Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
As always, the danger of being too "in" is that no one else laughs, because you are now a gang of one. However, Will has reached that point where people will quickly research, and then, secure in the new knowledge of being "in", will laugh along with him. It's like being the Head Mouseketeer.

Among the Googling masses, I suppose so.

But if Will really intended to do that, he'd blog the articles and link the references, which I doubt he'd ever do. Will seems more of a microfiche guy to me.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Among the Googling masses, I suppose so.

But if Will really intended to do that, he'd blog the articles and link the references, which I doubt he'd ever do. Will seems more of a microfiche guy to me.

Will doesn't want to speak to the masses.

He wants the masses to wish he did, but know he doesn't.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
As always, the danger of being too "in" is that no one else laughs, because you are now a gang of one.

Somebody better PM the memo to Penske. LOL!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is James Pinkerton writing in the WaPo:

• [F]or now, the Republicans have the upper hand. They've long had the edge on tough-talking flag-waving, yet they were vulnerable to looking hard-hearted and uncaring. Under Bush they've solved that problem, because they are now willing to spend like Democrats. The result: a right-wing big government, heavy on nationalism, with a touch of militarism. And it seems to be working. Today, it looks as if tomorrow belongs to the Big Government GOP, the party of both warfare and welfare.

My question: If you've seen the movie Cabaret, can you read the last line of this piece and not think of the (chilling) Hitler Youth song? Not the meaning he was probably shooting for.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
As always, the danger of being too "in" is that no one else laughs, because you are now a gang of one. However, Will has reached that point where people will quickly research, and then, secure in the new knowledge of being "in", will laugh along with him. It's like being the Head Mouseketeer.

I will always think of Christina as the head mouseketeer.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I will always think of Christina as the head mouseketeer.

A reference to today's FB activity?

[Gattigap]

This ground has been well-trod, and will be trod further between now and the end of the primaries, but I like Christopher Hitchens' current assessment of the Democratic field, and feel compelled to regurgitate it, and attempt to claim it as my own.

Some of the better excerpts, starting with Dean:

I claim no prescience for predicting the implosion of Howard Dean: He was obviously very lucky to get as far as the governorship of Vermont. A man who will say anything to any audience if he thinks it will raise the roof is a candidate to be shunned: It should have been all over when he trashed his Hippocratic oath to invent a story about an incest victim from his physician's office.

Clark. Good man, bad candidate.

Wesley Clark is a loss to the United States armed forces, and President Clinton and Defense Secretary Cohen ought to have been excoriated for firing him when they did, as well as for how they did it. Many Kosovars owe their lives to Clark, and the victory won in that war also helped to bring at least a semblance of democracy to Serbia. But there's something bizarre about a conceited man in uniform who now can't remember which regime-change he favored or why, which party he belongs to, or which "faith-based" community he espouses. He also has a weakness for half-cooked conspiracy stories and gets snappish when he's questioned on the last weird thing he said. Again, beware of those who run to pacify their internal demons.

A prelude of Kerry's foibles, to be plumbed deeply come the summer.

John Kerry should decide whether he's a moral hero for fighting in a futile and filthy war against the Vietnamese revolution, or for protesting against that war. Can I guess from his demeanor which of the two was his "noble cause"? No. Shouldn't I know by now? Yes, I should, since it's not evident at this relatively late date whether or not he's proud of voting to remove Saddam Hussein. As with most senior Democrats, Kerry's revolving-door record with lobbyists and donors is one to make Cheney and Bush look like amateurs: As with all Democratic primary seasons there is an agreement to forget this collectively in the interests of "change." That's why Lucy in "Peanuts" has become a great national character.

Good characterization of Sharpton, which I think Club would agree with:

Nothing occurs to me when I think about Al Sharpton, but as a rule it's even worse to run as "Reverend" than it is as "General." We haven't sunk to the point where we need either. It's a relief to see how few black voters identify with a big-mouth shake-down artist, against the patronizing expectations of the media, whether it's an election year or not.

And an overall preference for Edwards.*

A couple of years ago I wrote a profile of Sen. John Edwards for Vanity Fair and decided that he is a good man who is in politics for good reasons. He voted for the essential measures on Iraq, but has also made some trenchant criticisms of the Homeland Security farce. I'd add to this that he has since—unlike Joseph Lieberman, say—given up his very promising Senate career in order to run. I leave to you the calculations about his Southern roots, his trial-lawyer connections, and all the rest of it, except to say that he earned his money from fighting large and negligent corporations rather than from fawning on them. I'm totally bored with the idea of "small town" origins, since for generations most Americans have lived either in big cities or suburbs, and it's high time for someone to advertise himself as urbane. However, a good man can be glimpsed even through the necessary hypocrisies of election time.

