Yeah, Time For Political Posts, Get Used To It Or Skip


Hey, I liked tonight’s debate.

Mike Gravel’s a crazy old coot who’s never going to be on another debate (maybe he and Ron Paul can debate each other outside the next ones — Alan Keyes can be the moderator), but unlike Paul, he’s a fun crazy old coot. And he had a point about Vietnam War casualties dying in vain, staying on topic cleanly. Meanwhile everyone else fell all over themselves making sure everyone knew that *they* wanted to end the Iraq war, as opposed to every other Democratic candidate, much less the Republicans, who have been threatening to fly over and kill terruh-rists themselves. In Mitt Romney’s case, with his bare hands.

Speaking of posturing, I’m sorry, but Dennis Kucinich is an enormously tiresome sloganeering pedant. Yes, you’re the bad boy of the Democrats, we get it. You’re completely unelectable, we get it. STOP POSTURING ALREADY. I half expected him to start his 2004 chant “US OUT UN IN!” repeatedly on stage in lieu of actually taking a question.

Kudos to Barack Obama for having the temerity to point out what a silly exercise it was with wealthy people like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards piously claiming they’re willing to work for the minimum wage.

The stage got pretty grim when the parade of people victimized by the health care system came on. Good.

Joe Biden got the best line of the night when, in reaction to a caricature of a gun wacko who caressed “his baby”, an assault rifle on camera, as opposed to the other candidates who tiptoed around the spectacle sneered that “if that’s his baby, he needs help.” Five minutes later Joe Biden got the worst line of the night when, in reaction to a feel-good closing question asking each candidate to say something nice about the guy on your right, sneered that “this is a ridiculous exercise.” Lesson: Biden needs to develop lockjaw.

InstantRecap Analysis:

Most Presidential: Barack Obama
Most On Message: Hillary Clinton
Most Annoying: Dennis Kucinich (Chris Dodd was close, though)
Winner: Clinton, because she was already in the lead and didn’t goof, and Obama didn’t hit any home runs.
Loser: John Edwards, who didn’t make any impression at all; for someone in 3rd place not a good place to be.

  1. #1 by Naladini on July 23rd, 2007

    When’s the old red pickup truck going to head out of Tennessee and liven things up a bit?

  2. #2 by yunk on July 23rd, 2007

    My favorite Biden story is from 3 years or so ago when he attended a meeting with some Iranian diplomats with his wife, and she wore leather pants and a revealing blouse, and they tried to serve a bunch of non-halal food. Yeah it didn’t go well.

  3. #3 by Grimwell on July 24th, 2007

    Debates one year ahead of the election cycle are pointless, but funny. If Bush was a lame duck it would be different, but the Dems are actually making a mistake going at each other this early. They should be putting Bush up on the tee and doing everything they can to weaken him (and his party) in 2007, and then they can snap at each others necks in 2008.

    Dividing their own party this early is a mistake, people have too much time to get very attached to ‘their’ candidate, and when the field is whittled down to just one of em, they will have a higher chance of being bitter, and pulled to the other party.

    In other political news, you can find the tinfoil hat brigade already debating ‘if’ Bush will declare democracy over and just not leave… which is always a good laugh.

  4. #4 by Angry.Bob on July 24th, 2007

    “In other political news, you can find the tinfoil hat brigade already debating ‘if’ Bush will declare democracy over and just not leave… which is always a good laugh”

    Except for the disturbing and unconstitutional Executive Orders and Decrees he’s cranking out and the news that members of the House Committee on Homeland Security are no longer allowed to see plans involving the aftermath of a terrorist attack (or any disaster), and the sloppy, easily satisfied criteria for invoking them.

    It’s way less funny than you think it is. It’s an entirely believable scenario. Given the sense of entitlement as well as unshakeable knowledge that he is absolutely right despite reality contradicting him, it’s pretty likely that he won’t leave.

  5. #5 by Todd Ogrin on July 24th, 2007

    “They should be putting Bush up on the tee and doing everything they can to weaken him (and his party) in 2007″

    Why bother? Bush is weakening his party so well all by himself. Ba-dump…TSHH.

