Terminator X, TK, and Brian -- I agree. I've read and seen enough.
- Join Date
- Sep 2001
- Location
- Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
- Posts
- 14,092
Terminator X, TK, and Brian -- I agree. I've read and seen enough.
Woodward is not as partisan. I'll give him more credit than some.Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Woodward is not partisan. I've already explained why.
Is there any criticism of the Bush policy in Iraq that you don't interpret as partisan, HC?
As for critics, the answer to your question is very few if any, right now. Certainly all the current 'political book' critics have at least one eye on sales and one eye on the November election. (The same is true of the books like Hannity's and the rest, of course.)
We're in an election year. The various books that are hitting the shelves are just as much part of that, calculated for specific ends and promoted by essentially the same people, as the TV ads, the direct mailings, the 'push polls', etc.
The liberal and conservative media outlets push the books that match their views, or can be spun that way, whether it's 60 Minutes with the books by Clarke and Woodward and O'Neil, or Rush Limbaugh and his ilk with the books by Zell Miller or Robert Patterson.
Any given view any of these people state may be true, backed up with facts, etc. But never forget that they've all got agendas, political and personal. With an election in process, anybody's assessment should be looked at with a sizeable crystal of salt, and an eye on who's funding the book/movie, who's distributing it, and who's pushing it and advertising it.
We simply aren't going to get anything remotely 'even-handed' before November. Even then, it'll be many years before passions cool enough to look back and produce a really clear analysis of the Clinton/Bush years, especially if the polarization keeps getting worse.
Like I said, Poor Hopeful, the Cynic in him can't see the forest for the trees! Perhaps the Hopeful will have now learned what the Cynic should have already known? Well, that is the short and the sweet of it. The long and the most interesting of it will be revealed in the aftermath of November's election. A sweet taste of it will be for some, and a most bitter harvest for others.
i'll give you points for short and sweet, but i have to take those same points away, because i still have no f*cking idea what you're on about.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Go back, and read the whole thing. Pardon me for saying so, but you failed to undertand both what Gore is trying to do, and my response to it.
Gore is a former vp. Like Clinton, Bush I, and Carter, he has no business undercutting the policies of the current President in public, especially with military forces engaged on the ground. PERIOD. There is a reason why it's tradition for former Presidents and cabinet officials to keep silent during the term of office of their successors. Frankly, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton should neither seen nor heard on political matters right now, and that also applies to Al Gore.
Now, he has a perfect right to disagree with Bush, and say so. But he does have a moral obligation to be very careful of how he says it, and where and to who. Making any claim whatever to speak for the American public as an alternative to the sitting President, or to the sitting President on behalf of the American people, is automatically out of line. Period.
Several times in the speech, he calls upon Bush to apologize to 'the American people'. Sorry, but he has no damn business making such statements on behalf of anybody but himself. Until he either loses the election or dies in office or resigns, Bush speaks for the American people, and nobody else.
That speech is going to encourage our enemies to believe that what they're doing is working. They'll fight harder for it, and more soldiers will die than otherwise would have. If you don't believe that they'll react that way, then you and I don't live in the same reality. The entire point of the insurgency in Iraq is the hope that they can break America's resolve! Rest assured that our enemies are watching that closely, too.
He made accusations he can not back up, and that are, frankly, lies. It simply is NOT Bush's fault that what happened at Abu Ghraib happened, but Gore plays to the worst instincts of his political base in saying that it does, for selfish reasons. Furthermore, it's not his business to be publically second-guessing the sitting President on matters involving treaties, international relations, or anything else. If Bush contravenes the Geneva Conventions, Gore has no business speaking for anybody but Al Gore in criticizing the decision, and he has an obligation to choose his words and venues carefully when he does, always keeping in mind that our enemies are watching and listening.
Now, I suspect the real underlying purpose of Gore's speech is very simple. It's politics. Kerry knows he has a real chance of winning, and if he wins, his policies are going to be very, very close to the policies of George Bush, because he won't have any other practical options. But he also knows that if he says that out loud, his base will fracture, and the hard-core liberals and anti-Bush types in the Democratic Party will recoil. OTOH, if he throws out too much red meat, he'll find himself alienating traditionalists in the Democratic Party, and leave himself hamstrung after the inauguration when he has to actually govern, facing all the same range of bad alternatives Bush currently faces.
So he carefully says little, while sending out Gore, Pelosi, and Kennedy with containers of red meat. That way, he hopes to hold both the rabid anti-Bush core of his base, without alienating the more traditional Democrats he'll need to pull in the swing states.
That may be smart strategy politically, but to use it under these circumstances shows a reckless indifference to the consequences of it for our military personnel and our long-term national interest. The whole world is watching this election, including our enemies in al Queda, Iraq, North Korea, China, Russia, Arabia, etc. Not all of those governments are our enemies as governments, but we have enemies within every one of them. Gore needs to always consider, before he speaks, not just the impact of his words on our election, but how they'll play around the world.