Gattigap

* I admit to having a soft spot for Edwards, though deep down I don't really think he'd do as well on the National Security side. As many hits as Edwards might be able to deliver on domestic issues, the Dems will probably need someone like Kerry at the top of the ticket to deflect questions on foreign affairs.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hitchens stuff.

The problem for me with anything Hitchens writes is that I always imagine him sitting in front of me and reading the text and after three sentences it makes me want to smack the cigarette out of his pasty hand. It's a very subconscious and visceral response...kind of like whenever Kramer heard Mary Hart's voice, he had a seizure.

I admit to having a soft spot for Edwards, though deep down I don't really think he'd do as well on the National Security side. As many hits as Edwards might be able to deliver on domestic issues, the Dems will probably need someone like Kerry at the top of the ticket to deflect questions on foreign affairs.

Although I started out not liking Edwards for some inarticulable reason, I've definitely been increasingly impressed with him as time has gone on. I realize that many people view "trial lawyer" as a title of shame, but I still just like the symbolism of him having won his "real world" success success against the large and negligent corporations that Hitchens talks about. And it seems pretty obvious the man has got some oratorical skill.

BUT...I really have to agree with you on this one. The Dem candidate has to at least be competitive on national security issues in this election and the only ones with any credentials are Kerry and Clark. The "well, GWB didn't have any foreign policy or national security experience before he took office either" response just sounds whiny.

Or maybe that's because I've only heard Dean say it aloud...

(edited to fix tags)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Take a look at this. If it offends you, sign it. These fucking hicks need to join the 20th century.

http://www.act4justice.com/

Spree: Site re: ridiculous prison sentence in - where else - rural South.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Take a look at this. If it offends you, sign it. These fucking hicks need to join the 20th century.

http://www.act4justice.com/

Spree: Site re: ridiculous prison sentence in - where else - rural South.

I'm sure Not Me will defend the sentence, because, hey, he got a trial. And, besides, if you let him out, the next person he kills will cause everyone to ask why he was on teh street.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
. . . but I still just like the symbolism of him having won his "real world" success success against the large and negligent corporations that Hitchens talks about.

I'm not certain of this at all, but didn't Edwards make most of his money against individual docs?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm not certain of this at all, but didn't Edwards make most of his money against individual docs?

Insurance companies, Bilmore. Individual insurance companies. A lawyer of your age and experience should know that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Take a look at this. If it offends you, sign it. These fucking hicks need to join the 20th century.

http://www.act4justice.com/

Spree: Site re: ridiculous prison sentence in - where else - rural South.

These cases are getting more and more common, and more and more ridiculous. But, place most of the blame on legislatures that write these very detailed laws. (Is a prosecutor supposed to ignore the wording? I don't think they can, without being accused of picking and choosing which laws to enforce.)

Fun Fact: He'll have to register as a Sexual Predator for the rest of his life.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
But, place most of the blame on legislatures that write these very detailed laws. (Is a prosecutor supposed to ignore the wording? I don't think they can, without being accused of picking and choosing which laws to enforce.)

Actually, I don't blame the legislature; they're doing the best they can writing laws without knowing the facts of the individual case. They only sound stupid when something like this happens.

By comparison, prosecutors have discretion to charge, including the discretion not to charge at all. It happens every day. Ask a prosecutor --- they'll tell you they keep more guilty people out of prison every month than a defense attorney can hope to in an entire year.

The prosecutor should be ashamed of him or herself, for not realizing that em was ruining far more lives than em was salvaging. What else is the purpose of the criminal law than to make a bad situation slightly better? When you're obviously making it worse for all involved, you shouldn't be able to look at yourself in the mirror without spitting.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
By comparison, prosecutors have discretion to charge, including the discretion not to charge at all. It happens every day. Ask a prosecutor --- they'll tell you they keep more guilty people out of prison every month than a defense attorney can hope to in an entire year.

But I thought the whole "anti-individual-discretion" movement was predicated on the idea that such decisions had to be removed from the hands of individuals, and transferred to formulae. The whole sentencing guidelines concept arose there, based on the idea that we needed to get these decisions out of the hands of anyone who COULD make the decision on unacceptable grounds. How can we now allow prosecutors to do what we don't allow judges to do? (I'm not arguing that this isn't the case - I don't know anymore - just that, if it is, isn't this a step back to unequal justice?)