« Something's going on... | Main | Sleeping dragons. »

April 28, 2004

Comments

OK, what hasn't worked so far? Calling Bush dumb, calling him stubborn, noting his aristocratic upbringing, questioning his veracity, working the 'special interest' angle, etc...

Another approach may be to question his ability to make well thought out decisions. In my understanding, there is a sharp contrast between the decision making styles of Kerry and Bush.

Kerry is known to ruminate over issues, consult multiple sides, play devil's advocate when making a decision. To his benefit or detriment, he learns the intricacies of issues.

Bush often seems to go with a gut reaction or on the basis of 'conviction'. He is said to be incurious, unwilling to see an problem from multiple viewpoints. His staff analyzes the complex issues and advises him.

IMHO, Kerry could highlight this difference (which I believe reflects favorably on him) by beginning talks about who his advisors will be. Namely, start announcing his Cabinet appointees.

Most people who don't 'do politics' have a vague impression of Rummy, Condy, Colin, and Dick. The only lasting good impression for undecided moderates from both parties would be Powell (who is rumored to be leaving).

Kerry needs to get his team, and fast. You get a veep candidate who can speak well and true, a Secretary of State or Defense candidate who's worth his salt, they may lend more weight to the attack.

In a nutshell, Bush trusts his close advisors to make complex decisions (with seemingly partial information). Kerry should name his advisors and highlight how they will be better.

you need a positive message as well as a negative one to win elections.

Heh. So true.

I'd say it was a shame Bush hasn't got one...

...actually, I do think it's a shame that three and a half years after his appointment, Bush can't come up with a single positive message about his administration. Those that can, do: those that can't... need to lie a lot.

I'm kind of intrigued by the fact that Bush's election team is trying to bring up Kerry's military service again, and thus of course bringing up Bush's... "service" defending Texas, at least until he grounded himself and decided not to bother any more, a couple of years before discharge. Any comparison between Kerry and Bush between 1966 and 1973 can hardly fail to make Bush come off the worse. Is there a VRWC memo explaining this tactic?

I'm aware that Bushworshippers have succeeded in telling themselves that Kerry's service was nothing much and in any case his anti-war stance after he came back overshadows the fact that he went to war. But, except for the most ardent, the facts sit there: Kerry went into harm's way, though he didn't support the war: Bush took good care not to be sent into harm's way, though he claims he did support the war. Kerry hasn't attempted to hide any part of his military service or his anti-war protests: Bush has... not been exactly forthright, given the extremely large questions hanging over his service between April 1971 and October 1973. ("Flew with my unit for the next few years", as he claims, is a lie: he was never actually convicted of going AWOL: "deserter" is a michaelmoorism: and Bush seems determined that his exact status shall not be pinned down by a full release of his files.)

Well, I wonder if the Bush campaign strategy is just to periodically knock the Kerry campaign off-message, thereby hoping that they will never succesfully develop one. They're okay taking the hit on the national guard service if they can prevent a positive narrative emerging about Kerry, either biographical or thematic.

I was thinking about this earlier ... Kerry hasn't really articulated his conception of the world.

We know Bush's: it's a dangerous place filled with terrorists who are all working together because they hate our freedoms.

Clinton's was: globalization is totally awesome, dude.

But Kerry's? Not sure.

Jack O'Toole says,

What, thematically speaking, is wrong with this President Bush? I really couldn't tell you.

I can. He's a fraud.

He's not the Marlboro man. He's not a figher pilot war hero. He's not a compassionate conservative (hell, he's not even a fiscal conservative). He's not a friend of the environment. He's not a friend to his coalition allies. I sincerely doubt he's actually calling any of the shots, as he's not even able to face the 9/11 commission on his own or take questions at a press conference without bumbling all over himself.