  6. #6 by Engels on July 24th, 2007

    “If Bush was a lame duck it would be different”

    Uhm, what news are you watching?

  7. #7 by Aufero on July 24th, 2007

    Okay, I’ll bite – by what possible definition is Bush not a lame duck?

    I think “enormously tiresome sloganeering pedant” is the best description I’ve seen of Kucinich.

  8. #8 by Apache on July 24th, 2007

    The congress / senate have a lower approval rating than ze Prez. What does that make them? :p

  9. #9 by Ironwood on July 24th, 2007

    The Congress and The Senate ?

    Just a guess.

  10. #10 by D-0ne on July 24th, 2007

    I feel un-represented. Anyone else feeling this way? Then again I’m 41 have four kids a wife and a job… I’m not rich, I’m not poor, but I have no idea how I’m going to pay for college for my kids and pay off my house and retire.

  11. #11 by Engels on July 24th, 2007

    Well, of course you feel unrepresented. That happens towards the latter half of a Republican era . There was a brief period during Reagan where he was touted as the ‘middle class’ president, but by the end of Bush Sr., the rallying cry was ‘its the economy, stupid’.

    The entire mantra of the party is ’smaller government’, which translates vaguely to ‘no social responsibility’. Latest move by Bush is to try to remove goverment health protection from lower class children on purely ideological grounds that teh gummint shouldn’t be messin’ with people’s affairs. It is the fulfilment of the Republican economic dream, donchaknow.

  12. #12 by Lenin on July 24th, 2007

    One thing I have to say for Hillary is, she better get someone to clean up her husband’s state — not politically, not morally, I’m talkin’ LITERALLY — before too long. We drove through there (Arkansas, for any of you wondering….) not long ago and Arkansas definitely wins across the entire time and space continuum for having the filthiest, scarily filthiest, public restrooms along the interstate of any state in the union, at any time in the history of the US interstate. So filthy I’m sure people are dying in there, and not being found, just for having walked in.

    See the basic thing is, if you can’t keep your own bathroom clean, how’re you expected to be able to run a country?

    I have nothing against Hillary, but this is a plain fact that not enough people are aware of. If nothing else, a presidential campaign should improve the presentability of our US interstate system to the rest of the world. I mean, it’s gotta be useful fer sumthin’.

  13. #13 by Grinless on July 24th, 2007

    “It’s way less funny than you think it is. It’s an entirely believable scenario. Given the sense of entitlement as well as unshakeable knowledge that he is absolutely right despite reality contradicting him, it’s pretty likely that he won’t leave.”

    You psychiatrist called, your are due for your next appointment.

  14. #14 by bret on July 24th, 2007

    Ron Paul would slaughter any of those nitwits in a debate. But you’re right, at least against Gravel it’d be entertaining.

  15. #15 by Amber on July 24th, 2007

    In other political news, you can find the tinfoil hat brigade already debating ‘if’ Bush will declare democracy over and just not leave… which is always a good laugh.

    It has always (or at least since the Civil War, maybe before then, I was a math major duh) been in the President’s power to declare martial law and suspend the constitution during a national emergency. I’m not yet cynical enough to believe our current administration would stage a national emergency just to retain power, but given their historical disregard for the Constitution (the President has called it “just a piece of paper”) I don’t think it’s crazy at all to think they would happily suspend the constitution given the opportunity, especially around elections or even after. No tinfoil necessary. 5 years ago you’d have been called a tinfoil hat wearer if you were to describe many of the constitutional abuses this administration has already performed.

    More on-topic, for the first time since she announced her candidacy I was impressed with Clinton. And also for the first time since he announced his candidacy, I was disappointed with Obama. He seemed more evasive than I’ve ever seen him. I was very impressed with Bill Richardson, especially his answer on gay marriage, which was in effect “I’ll support civil unions because it’s attainable.” It’s unfortunate that he’s perceived as being unelectable, but a Clinton/Richardson or Obama/Richardson ticket would not be a bad thing.

