My Photo

« Let's You And Him Fight | Main | Southern Strategy 2.0 »

August 10, 2010


Someone on these forums (maybe you, Eric) said something very smart about war and diplomacy. The majority of U.S. politicians get fed up with diplomacy in the time it takes to make coffee; war, however, is a complicated process with a lot of nuance, and we shouldn't give up on it too soon because who knows? We could turn this baby around any Friedman Unit now.

I think our approach to Iraq and Afghanistan could be boiled down to "Give War A Chance!"

Right now, my backup plan is to become incredibly rich, and start fixing these things anyway. That or end up getting into politics, even though I'm so totally not suited to it.


Julian: I have made that argument more than once, so it's possible you got it from me.

that's why we should've voted for the guy who aid he was going to get us out of Afghanistan.

cleek, some of us did....

"that's why we should've voted for the guy who aid he was going to get us out of Afghanistan."

Hey. Gimme' a break. I wrote in Henry Wallace's name.

Strolling down the sidewalk in Las Vegas one hot summer day, a very well-dressed Gentleman (with curly moustachio) came upon a beggar, squatting there in the heat, who verbally buttonholed the Gentleman:

'Please sir, my beloved wife is real' sick, and I need to raise $300 as fast as I can to pay for her life-saving medication'.

The Gentleman's eyes narrowed: 'How can I know that you won't simply take the monies I give you and run into yon casino and gamble it all away?'

The beggar's demeanor instantly changed from supplicating to almost haughty: 'Oh no, I GOT gambling'-money!'

johnnybutter: that one goes straight into my jokes-that-explain-life book. Thanks for the laugh.


They passed the big states-aid bill today, the spending for which was offset by cuts elsewhere. Republicans decried the spending anyway, despite the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts they passed. Funny guys, huh?

I'm glad you got a laugh TP. It's one of my favorite jokes. Apologies to those of you who have heard it before.

why, it's almost as if the GOP stands for absolutely nothing except "whatever liberals are doing, we're against".

while i still wince at such a huge generalization, each day i find i'm having a harder and harder time believing, unfair or not, that it's not true.

Because, cleek, it's true.

The GOP has ceased to function as a reasoned political entity. The real conservative party in American anymore, in the sense of anything resembling old-style Tory noblesse-oblige conservatism, is the Democratic party.

The GOP has morphed into a far-right fringe, fascist-lite confederacy whose policy platform, if you can remotely call it as such, is based entirely on polemical negation. Their message consists entirely of what they are not about; take that away, and they stand for absolutely nothing. They whisper sweet know-nothings in the ears of the body politic; only they think it actually means something. They're unfit to govern because they believe their own bullshit.

Not that the Dems are that much better. Their problem is that they're too afraid to really govern. But the GOP is far worse - their bluster conceals the fact that they don't know their asses from holes in the ground. They've been so uninterested in governance for so long that now that they want to, they don't know what it means.

So don't worry about the risk of being unfair to the GOP. Hell, they've thoroughly demonstrated that they're fair to no-one.

No, I beg to differ.

You may not like what the GOP stands for, but it does indeed stand for something very real and concrete.

The GOP stands for the upward redistribution of wealth and power -- them that's got, shall get.

When Republicans get into positions of power, they act on this ethos, and they generally get damn good results, too. The Cheney/Bush years were a perfectly splendid time to be rich.

Everything else is smoke and mirrors for the benefit of the rubes.

In this sense the GOP is far more coherent and purposeful than the Democratic Party, which stands for...I honestly don't know what.


I believe you're thinking of this post by Eric Martin, riffing off Jim Henley's post on the High Road vs the Low Road.

I've been thinking about those posts a lot in the past month, and I think a lot of our patience with the Low Road is due to its very high sunk costs.

Basically, by taking the High Road you waste time; the Low Road wastes lives as well as time. Whether you're more committed or not at the start, you *act* more committed to the Low Road, and you can't quit it without admitting that you've killed people unnecessarily. Better to double down than admit wrong.

Thanks for locating those Doc Science.

Actually, UK, we do agree. I'm referring more to the tenor of the GOP's campaign shtick. That, to be true, is entirely for the rubes.

My angle is that if they actually governed on what they say, the whole federal apparatus would come crashing down on them even worse than what Harkness' world did.

So it would revert to business as usual: tax cuts for people who don't need them, a ramped-up military budget, and government that doesn't govern. I suppose I should've added this to my soapbox above.

When we speak about casino hotel first thing that comes into my mind is gamble. Well i have to say luxury rooms, cozy lobby, swimming pool nice fooding,wine and lots and lots of beautiful ladies.

The comments to this entry are closed.