When handed a speech, he (his team) will spin as far as he can, way past "the whole truth and nothing but the truth," up to the edge of what's barely "technically true," letting the public assume what he wants them to believe without actually saying it, falling back on semantics when caught out, falling back on technicalities when his real objective is revealed, disguising horrendous policies in Orwellian terms, shrouding his administration in absurd secrecy, favoring politics over science...business over workers...warfare over diplomacy, and pandering to his base with the most revolting regularity and disgusting disregard for the people or the constitution.

Did I mention he's a fraud?

He's not the Marlboro man.

Not sure where the hell that one came from; he's never ever been portrayed that way.

He's not a figher pilot war hero.

See the above.

He's not a compassionate conservative.

Ok, I think you have a decent point there. He's definitely not a conservative.

When handed a speech, he (his team) will spin as far as he can, way past...

Sorry, have to stop here. I don't review speculative fiction.

Saw this on TPM the other day, summarizing an article on TNR that I couldn't view, 'cause I'm a cheap bastard:

The conventional rule of campaigning is that you don't let your opponent define you before you get a chance to define yourself.

Yet, as Ryan [Lizza] describes it, the Kerry plan is to do something very near the opposite. The plan is to take these punches from the Bush campaign and let Bush burn through a lot of his money. Hopefully, in the view of the Kerry campaign, Kerry comes through that without having suffered too much damage.

He calls it the Rope-a-dope strategy.

Speculative fiction?

Clarify please.

"Marlboro man" is a fair description of a blueblooded yankee who dashes out to his ranch to cut down a tree for the cameras.

"Figher pilot war hero"...are you kidding me?

"Marlboro man" is a fair description of a blueblooded yankee who dashes out to his ranch to cut down a tree for the cameras.

Yes, but it's your description. Is it your point that Bush is actually a tweedy, bookish academic?

"Figher pilot war hero"...are you kidding me?

What? A picture of an action figure is your response? Well, I didn't expect much more substantial, I guess. I hope whatever's got you bent out of shape this week wasn't too horrible, Edward.

I hope whatever's got you bent out of shape this week wasn't too horrible, Edward.

Assuming that's sincere, other than this vigourous attempt to find a theme to defeat Bush, what are you talking about?

"He's not the Marlboro man."

"Not sure where the hell that one came from; he's never ever been portrayed that way."

I assume Edward is referring to the fact that George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut, went to prep school in Andover, Massachusetts, then college back in New Haven, at Yale, and after being elected Governor of Texas, bought a ranch near Crawford, Texas, and his folks work hard to give the impression that said ranch is some sort of long-term dwelling that defines him.

I'm going to avoid going into the politics of identity and what's fair or unfair. But I believe that Edward's charge is based upon the above facts.

Edward was referring to this sort of thing.

Gary's spot on. That's the critique...it's just that all that would consume all 30 seconds of an ad..."not the Marlboro Man" is a bit more succinct...if somewhat inflammatory...I thought we were discussing politics here.

And so, Gary, it's your position that he doesn't enjoy working on the ranch, and that it's all for show? The fact that Bush moved to Texas from Connecticut when he was two years old doesn't do a thing to erase the patrician stench of Connecticut birth from our President?

As you said yesterday: Mind-reading. Five yard penalty. Only I'm thinking it's personal foul mind-reading this time.

We're losing sight to the issue at hand here. My point is you're not really getting what you think you are when you vote for Bush.

"Figher pilot war hero"...are you kidding me?

You're right, Slarti: this would have been a much better response. Bush could have flown in to the Abraham Lincoln in a helicopter, wearing a suit and tie: instead the big jet entrance, Bush photographed wearing a flight suit. Just because that campaign publicity shot backfired, thanks to the "Mission Accomplished" banner (which Karl Rove must be kicking himself about) doesn't mean that Bush was, evidently, being portrayed as a "pilot war hero" - so don't try to claim it never ever happened.

Ah. I see, Gary, that you were mind-reading Edward more than George. Last bit retracted, or reduced to incidental foul.

My point is you're not really getting what you think you are when you vote for Bush.