  16. #16 by yunk on July 24th, 2007

    “many of the constitutional abuses this administration has already performed.”

    the same judge that threw his hands in the air and quit saying he’d never seen such a violation of privacy and the constitution re: the monitoring of international calls, actually ruled in favor of the government breaking into someone’s home without a warrant during the Clinton administration, for a terrorism investigation. I guess it depends on who’s running the show.

    The Democrats are the ones who, after saying how anti-privacy and liberty it was, added amendments to expand the Patriot Act when it was up for vote again to renew it, to cover drugs and organized crime, and to cover more citizens than it did before. “this is horrible! wait we can expand it to cover other stuff we want to? cool!”

    It is funny to think either party is really any different. Both are more than willing to enforce their own codes of morality, take away freedoms, and tell you how you should live your life.

  17. #17 by kalain on July 24th, 2007

    The primary difference I’ve noticed is that the dems don’t tend to demolish every ounce of goodwill we have outside the US when they enforce their agendas. The republicans are a mixed bag of nice diplomats and “screw you all, I’ll do what I want”.

    But anyways, I want a Gravel/Kucinich ticket, because damned if they don’t make me laugh.

  18. #18 by Apache on July 24th, 2007

    Both parties are fielding second tier candidates at the moment. The Reps don’t want to use anyone good because it would be a waste this cycle, and the Dems’ best aren’t in the game yet.

  19. #19 by Heartless_ on July 24th, 2007

    I don’t get this shit at all. The only thing different about this debate was the YouTube questions. Every single candidate stood up there and gave one liners or dodged the questions while Mr Cooper vainly pointed it out. They all lied through their teeth and 99% of their promises are out of their control if they were to get elected into office. I am a pretty negative person, but I seriously wish these candidates could do something outside of look good on camera.

    Hate Bush all you want, but at the end of the day we know where he stands. Elect Obama or Clinton into office and god’s know what position they will have.

  20. #20 by moxcamel on July 24th, 2007

    Heartless: Hate Bush all you want, but at the end of the day we know where he stands. Elect Obama or Clinton into office and god’s know what position they will have.

    Er…you do realize that Bush isn’t running again right?

  21. #21 by Viz on July 24th, 2007

    It turns out that nobody ever fulfills 90% of their campaign promises–in the US and elsewhere. That feeling of not being represented occurs at the end of every era; that’s why the era changes.

    The thing about international goodwill that the Democrats are so good at preserving is that it’s not worth anything in the breach. No matter how much they “like” you, other countries are not going to sacrifice their self-interest for yours. The Republicans are actually better at getting other countries to commit to their ideological positions, but they’re very poor at capitalizing on it.

  22. #22 by D-0ne on July 24th, 2007

    “Hate Bush all you want, but at the end of the day we know where he stands.”

    Do ya now? Without generalizations AND BY USING EXAMPLES tell me where he stands on abortion, gun control, the death penalty and education?

  23. #23 by Amp on July 24th, 2007

    You’ve hired a couple wackjobs for your top job in the past.
    Take a chance and at least look at the lesser of the wackjobs.
    Ones that at least seem to have your best interest at heart. Even if it’s slightly mislead on certain issues.

    Brought to you by the Canadian Contingent for a more Relaxed Continent.

  24. #24 by Grimwell on July 24th, 2007

    Lame duck presidents have power on paper, but can’t get anything done. Bush is definitely still getting things he wants out of the government. That’s why he’s not a lame duck.

  25. #25 by HitNRun on July 25th, 2007

    The stage got pretty grim when the parade of people victimized by the health care system came on. Good.

    I thought they if they were “victimized” by anything at all, they were victimized by, you know, diseases. Those have been around for awhile; longer than HMOs, in fact.

    In any case, wait until you see the parade of victims who are actually victimized by health care, once one of these clowns gets the political capital to push their fantastical healthcare slugocracy through Congress. And no, that’s not a cold-blooded reference to taxpayers, either.