Brian, you would do yourself a favor to speak of what you know, and keep silent about the rest.
Bush is not really as far down as you think he is, the current numbers mean no more than the 90% approval did a year and a half ago. The country was divided 50/50 then, and now. That's why Kerry isn't gaining any ground even as Bush's approval numbers fall.
Furthermore, if you go back and look at my posts at the height of Bush's popularity, you'll note that I said at that time that as the election approached, the polarization would reappear and the poll numbers would start gyrating.
Now, here is a dose of reality for you: if the election were held tomorrow, it would be too close to call. It'll probably be very close in November. Neither the polls 18 months ago nor the polls now matter in regard to that, because the fundamental divide has not changed.
No, you haven't, Kiff, not if you agree with what Brian said.
So?i'll give you points for short and sweet, but i have to take those same points away, because i still have no f*cking idea what you're on about.
Bush gains little or nothing from waging war. Sorry, but that's just the facts of the matter. If they can oust him, they can spin it as having sent a message, "The West is scared of us!"No way. The terrorists want Bush because he divides us from what could be more helpful allies, is a great poster boy for remorselessly killing Americans, and, like the terrorists, profits by waging more war.The terrorists want Kerry, or any President who will turn American decison-making power over to an international forum. They have nothing whatever to gain by Bush winning.If Bush wins a big victory in November, the real losers will be the American public. The real victors will be the energy lobby and the terrorists.
Bush, who was a lame duck president from January to September 2001, has nothing else to run on than appearing strong in the face of terror. He needs war to remain in office. The terrorists obviously love this. Both are driven by fantasies of imminent catastrophe and holy war.
If the terrorists use terror prior to the election, it will be used to keep Bush in office, a sort of Madrid logic, except backwards.
As for our allies, they don't see how it's in their self-interest to help us, and electing Kerry won't change that. I'm sorry, but the end of the former alliance system is just something you're going have to deal with.
HC, do you honestly believe the GOP would not be pulling the same shit if the roles were reversed? if so, you've got too much hopeful and not enough cynic.
(oh f*ck, i'm starting to sound like marc. well, at least what i said makes sense.)
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
so buttons.So?
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Re: in case your media didn't cover it
Using Gore's name as the point of address was meant to be slightly humorous. It didn't work well, because the matter is so dry.
No, they don't. Reality has no connection to how many or how few believe it, it's external. Gore, in a more elaborate form, basically repeated the talking points of the DNC and Moveon.org.My chief criticism of this poster is his (I assume it is a male) reliance on certain "realities" to support his arguments. He throws plenty of blame around for alternate realities, to Democrats, and liberals, and The New York Times but doesn't accept that if enough people believe them, then they must constutute some sort of reality.
No, reality by definition is fixed. All that is or can be in flux is perception.
But we must admit that reality is, like all things, a concept in flux.
Now, as for line-by-line responses, I don't particularly enjoy doing them. But that's the only way to analyze something like that. Marc could have done the breakdown, if he wanted, but he'd have lost his temper along the way, so it's better I did it.
Now, if you expect me to pretend that what Al Gore is doing is patriotic, sorry, I won't. It's an exercise in partisan politics, calculated with the goal of winning the November election. It's target is the hard-core of the Democratic Party, it's tactic is to wrap the basic talking points in a more solid-sounding terminology, and to skim over the contradictions and falsehoods. The reason Kerry doesn't say that himself it that he knows it would undercut him to do it personally.
Well, Gore is good at it (assuming he wrote it). If he'd shown that level of communication skill and dissembling 4 years ago, he might well have won the election. But it's still just a political statement, and when you break it down it suddenly looks just like a press release from Moveon.org, which is all it really amounts to.
But I won't apologize for pointing out that it is what it is.
If Woodward is not as partisan against the president that means you believe he is still partisan against the president. If so, why does his book appear on the recommended reading list of the official George W Bush re-election site?
Re: in case your media didn't cover it
i agree with you 100% on this quote. but i don't define such things as approaching treason.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Depends on what you mean. In the past, the GOP had the chance to do just that in comparable situations, and passed it up. But then again, so did the Democrats in previous comparable situations. This is something new, or at least new in modern times, it might reflect the last 3T. Certainly as bad or worse was done in the 19th century.
Would the GOP, dominated by Boomers, do the same now? I'm afraid they might, and I would be just as angry about it if they did. But I'm not absolutely sure they would, or for that matter that rest of the Democrats would.
I'm perceiving something going on with the leadership of the party that goes beyond usual politics. It seems to involve Kennedy, Pelosi, and Gore especially, for some reason.