Ok, now I'm confused. Did you once think Bush was the Marlboro Man, and now know better? Did you once think that Bush flew fighter jets in Vietnam, and now know better?

Slarti, are you saying that Bush images of "Marlboro Man" and "pilot war hero" are okay to use in political campaigning because everyone knows they're lies?

Bush could have flown in to the Abraham Lincoln in a helicopter, wearing a suit and tie

Instead, Bush, a former pilot, took the opportunity to see a bit of what it's like to make a carrier landing.

See? I can make things up, too, and even more convincingly.

Ok, now I'm confused. Did you once think Bush was the Marlboro Man, and now know better? Did you once think that Bush flew fighter jets in Vietnam, and now know better?

Jes gave a much better response to this than my planned one, but it doesn't matter what I think...I'm voting for Kerry...it's the undecideds we're strategizing to convince. Those folks who may still believe the PR the Prez is pumping out there...those who believe he's a rugged rancher, but may not know he's a product of East Coast elitism...those who believe he actually flew that plane to the aircraft carrier and who may buy their children that ridiculous doll...those who believe he's "compassionate" or "conservative"....those who are buying all that

Bush, a former pilot, took the opportunity to see a bit of what it's like to make a carrier landing.

Because, let's face it, the military is just there for George's amusement.

Slarti, are you saying that Bush images of "Marlboro Man" and "pilot war hero" are okay to use in political campaigning because everyone knows they're lies?

No, I'm saying that the admission that you believed things like that were true says things about your credibility that, if it were me, I'd hesitate to reveal.

Now, if you can show me where Bush actually claimed to be the Marlboro Man or a war hero, then we can discuss that.

Instead, Bush, a former pilot, took the opportunity to see a bit of what it's like to make a carrier landing.

So your take on it is that Bush figured the taxpayers owed him a highly expensive jaunt out to a carrier so that he could "see a bit of what it's like". I guess that would fit Bush: 32 years earlier, he'd figured that the taxpayers, having wasted a great deal of money on training him to be a pilot, could swallow that expense: he didn't want to fly any more, even though he owed the USG two years more service. And he never did, despite lying claims in his autobiography. Yeah: Bush is still a wastrel.

Jesur - how is the pic you privided any different than what Gary did?

Edward - metaphorical, cultural shorthand will get you nowhere around here. Too many opportunities for willful miscomprehension. I will say that I looked in on Ogged and Jack O'toole but thought your "fraud" take to be the best. Yes, Bush is stupid, but everybody knows that. Sure, he's stubborn, but it's unclear why that is a bad thing. He lies, but all politicians do that. He lies all the time, therefore he's a great politician? But he's a fraud! Hey, we been sold a bill of goods!

So your take on it is that Bush figured the taxpayers owed him a highly expensive jaunt out to a carrier so that he could "see a bit of what it's like".

Personal foul mind-reading. Fifteen yards.

Now, is it your position that a helicopter ride would have been much less expensive? I'm going to have to require a cite for that. Or, is it your position that Presidents should never visit the troops when they're at sea?

AND, we're back into the territory of my first critique...It's the same as arguing that Bush didn't mean to imply that Hussein was responsible for 9/11...only knowing that he did.

Repeated personal foul mindreading. And you're ejected from the game.

Edward, do you actually believe what you write? Or are you just hoping someone else will?

Now, if you can show me where Bush actually claimed to be the Marlboro Man or a war hero, then we can discuss that.

AND, we're back into the territory of my first critique...It's the same as arguing that Bush didn't mean to imply that Hussein was responsible for 9/11...only knowing that he did.

I wear a cowboy costume and have my photo taken carrying a tree...because, let's face it, I always carry my own trees, and the cameras were just there....but I'm not actually saying, I'm the Marlboro Man

....I'm just leaving that conclusion to the imagination of the voters entirely on purpose.

I will say that I looked in on Ogged and Jack O'toole but thought your "fraud" take to be the best.

It's what bugs me the most about him, but I suspect it may not be the best message because it's too negative.