  26. #26 by Ironwood on July 25th, 2007

    I have no idea what you just said.

  27. #27 by Apache on July 25th, 2007

    you gotta admit that the comedy value alone of having Bill Clinton being the first lady is worth a vote or two

  28. #28 by Angry.Bob on July 25th, 2007

    “I have no idea what you just said.”

    Don’t worry about it. It appears that debating Triforcer would yield more enjoyment than any discussion you’d get out of most of this group. Though I would like to see some of the people like Grinless refute anything I said with something besides an ad hominem attack. Mostly because i know they can’t. Because everything I said is an easily verified, absolute fact.

    The world’s had enough dictators by now to recognize when one is being set up.

  29. #29 by Viz on July 25th, 2007

    Uh? That’s an astounding comment, and it really shows your bias. Every president since Lincoln who’s presided during a period of conflict has issued one or more of those “disturbing and unconstitutional” executive orders. You may think Bush’s policies are terrible, but he’d have to put much, much, much more effort into eroding the power of the other branches of government before he could be in any way considered a dictator.

  30. #30 by Angry.Bob on July 25th, 2007

    Really? Really? I’m curious to hear what other President issued an executive order that anyone undermining his policies can have their property seized without review or recourse. Or has refused to acknowledge that the other two branches have any oversight or authority over them, even if subpoenaed. And that’s just the stuff he’s done in the last business week. If you can name one time in the recorded history of mankind where a political leader has started doing that sort of stuff without it ending in a Dictatorship or an armed revolution I’m all ears.

    And of course I’m biased. If we’re going to get a dictator, I’d rather it be one that’s no so abysmally bad at, or wrong about, everything he’s ever done or said in any recorded aspect of his life.

  31. #31 by Viz on July 25th, 2007

    Way to exaggerate. Did you actually read the Blocking Property order? It’s not “anyone undermining his policies,” it’s anyone who commits an act of violence, materially supports (i.e. with cash, equipment, or actual guidance, yeah, that’s right, not just petty words), or is owned or controlled by some party which commits acts of violence. And blocking transfer of is not the same thing as seizure. If you actually did read it and merely assumed that he’d interpret (if he even can) the writing of that order to include all his domestic policy opponents… well, I don’t know what to tell you.

    As for your other point, internal communications between the president and his advisors have always been considered confidential. That’s why we have the phrase, “executive privilege.” Of course, not everything is covered–which is why you should be asking what the hell it is Congress is subpoenaing before you get your righteous indignation going.

  32. #32 by Viz on July 25th, 2007

    By the way, Lincoln seized the property of a publisher who criticized his “warmongering” and “violations of states’ rights.” You’re not going to say that the only thing that stopped Lincoln from forming a dictatorship was his assassination, are you? Because you don’t seem like a “the South will rise again!” type of guy.

  33. #33 by William Newman on July 25th, 2007

    Angry.Bob: As a libertarian I agree that our current administration is dismayingly scary, but I have trouble counting as allies those of his detractors who were untroubled by our previous administration and who build their political coalition on a bedrock of admiration for FDR. Confiscating property is at least something that can be undone; after Ruby Ridge, the Clinton administration staked out the principled position that at the administration’s pleasure, government agents remain above the law when they outright kill someone. And while the Bush arbitrary detention (complete with whoops, of course some of them end up sorta dead, but who’s counting?) is scarier than that single incident, few governments have risen above the temptation of retail arbitrary detention given the provocation of serious terrorism. Conversely, even when given the provocation of full-scale war, lots of governments have managed to avoid FDR’s wholesale arbitrary detention of an entire ethnic minority. FDR also succeeded in getting the second, ninth, and tenth amendments demoted to dead-letter status, partly by threatening to pack the Supreme Court. While the Bush administration may aspire to comparable levels of chainsaw constitutional surgery, it remains to be seen whether history will judge them to be as effective as FDR.

  34. #34 by Relmstein on July 25th, 2007

    Just wanted to reply to Angry.Bob that Abraham Lincoln used a lot of executive orders to attain powers that the office of president never had before.