Partly, it's just standard political tactics, the nominee-presumptive takes the high road while his surrogates dish out the red meat. But this seems to run deeper for a few Democrats. It includes Daschle and a handful of others, too, but doesn't seem to have infected the rest of the Democrats, who are remaining fairly quiet, and speaking sanely when they do comment.
They seem to be so furious at being out of power, or so lost, that they just can't restrain their fury. They don't even pause to take aim before they fire, or didn't until recently, and ended up hurting their own side more than their opponents as a result. Now that they have a candidate, they're more disciplined, but the fury is showing through. It doesn't seem to be a fury about anything the GOP or Bush have actually done, so much as a fury that they themselves aren't in power. Kerry has harnassed that fury, but it predates Iraq, the election, and even 911.
Re: in case your media didn't cover it
I don't either, I was quoting Sam Johnson (R Texas) a war veteran congressman and former prisoner of war in Vietnam who called it borderline traitorous. That's a shade further than I would go, but it is out of line. Way out of line.i agree with you 100% on this quote. but i don't define such things as approaching treason.
TK
Comments of Sam Johnson
The source is a right-wing media outlet, but the 'regular' media tend to ignore veteran comments in Congress that don't come from McCain.
What set me off was calling the speech 'patriotic'. I probably overreacted slightly to that, but it's like calling what Jane Fonda did 'patriotic', only on a smaller scale. My annoyance is based on the fact that Gore does know better.
Actually, I consider Woodward to be partisan in favor of Democrats, I don't have a strong opinion on his views of Bush. But note that I said above 'books that match their views, or can be spun that way'. Many people commented on the differences between what was in Woodward's book, and the way it was handled in the publicity interviews.If Woodward is not as partisan against the president that means you believe he is still partisan against the president. If so, why does his book appear on the recommended reading list of the official George W Bush re-election site?
As for why it's on the recommended list, ask them, not me. :lol:
Re: in case your media didn't cover it
I should probably add something about why I sometimes use the 'point by point' technique, long and dull as it can be.
This is a good point. The longer that some of these posts get, the more I think that people are really trying to convince themselves of something, not others.
Now before you go off swearing and foaming at the mouth, Marc, keep in mind that I'm talking about "liberals" too.
The statement Gore made was very well-crafted, in such a way that it's hard to critique it without going through it point by boring point. At core, it's a list of Moveon.org standard talking points. But it's carefully crafted to look like a thoughtful, general speech on political matters. It's superficially aimed at a general audience, but in fact it's going to make sense primarily to people who already share the background assumptions its based on, meaning the liberal base.
In that respect, it's not much different than a long dissertation from Rush Limbaugh.
It refers back to itself, and to the common assumptions its grounded in, in many different places. Short of simply going through it, point by dry point, there's not much way to react to it. As for how long it is, it's a long speech, for all that the actual talking-point list its based on is quite brief.
The Swine in the Snake
(gulp)
Was our T4T server (Apache x.yz) getting ready to digest Mr. Gore's vision and the response to it when it took its small vacation? Did the Father of the Internet inform his spawn that this little morsel was on its way?
Can we be thankful that Mr. Clinton or Mr. Castro did not invent the WWW? Mr. Cynic's bleeding and blistered finger tips would be too much to imagine.
:shock: :shock: :shock:
nyt
Why the hell are you still reading us.
Bad language, so be advised.
you would be? see, i just don't get angry about this stuff. part and parcel, etc., whether its left or right.
turn away from the dark side, luke....
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Re: in case your media didn't cover it
ok, but you said:I don't either, I was quoting Sam Johnson (R Texas) a war veteran congressman and former prisoner of war in Vietnam who called it borderline traitorous. That's a shade further than I would go, but it is out of line.
which would normally mean that you would characterize it that way as well.As one highly decorated vetaran in Congress said, it bordered on traitorous.
in any case, there's less disagreement here (between you and me) than it appeared.
TK
I was walking down the street with my friend and he said "I hear music." As if there's any other way to take it in. I told him "you're not special.... that is the way I receive it, too". -- mitch hedberg, 1968-2005
Oh, this must have been good!
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."
-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater
This must have been good too!
"What went unforeseen, however, was that the elephant would at some point in the last years of the 20th century be possessed, in both body and spirit, by a coincident fusion of mutant ex-Liberals and holy-rolling Theocrats masquerading as conservatives in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan: Death by transmogrification, beginning with The Invasion of the Party Snatchers."
-- Victor Gold, Aide to Barry Goldwater
I don't have to ask them. I read the book, it's obvious to me why its on the list. It reflects very favorably upon the president, more so than probably any other book on that list. Karl Rove couldn't write a more favorable treatment of his boss, and you say Woodward leans Democratic? Have you read the book?