Hey, we been sold a bill of goods!

Again and again and again...


Wow. I'm going to have to cut back on my typing speed, a bit. There's something decidedly noncausal (in appearance, but on second thought, that means it must be true) about having my reply to your post show up before your post.

"And so, Gary, it's your position that he doesn't enjoy working on the ranch, and that it's all for show?"

Nope.

I said: "I'm going to avoid going into the politics of identity and what's fair or unfair. But I believe that Edward's charge is based upon the above facts."

I didn't take a position.

Edward, do you actually believe what you write? Or are you just hoping someone else will?

Deflection penalty...banned for the season, Slarti.

Personal foul mind-reading. Fifteen yards.

Hardly mind-reading: I just restated what you said yourself.

Now, is it your position that a helicopter ride would have been much less expensive? I'm going to have to require a cite for that.

I'm going to need to do some research for that. My guess is that a helicopter ride would have been less expensive than a jet plane ride... but I don't actually know for sure. Still, figures, if available, would certainly be another strike against Bush.

Or, is it your position that Presidents should never visit the troops when they're at sea?

My position is that Presidents should not delay troops who have already been at sea for so long by even 24 hours - for so trivial an event as a photo-op.

Hardly mind-reading: I just restated what you said yourself.

Oh, I'd want to see where I said something that could honestly be morphed into:

So your take on it is that Bush figured the taxpayers owed him a highly expensive jaunt out to a carrier so that he could "see a bit of what it's like".

I think you have your work cut out for you.

I'm going to need to do some research for that. My guess is that a helicopter ride would have been less expensive than a jet plane ride... but I don't actually know for sure. Still, figures, if available, would certainly be another strike against Bush.

You'd be wrong.

My position is that Presidents should not delay troops who have already been at sea for so long by even 24 hours - for so trivial an event as a photo-op.

And here I thought it was all about the money. Or the press coverage. Or something. But if you can prove that there was any delay at all, please let me know.

Now, a whole lot of untruths out of you, Jesurgislac, and you're taking Bush to task for lying? And expecting anyone to take you seriously?

"Now, if you can show me where Bush actually claimed to be the Marlboro Man or a war hero, then we can discuss that."

Slarti, would you say there's no such thing as "image-making" in politics? That Presidential campaigns (and lesser campaigns, as well) don't use imagery to sell a candidate? That it isn't one of the most basic points of professional campaigning since at least the days of Michael Deaver and Ronald Reagan that it doesn't matter very much what a candidate says compared to the backdrop seen on tv?

When Dukakis was filmed in that tank, was he actually claiming to be a tanker? Or was he (drastically unsuccessfully) trying to sell an image that he wasn't weak on defense, and was instead strong on the military?

Was criticism of that failed image unfair, because Dukakis never said "hey, I was in the tank corp, you know!"?

Are you saying that discussion of imagery used in campaigns is out of bounds, and only statements are legitimate topics of discussion and criticism?

I didn't take a position.

Already noted, Gary, but consider me duly chastised.

I'd suggest that bogging down into accusations that the President dared to take the controls for his own pleasure is a pointless and useless charge.

I'd also suggest that arguing the trivia of whether a chopper or an Orion is more expensive is idiotic. Who gives a fuck?

This is on the level of asserting that Bush held up a plastic turkey. Assuming it were true, that's surely an impeachable offense.

It's the same sort of thing as going on about how Clinton once smoked dope, or that the folks in his White House wore jeans to work, or that Clinton got a haircut on the tarmac.

It's the sort of thing that makes the Incumbent-haters boil, and makes everyone else notice that they're acting insane, and please keep that spittle away, thank you very much.

Over here: less-than-trivia.
Over here: serious charges worth making.

Learn the difference, or lose.

Slarti said: 'Instead, Bush, a former pilot, took the opportunity to see a bit of what it's like to make a carrier landing.'

which I restated as: 'Bush figured the taxpayers owed him a highly expensive jaunt out to a carrier so that he could "see a bit of what it's like".'