    The Patriot Act was a result of all politicians playing off the fears of the American people not just our current president. I’m sure no matter if a democratic or republican nominee wins the next presidential election both would continue to make use of the Patriot Act as our current president has.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Civil_liberties_suspended

  35. #35 by Grinless on July 25th, 2007

    Angry Bob :

    Do not make the mistake of thinking im currently defending the current administration. They are as incompetent as can be.

    BUT, please put aside the tinfoil hat for a few seconds, Bush is not the devil or the future dictator of the USA, he is onlyt a very very bad president. Has happened, will happen again.

    We just have to make sure to elect somebody better next time.

  36. #36 by yunk on July 25th, 2007

    Just google “civil liberties during wartime” and you’ll find plenty of examples, indeed entire books on the subject.

    And judging by the Democrat’s increasing desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine (to force Conservatives and Libertarians off the radio), they’re not any better.

  37. #37 by Ironwood on July 25th, 2007

    Which is all fine an good, but I actually didn’t know what HitnRun said. As in, I didn’t actually understand him. I had no inkling, after reading, what the hell he was trying to say. I have no clue whether he was fur it or agin it and I have no idea what the ‘it’ he was talking about WAS.

    Except that it was something to do with healthcare and, er, bad diseases…

  38. #39 by Ironwood on July 26th, 2007

    Oh Good God.

  39. #40 by Jonas Salk on July 26th, 2007

    In fact, I think Biden’s WORST line of the night was when he criticized the guy who dared to brandish a rifle on national television. I think he effectively showed the nation that he’s not mentally capable of being president by demeaning gun-owners and saying that we’re somehow mentally unbalanced because we enjoy firearms. Odd how everyone seems to love the constitution, except when it comes to that one bit, and then they go insane over it.

  40. #41 by paul on July 27th, 2007

    Heres a selection of people that TPTB have pre-chosen for you to pick from, lets call them dog.
    Heres another selection of people that TPTB have also pre-chosen for you to pick from, lets call them pony.
    Next year you get to pick between a dog and a pony to run your show for 4 more years.

    My money is on a Democrat president, Clinton or Obama (woman or a minority) to give that illusion of a major change and false hope that things will be different followed by a revolution before 2012 because things will actually get worse and a combination of peak oil, housing collapse, currency collapse and food shortage from trying to grow too much biofuel will piss off a critical mass of Americans.

  41. #42 by bullet on July 30th, 2007

    Just a few things to say:

    1. Neither party gives a shit about you. To think otherwise is laughably naive. Individual candidates may have and might still, but the parties control the show. The only concern of a body in power is to remain in power. The only concern of a body with no power is to acquire it.

    2. Both parties seek to curtail your rights. Free people are difficult to suppress all at once. People who have been scared (GOP) or shamed (Dems) into slowly giving up their freedoms will submit to gradually harsher treatment. Whether the pressure comes from the right or the left is irrelevant.

    3. None of it matters, because most Americans have forgotten what the great experiment was all about and don’t even understand exactly why it was such an amazing accomplishment. That is why we have such trouble exporting it. We need some radical thinking to pull ourselves out of this rut. A Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Hamilton… The current crop is just more of the tired, timid ridiculousness that we’ve seen too many times.

    4. At least Biden is honest. :)

  42. #43 by Viz on July 31st, 2007

    If only the Dems’ only candidate with significant charisma weren’t also the one with the least knowledge of how to conduct foreign affairs.

  43. #44 by varsens on July 31st, 2007

    Democracy gives what people deserve.

    I think the most unfortunate thing about the internet’s role in all of this is that rather than giving all people a voice and enhancing the so-called “marketplace of ideas” it turns out it just muddies the water and makes it impossible for anyone to point to anything that can be accepted as “fact.” Anyone can say anything. And thats a problem when people will believe anything.

    The amazing experiment has only served to make people so complacent as to be more busy gobbling consumer products than worrying about anything else.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Comments are closed.