kerry is too vulnerable in this debate.

The debates are less about substance and more about composure. Kerry never smiles, he just makes that face where he looks like he's about to take a shit. He just doesn't look comfortable. Bush is loosey goosey, almost goofey at times. But he smiles and looks in control. So even if Kerry whips him substantively, the debate will still be viewed as very close because Bush will look control.

The left can never articulate a solid message because the crux of their position is to never take risk. Every policy they have is a risk avoidance measure. Their raison d'etre is to promote social policies which protect people from risk. Developing a platform by necessity involves risk. The policy masturbation and hand-wringing amongst the left precludes it from ever putting out any pointed, attractive policies. The left is like a massive think tank with no mission statement. A group of pseudo-academics and policy wonks can no more galvanize an electorate than Danny DeVito can dunk a basketball. Hence, they write opeds all over the place deriding the stupidity of the electorate and picking apart the policy flaws of the GOP's positions, based, of course, on piles of charts and statistics. Maybe the left is correct. Maybe the GOP's policies will doom us, but needling the GOP on fine policy points will not get Kerry elected.

The left has to learn to master the soudbite and come down from the Ivory Tower. Harrumphing that "It should be about issues, not style" will not change the a goddamned thing. The rules dictate that style and delivery are paramount. You can't play outside the rules and expect to win, no matter how much Paul Krugman poo poos the rules. Its amazing the allegedly super-educated left can be so stupid when it comes to the simple art of swaying a crowd. Its easy - all you need is to stay on point, exude real charm, smile, stay composed and engage/entertain the crowd. Did they learn nothing from Clinton?

I'm not suprised in the least that a lot of people who spend the majority of their days enmeshed in treatises are appalled at what happened in the Bush v. Gore debates. Well, get ready, its about to happen again. If Kerry comes out like a stat-spitting ogre, he's a dead man.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Because the Democrat's social policies are a "1"? Dude, look around you. Your city is dying because of Democratic social policies. Even as the working class returns to downtown, the businesses are leaving. The absolute fundamental flaw of the Democrats social policy is that you cannot give something to someone for nothing. In Chicago, you have Daley giving money to his friends, his families and selected constituents as "social policy". The city is rapidly running out of taxpayers which is why its continually raising taxes and fees etc. on those who remain The fact is, if people have alternatives to paying for a Democrat's social policies, they will take them, even if means moving far away.

At best, Kerry's social policies would just be a different form of tyranny. Except its not selected illegal immigrants who would be the tyrannized.

Okay, give Kerry's social policies a -.9. Still better than Bush's -1 wingnuts.