Please explain to me the difference between your statement and mine? (If you can prove that there was no difference in cost between flying out in a helicopter and flying out in a jet plane, I retract the "highly expensive" crack.)

And here I thought it was all about the money. Or the press coverage. Or something. But if you can prove that there was any delay at all, please let me know.

"Pentagon officials said yesterday that an aircraft carrier waited within sight of San Diego last week while President Bush slept aboard, instead of heading straight to port after 10 months at sea." cite

Now, a whole lot of untruths out of you, Jesurgislac, and you're taking Bush to task for lying? And expecting anyone to take you seriously?

If you're claiming I'm telling "a whole lot of untruths", Slarti, shouldn't you cite and prove them? Rather than just making random claims that what I'm saying isn't so?

Slarti said: 'Instead, Bush, a former pilot, took the opportunity to see a bit of what it's like to make a carrier landing.'

which I restated as: 'Bush figured the taxpayers owed him a highly expensive jaunt out to a carrier so that he could "see a bit of what it's like".'

Please explain to me the difference between your statement and mine? (If you can prove that there was no difference in cost between flying out in a helicopter and flying out in a jet plane, I retract the "highly expensive" crack.)

And here I thought it was all about the money. Or the press coverage. Or something. But if you can prove that there was any delay at all, please let me know.

"Pentagon officials said yesterday that an aircraft carrier waited within sight of San Diego last week while President Bush slept aboard, instead of heading straight to port after 10 months at sea." cite

Now, a whole lot of untruths out of you, Jesurgislac, and you're taking Bush to task for lying? And expecting anyone to take you seriously?

If you're claiming I'm telling "a whole lot of untruths", Slarti, shouldn't you cite and prove them? Rather than just making random claims that what I'm saying isn't so?

Are you saying that discussion of imagery used in campaigns is out of bounds, and only statements are legitimate topics of discussion and criticism?

Of course, none of those things. I'm just waiting for something resembling a substantive argument, here. Or is it the case that Dukakis appearing in a helmet at the helm of a tank caused Edward to erupt back then, too?

Damn. I apologize for the double post.

Looks like the action moved here from Unfogged. Re-comment w/ updates:

The Negative Theme: "Bush has made a mess of everything, and someone has to come clean it up."

This works across the board -- the half-trillion deficit, the mess in Iraq, the environment, etc. The whole "Bush is a liar/fraud/stupd" just doesn't stick because many people like Bush on a personal level. Very hard to change their minds. But "Bush made a mess of everything" attacks Bush's results without making people change their minds about his personality.

The Positive Theme: "One America"

A riff on Edward's "Two Americas" theme -- it's a positive message that all Americans are in this together, all of us should be treated equally, and Kerry will fight for better lives for all Americans.

If you're claiming I'm telling "a whole lot of untruths", Slarti, shouldn't you cite and prove them? Rather than just making random claims that what I'm saying isn't so?

Exactly my point. But thanks for restating it.

Exactly my point. But thanks for restating it.

Bush's lies have been quite thoroughly documented, reported nationally and internationally, and discussed extensively on this and other blogs. I don't feel the need to repeat all of that evidence every time I mention that Bush lies.

However, you are claiming (apparently at random) that I've told "untruths", and using this as a reason why no one should take my point (well-documented) that Bush lies seriously. Either cite your evidence, or take it back.

Actually, Slarti, reading through this thread I can't see any reason why anyone should take you seriously: so forget it. :-)

(I stole your line about mindreading, btw: thanks.)

"The Positive Theme: 'One America'"

Won't work because it flies in the faces of people's emotions. If we're "one America," how could there are all those assholes Over There on the Other Side?

Being in favor of the Tooth Fairy will work equally well. There's such a thing as being too optimistic.

"(I stole your line about mindreading, btw: thanks.)"

I should have used a ©. Better, ®, and make.money.fast.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that Bush wanted to fly to the Lincoln on a jet because it would be fun? The man lives a highly structured life, with his days planned out almost to the minute. Maybe he just wanted to enjoy himself a little bit.

As an added bonus, it seems that the sailors and airmen aboard thought that it was pretty cool, too.

I now understand what you lefties were complaining about in the 90s with Whitewater, Vince Foster, and whatnot. You are talking about a flight on a jet plane and a f^&*ing Thanksgiving centre-piece. Give it up.

Bush's lies have been quite thoroughly documented...

Are you bucking to be an example in point over at nizkor.org?

Oh, but it looks like by your highly convenient rules of debate, I have to show you how you're a serial liar, instead of you supporting your own points. Ok, then.

It took me about ten seconds to find this:

And at the Pentagon, several Navy officials said there was no delay or cost overrun due to Bush's trip to the carrier. The costs were roughly equal -- about $5,000 an hour, Navy officials said.

Want more specifics? Dang, another 30 seconds at Google:

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said the price difference between a jet and helicopter landing on the carrier is $7. Landing the presidential helicopter on the carrier would cost about $6,552 per hour, he said, compared with the $6,559-per-hour of landing the S-3B Viking jet.

But what about the delay? Another few seconds Googling found me:

Thursday, Fleischer did not deny a report that the carrier moved in "lazy circles" some 30 miles off the California coast while Bush spoke and slept on the vessel, but said it was in keeping with Navy protocol.

Navy officials said carrier arrival dates are firmly set and are rarely changed because of logistics and the hardship it puts on families who fly to the port of arrival from all over the country to greet loved ones.

Of course, there was a lot of absurd rantings from commondreams and the like to wade through, or I would've been able to find those with a bit less effort. And, for doing your research for you: you're welcome.

Oh, and if you're all concerned about the seven dollars, I'll personally refund to you your share of it.

Oh, that Ari Fleischer. So, so, trustworthy.

And those Navy officials. So, so much liars and thieves.

Seriously, if you've got anything resembling a factual counter to this, please do make it. It'd be a refreshing change.

Poor Slarti, the lone conservative waging this one all by himself. Admirably, I'll admit, but still...

Gary: I should have used a ©. Better, ®, and make.money.fast.

You definitely should!

It's a great line, and I'd pay money for it. Set up a © with a little Paypal link to click on...

Edward: Poor Slarti, the lone conservative waging this one all by himself. Admirably, I'll admit, but still...

Well, so long as he's having fun.

Not anymore. Let me know when you've got something of substance, and maybe I'll have something else to say. Until then, have fun with the rotten fruit.

I don't have a dog in this fight. But I do question the value of Ari Fleischer as a source for anything, really. He's the most amazing liar I've ever witnessed.

Let me know when you've got something of substance

Perhaps you missed the point of the post, Slarti...it centers around finding a strategy to defeat Bush in the election...it's pure politics...what's substance got to do with it?

Substantively, Kerry's not the flip flopper Bush is painting him as, not comparatively, and not actually, but I don't see you researching the finer details on that...

Not anymore.

Sorry to hear that. No, really.

Let me know when you've got something of substance, and maybe I'll have something else to say.

We're arguing about Bush's image v. Kerry's image, Slarti: what has "substance" to do with it?

Ah, so I can dismiss this entire line of "reasoning" by declaring you all full of crap. Consider it done.

After all, this is all about politics, neh? Nothing personal.

Hmmm....so the criticisms of Bush were taken personally then? Sorry about that...thought the parameters were set such that it was understood to be brainstorming on defining Bush so that he'd lose the election....nothing personal meant by it.

My point is you're not really getting what you think you are when you vote for Bush.

I think I'm getting a better economy. And I have, its allowed me to prosper this year and last and through my prospering allowed our small software company to nearly double its workforce to 70, through purchase and straight out hiring to meet customer demand. All attributable to The President? Surely not, but he, like President Clinton, gets the glory when things are going well.

I think I'm getting a guy who believes that threats to the house should be taken care of before they get into the house, or even the yard, no matter how poorly the aftermath is going (I wish Col was in Baghdad at the CPA, not Casablanca).

And, I think I'm getting a guy who seems to come down on one side of an issue, even if its the side I don't prefer. I'm not convinced Senator Kerry wouldn't change his position, in my view, after getting into office and yet convince himself he hadn't.

And yeah, The President gets to do cool things. Land on an aircraft carrier if he has the skills. Throw out the first pitch at a ballgame and start the Daytona 500 too. It's payback for the stress of the job he's in if you ask me. R or D, its OK with me.

Ok, well if you guys aren't serious...

then this isn't off-topic.

No, I didn't take it personally, Edward. I'm just rather averse to...well, I guess it's best to not say.

if it's not fun...what's the point? If someone stepped over the line, well, there are posting rules to tend to that...

That ebay bit is hilarious...btw...

I think I'm getting a better economy.

You're getting the biggest deficit in US history, with enormous tax cuts for unearned income.

I think I'm getting a guy who believes that threats to the house should be taken care of before they get into the house,

You're getting a guy who ignores threats to the house until they knock the house down, then ignores the people responsible for the damage and attacks people who are no threat to the house.

I'm getting a guy who seems to come down on one side of an issue, even if its the side I don't prefer.

You're getting a guy who flip-flops on every issue but massive tax cuts for the very wealthy, and doesn't appear to have any principles except "winning the next election".

Land on an aircraft carrier if he has the skills.

...*speechless*...

hey, Slarti! Look! The thing you said never happened...

By the way, Slarti, if you took any of my comments about Bush personally, or if any of them appeared to be aimed at you personally, then I apologize. Some of Bush's defenders I feel deserve him as a President: you (and others) I tend to feel deserve a better President to be the object of your gallant, if futile, defense. Pity you're stuck with Bush. Better luck in 2008.

"It's a great line, and I'd pay money for it. "

At risk of being inappropriate, which is not my intent, there's a PayPal button at the top of my blog,">http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com">blog, and I could really, really, really use some donations right now, not having had any in weeks, and being down to two figures for food money, and little idea how I'm going to pay May rent, and I'll shut up now.

The thing you said never happened...

Which thing?

you (and others) I tend to feel deserve a better President

Thanks. I think so, too.

Pity you're stuck with Bush.

Yeah, I feel that way sometimes too. Believe it or not. But...

Better luck in 2008.

I think the "better luck" part is ensured by the two-term limit. If you're thinking Kerry's a shoo-in, remember that in that event Bush could run again.

Again, Jes, we each have our opinions. I'm not as absolutely sure of The President's badness and Senator Kerry's goodness as you are, but what I am sure of is that the people for whom my work was directly responsible for their hiring into good jobs are better off today than they were when they were laid off at the end of the last administration. The economy under the current administration has made that possible.

Whoa, there, Judson.

Slartibartfast, you are an ass.

Judson,

Not at all sure where that came from, but please read the posting rules before posting again...

oops, see asdf beat me to it.

oops, see asdf beat me to it.

According to MT, asdf even beat Judson to it.

asdf: "Pointing commenters to the posting rules BEFORE they break them."

Minority Report technology in action...

(Odd quirk of MT that it uses the timestamp from the client and not the server.)

What most disturbs me about Bush is:
1) dishonesty, secrecy, and utter lack of transparency to the public.
2) perception of his own infallibility--this administration will say, and convince themselves of, crazy and damaging things before they will admit an error.
3) complete subordination of policy to politics.
4) incompetence, but I think that's not because Bush is stupid--I don't think he is, especially, and his advisors certainly aren't--but because of a combination of 2 and 3.

(Yes, I realize this would be the least effective attack ad ever. But that moment from the press conference, when he couldn't name a single foreign policy mistake...that tells you more about what's wrong with 43 than not knowing what a supermarket scanner was ever told you about 41. We ought to be able to use that, somehow. But I lack the spin skills--I'm better at doing positive message than negative, and not very good at either.)

Was Judson's mistake calling someone an ass?

I'm just checking for clarity...


OdysseusInRTP:
Don't be an ass.
Check upthread -- I didn't make any claims.

You asked a question, and I answered out of the goodness of my heart. As far as I know, it's completely accurate.

Posted by: asdf | April 24, 2004 05:43 PM

Was Judson's mistake calling someone an ass?

Not at all...it's coming into a discussion, without having been part of it, and offering that assessment with no other point to make or rationale for it...it violates "Don't disrupt or destroy meaningful conversation for its own sake."

Not that this thread is so meaningful, but to simply pop in and call someone a name (with no basis noted) is disruptive for its own sake.

Thanks...

Very different situation.

I was saying not to be an ass.

Who wants anyone to be an ass?

Not me.

I think the "better luck" part is ensured by the two-term limit. If you're thinking Kerry's a shoo-in, remember that in that event Bush could run again.

It occurred to me after I pressed post that "better luck in 2008" was ambiguous, if you chose to take it that way.

I think Bush is going to lose in November. An incumbent President runs on his record, and Bush's record is appalling. I hope that President Kerry will have a more challenging opponent in 2008, because (hopefully) that will mean the Republican Party has picked itself up, quit blaming the Democrats for everything, and found itself a decent candidate who can actually stand up and make a speech.

I can't imagine - truly - why the Republicans, having got rid of George W. Bush, would ever pick him again. But, Proverbs 26:11.

criona: but what I am sure of is that the people for whom my work was directly responsible for their hiring into good jobs are better off today than they were when they were laid off at the end of the last administration

This may well be so for you. But in general, statistics say that far more people have been laid off during the recession that began in Bush's administration than in the boom that began and continued through Clinton's administration. Largest surplus in US history became largest deficit in US history with the highest unemployment rate since 1993. So you and the circle of people you know may be better off under Bush: but the country in general is worse off.

I am so tempted to quote one of Wonkette's funniest posts ever, which concluded with the line: "Ass-fucking! Ass-fucking! Ass-fucking!"

But that would be vulgar, and wrong.

Moe is going to be so mad at us.

Slartibartfast, you are an ass.

Usually that goes without saying. But thanks for noticing.

Hey, is it a rules violation if I quote someone else who's violated the rules? Will this make Moe even more...urinated?

(See what I did, Edward?)

(Odd quirk of MT that it uses the timestamp from the client and not the server.)

The client being my workstation time? Can I set my clock back, write up a comment that incorporates all the best arguments from the comments that have appeared so far for a given topic, post it, and thus appear to have made all the cogent points right off the bat?

Might be fun to have an open mindreading thread, where we make sure that all the responses to comments appear earlier than the originals.

No, Ken.

That won't work.

"Moe is going to be so mad at us."

Nope, too bemused. It was such a innocuous little post, really it was; no reason to think that it'd spark 82 comments...

:)

"It was such a innocuous little post, really it was; no reason to think that it'd spark 82 comments..."

It was ever thus. It's one of Farber's Rules of Blogging: you pour your heart out on a lengthy, brilliant, post, filled with carefully researched rare links, and it took you hours, maybe days, to put together; it has brilliant, unique insights, and prose to make wise folk weep.

And it gets zilch comments and no links.

Then you toss off some quipy thing that takes ten seconds, and it's linked to by everyone in creation, and inspires a comment thread that is still running years later.

The rule?

"Sometimes blogging response is inverse to blogging effort."

No, Ken.

That won't work.

Rats.

Ken, I was taking a gamble there -- I set my clock to before your post, in which case mine would be brialliantly ironic.

But since it didn't actually work, my comment was simply correct.

Funny, I was doing the same thing with my "Rats" comment. If it did work, it would have amusingly appeared right before your assertion that it wouldn't work.

So what time is MT using, then?

Why, it's Howdy-Dowdy Time!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad