Althouse: "Although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily..."

May 7, 2006

"Although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily..."

Does John Kerry make any sense? Believing in your own policies and disagreeing with your critics isn't the suppression of dissent. Strip away the paranoid rhetoric and Kerry would only be saying: The President fails to heed compelling arguments.

UPDATE: Jim Lindgren skewers Kerry for continuing to misattribute that dissent-patriotism quote to Jefferson. But wouldn't it be great if Jefferson had said it? Kind of like "fake but accurate": misattributed, but the kind of thing he would have said.

MORE: Vikingpundit: "Ridiculing Kerry is the highest form of patriotism."

61 comments:

Bissage said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5/7/06, 9:24 AM
Bissage said...: Ann Althouse asked whether John Kerry makes any sense.

No. Not much, anyway.

I don't think he's a flip flopper and never did. He's incoherent.; 5/7/06, 9:33 AM
Troy said...: It's akin to our "brave" entertainment elite. Neil Young is so brave -- in the tradition of Nathan Hale, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King. He spoke truth to power with the only consequences being a pat on the back from his fellow entertainers , a big contract payout from his multi-national corporation, and crickets from the gov't. Neil who? Ditto John Kerry... except he's the got the education and experience to know better.

Kerry's idiotic "dissent" bromide is also akin to Kevin Phillips' equally idiotic "theocracy" talk. Many liberals continue to go further down the rabbit hole.; 5/7/06, 9:55 AM
Eric said...: Interesting theory.

As a Massachusetts resident, I think it's because in 20 years as a Senator, he's authored three pieces of legislation, two of them on maritime law. Yet somehow he believes he's presidental timber because he has a stentorian voice and a stint in Vietnam.

Boy, if you hate Dubya's "life of privilege" you've got to despise Kerry.; 5/7/06, 9:58 AM
Bissage said...: Ann: You did a much better job than me in translating Kerryese into English. I would have translated the non-paranoid portion: The President and his Administration should do whatever it is intend to tell them to do, whatever that is.

As for the paranoid portion? I translate it: People of America, hear me, the President and his Administration are your enemies.; 5/7/06, 9:58 AM
Synova said...: I suppose that it's just *fun* to bash Kerry. And very few people knew who he was before.

It wasn't fun when he was running for president because he might have won... probably he was responsible for Bush winning if the number of people I've heard say they would vote for Bush while holding their nose is any indication.

And it would be okay if he went away, but aren't there rumors that he might run in 08?

I'd "translate" the quote this way (for what it's worth.)

Protest movements need opposition and since there isn't any we have to make some up.; 5/7/06, 10:20 AM
Craig said...: If the good Professor is interpreting this speech in light of Kerry's other expositions (which I am sure she is), my comment is thereby that much more tentative.

Nonetheless, taking what Kerry said in the linked article as the total of the corpus, I don't know that I understand why his argument does not make sense -- that is, to me, his conclusions do not contradict his suppositions.

Supposition 1: (Although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq,) the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily.

Supposition 2: The habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic (as opposed to rebutting arguments, offering differing facts, etc.) has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.

Supposition 3: We are being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory.

Synthesized supposition: America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure or genuine debate.

Conclusion: Dismissing dissent is not only wrong but dangerous in such a case as Synthesized Supposition.

The only way for me to see that this does not "make sense" in the way that the Professor suggests is if the facts are so obviously wrong and obviously false that no reasonable, regularly informed person could believe them. Although I acknowledge that it may be fair to say that his suppositions are incorrect, that the facts are otherwise (I haven't thought enough about this to offer an opinion), I don't think they are so outlandish that this speech does not make sense.; 5/7/06, 10:21 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Ann asked...."Does Kerry make sense?" No, he never has and never will. He is incapable of thinking clearly; that is my way of saying he is a dumb ass.

M.A. said:
"Here's a question: why are conservatives (and so-called "independents") so obsessed with Kerry?"

It ain't conservatives obsessing about Kerry. Usually, failed prez candidates are humble enough to return to what they did before runnung for prez. In Kerry's case, that would be re-claiming his seat on the "backbench" as one Clinton admin described Kerry's Senate career. But, JFK the 2nd, is acting like his losing and incompetent campaign has left him qualified to speak outon all kinds of topics (and the MSM is happy to hand him a microphone).; 5/7/06, 10:26 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Craig: Making sense isn't just a matter of logic. Your premises have to jibe with our perception of reality. Otherwise paranoids make sense.; 5/7/06, 10:31 AM
Craig said...: Professor Althouse:

Hence, "The only way for me to see that this does not 'make sense' in the way that the Professor suggests is if the facts are so obviously wrong and obviously false that no reasonable, regularly informed person could believe them." (I.e., "Your premises have to jibe with our perception of reality.")

If your assessment is that Kerry is paranoid and so has the facts completely wrong, it seems to me that nothing at all is left once you strip away the paranoid (rhetoric).

In that case, it seems to me that the assertion the speech reduces to "The President fails to heed compelling arguments." is a red herring (except, possibly, as a uncharitable supposition regarding the underlying scheming of our supposed paranoid).; 5/7/06, 10:41 AM
Craig said...: Seven Machos:

You assume way to much if you assume that I am some ardent Kerry supporter defending him here on that basis or that those are my suppositions.

All I pointed out is that if you take his asserted facts to be true, his conclusion is reasonable. As I acknowledged in the original post "it may be fair to say that his suppositions are incorrect, that the facts are otherwise (I haven't thought enough about this to offer an opinion)."

However, 1) offering facts which actually are or later prove to be false, 2) offering facts which are subject to contention, and 3) offering facts which by their mere assertion reveal the tenderor to be "paranoid" are three different things.

If it is the case that "criticizing war during war will never get you anywhere politically in this country" then I do wonder about the possibility of true dissent (note to the passionate: I am wondering about a descriptive issue there, not a normative issue, and my wonder was spurred by an assertion not my own). Moreover, I think Kerry might say that dissent could be improperly squelched in ways that still would permit media coverage, popular discussion, etc.; 5/7/06, 10:50 AM
Adam Ross Nelson said...: Bissage and Ann: What does it mean when the government categorizes student protests in response to on-campus military recruiting as terrorist threats?

UW's QLaw recently reported on this.

To answer the question in the extreme it might mean the government thinks students are the enemy (Bissage) friends do not spy on friends.

To answer the question in moderation it means "no one is being jailed... [but] the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen."; 5/7/06, 10:59 AM
Anonymous said...: George Bush starting the trend:
"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

John Ashcroft piling on: We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

I have stuff I need to do today, enjoy your day fighting in the 101st.; 5/7/06, 11:01 AM
Craig said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5/7/06, 11:02 AM
Craig said...: To be fair, if I were to apply the same process of charitable reading to the Professor's post*, I would have said that she is arguing that the fact of Kerry's speech disproves the suppositions within it (qua you can't doubt that you exist as a thinker). The last sentence of her post troubles that reading, but that is probably what I'd say nonetheless.

* Charitable reading being a loose term for a reading process which can be generally described by nothing that the first investigation of any assumed mistake or error is of the reader and the reading -- only as a last resort do you assume the fault is the author's. Charitable reading is, in my opinion, more important for "static" text and less important for dialogues (where the author is available to defend himself). Hence, it would be more important to read Kerry charitably here than Seven Machos, Craig, Professor Althouse, et al.; 5/7/06, 11:03 AM
Craig said...: SM - I am suggesting nothing of the sort. It is so hard (possibly for want of authorial dexterity) to clearly convey my message.

If, as you asserted, a wartime critic of war will never achieve a political goal, the reasons for that fact and the consequences of that fact most likely have relevance on the possibility of true dissent (which, I think it is fair to say, may be more than the ability to speak, as robust as that ability may be).

Again, here I am wondering about a descriptive issue there, not a normative issue, and my wonder was spurred by an assertion not my own.

Moreover, I think Kerry might say that dissent could be improperly squelched in ways that still would permit media coverage, popular discussion, etc.

I think it is fair to analyze some one else's argument or point (here, me analyzing Kerry's point or argument) without adopting it.; 5/7/06, 11:09 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Craig: Please note that I never said Kerry was paranoid. I said he was using paranoid rhetoric. I think he's a coldly ambitious politician with minimal rhetorical skills and I'm calling him on his encouraging paranoid reasoning in others.; 5/7/06, 11:09 AM
Jim Hu said...: MA,

I believe Goldwater was largely ignored during Johnson's term and was only rehabilitated later, during the Reagan revolution. As I recall (vaguely) CW before that was that he was a rightwing nutjob who would have taken us into nuclear war. The others who lost were not given the prominent coverage by the MSM that Kerry is getting.

The losing candidate who stayed most in the limelight after losing was probably Nixon...and he was certainly kicked around a lot before his comeback.

Also, no blogs back then, and no 24 hour news channels.; 5/7/06, 11:10 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: M.A. said:
"It's a bit like Clinton. Righties couldn't point to any Clinton policies that were particularly bad, because, well, his policies were actually quite conservative."

Yeah Clinton had very conservative policies.... the first thing Clinton tried as prez was to get gays into the military (as an unspoken payback to the election support he got from gays- check the history books).

That sure is conservative policy and it failed miserably. And it showed what Clinton was ...a pandering phony political animal. It was the beginning of the end of his presidency and it happened in his first 3 months. Btw, he never mentioned this plan during the 1992 campaign and I voted for him.; 5/7/06, 11:11 AM
The Drill SGT said...: I'm surprised nobody yet has referenced the post on this topic over at VC. There Jim Lindgren points out the full text of Kerry's remarks and that 5-10 other recent news articles that have already pointed out the fraudulent use of a phony Jefferson quote again found in Kerry's speech.

Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate. As Thomas Jefferson said, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

That quote is the underlying thematic of Kerry's speech and it's bogus. After all when you use the same bogus quote a week after major papers point out it's false, then either:

1. Kerry's staff is completely incompetent
2. they and he don't care if they tell tall tales as long as it supports arguments attacking Bush.

From the Steyn article:
Close enough. According to the Jefferson Library: "There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes are: 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.'

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-38,GGLD:en&q=dissent+is+the+highest+form+of+patriotism; 5/7/06, 11:12 AM
The Drill SGT said...: this asserts to be the ful Kerry text

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Kerry_tells_students_to_speak_out_0506.html

and this is the VC link for the one person who reads Ann, who doesn't already have it.

http://volokh.com/; 5/7/06, 11:20 AM
Anonymous said...: Drill Sgt, you beat me to it.

I think he's just lazy and brought out an old stump speech. "College kids. Maybe some volunteers. No real money here."

Amazing that he is still misquoting Jefferson, after it's been talked about for days and thoroughly debunked!

Verif work: winipy. wimpy?; 5/7/06, 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: I also think it's more than bad grammar that resulted in the lead sentence. "Although no one is being jailed..." the use of the word jailed implies that this is a distinct possibiliy. As in, "although no one has been beheaded yet, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily..."; 5/7/06, 11:30 AM
Craig said...: Professor: Fair enough - but then I think that perhaps his argument makes even more sense than I initially supposed (when I only was seeing if his offered suppositions led to his conclusion).

In the case that it is not central that Kerry himself is (or is not) paranoid, only that his argument is couched in "paranoid rhetoric," he is, as you note "encouraging [Craig: and appealing to] paranoid reasoning in others."

If that is the case, his speech may be underhanded or devious, but it makes complete sense. Couching language in rhetoric is akin to aiming the speech, as rhetoric is of the esoteric.

"You who believe that Bush is suppressing dissent, hear also that this is not only wrong but dangerous."

How almost Socratic of the Senator.

(Seven Machos - I apologize if my attempt to investigate Prof. Althouse's post has flummoxed you. Feel free to ignore me.); 5/7/06, 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Oy, how many people have to be arrested for wearing tee-shirts before Ann realizes that there is a sprit of intolerance for dissent and that 2/3rds of the US think Ann Althouse is the paranoid?; 5/7/06, 11:51 AM
Anonymous said...: How many retired generals (also known as citizens) have to be smeared for suggesting the war is being managed in the wrong manner before Ann realizes that there is a spirit of intolerance for dissent?

How many former Marines and members of Congress?

How many times will Ann let her commenters call Democrats and the left traitors (while she calls on Atrios to police his commenters?); 5/7/06, 11:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Spirit of intolerance for dissent? How about calling for the death penalty for lying to the FBI? Or the finding that having a jihadi heart is punishable by prison?

Or the outing by the Administration of a covert CIA agent for retribution?; 5/7/06, 11:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Spirit of intolerance for dissent? What do you call it when 20 Nobel Laureates "say Bush's government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives. Examples include the suppression and censorship of reports on subjects like climate change and mercury pollution, the stacking of scientific advisory panels, and the suspicious removal of scientific information from government Web sites"?; 5/7/06, 11:59 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Stepping inbetween MA and AJ as they duke it out over:

It still doesn't explain why conservatives are so fixated on parsing every word he says and screeching about how horrible he is; Goldwater, McGovern, Dole et al didn't inspire that kind of obsessive fixation. It's like conservatives have been driven crazy by the continued existence of Gore and Kerry. Odd.

An interesting trio: Goldwater, McGovern, Dole. All three were WWII vets, two with very heroic service (Barry was too old to get the combat flying assignment he wanted). All three were true patriots ( voted for the last two for Pres), abd though they opposed their president on foreign military adventures, you had to believe they were doing it for the right reason.

Gore and Kerry? Many of us think their opposition to Bush is reactive and self serving. I don't think that folks thought that of Barry, George and Bob.; 5/7/06, 12:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Ejection? No. Arrested for dissent? Yes:

Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET Tuesday on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail, Capitol Police said."
Sheehan was arrested around 8:30 p.m. ET Tuesday on charges of unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor that carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail, Capitol Police said.

Also and elsewhere...

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.

The officer ran with me to the elevators yelling at everyone to move out of the way. When we got to the elevators, he cuffed me and took me outside to await a squad car. On the way out, someone behind me said, "That's Cindy Sheehan." At which point the officer who arrested me said: "Take these steps slowly." I said, "You didn't care about being careful when you were dragging me up the other steps." He said, "That's because you were protesting." Wow, I get hauled out of the People's House because I was, "Protesting."

I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for "unlawful conduct."

After I had my personal items inventoried and my fingers printed, a nice Sgt. came in and looked at my shirt and said, "2245, huh? I just got back from there."

I told him that my son died there. That's when the enormity of my loss hit me. I have lost my son. I have lost my First Amendment rights. I have lost the country that I love. Where did America go? I started crying in pain.

What did Casey die for? What did the 2244 other brave young Americans die for? What are tens of thousands of them over there in harm's way for still? For this? I can't even wear a shirt that has the number of troops on it that George Bush and his arrogant and ignorant policies are responsible for killing.

...

Four hours and 2 jails after I was arrested, I was let out. Again, I am so upset and sore it is hard to think straight.

Try not to lie when you smear Machoman....; 5/7/06, 12:05 PM
Kurt said...: Writing about the alleged "Colbert Coverup" which had so many leftist bloggers in a snit last week, James Taranto wrote something the other day which I think nicely answers many of Craig's and M.A.'s comments:

This, it seems to us, explains several conceits of the Angry Left:

* The notion that criticism--whether of the Dixie Chicks or of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer--amounts to censorship.

* Claims by Democratic politicians that Republicans are "questioning" their "patriotism."

* Fears of incipient fascism.

What these have in common, aside from being totally fantastical, is that they all reinforce the image of the Angry Leftist as courageous dissenter. In truth, this country is so tolerant, indeed downright indulgent, of this sort of "dissent" that it affords no opportunity to be courageous.

Kerry only makes sense if you accept all three of those highly suspicious premises.

Whenever people bother to point out that (1) no one is keeping Kerry or Gore or the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore, etc. from saying any ridiculous thing they choose; that (2) questioning or criticizing their logic or their arguments or their information is not the same thing as questioning their patriotism, and (3) so far no one has actually questioned their patriotism, then the response is invariably "would you stop opressing me and questioning my patriotism!" Naturally, it doesn't make any sense.

As a friend from Australia remarked about some anti-war vandals in his country: no one is censoring them--they're just mad that they're not getting their way.; 5/7/06, 12:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I am not saying it VillageMan, 20 Nobel Laureates are saying it. Tell them they are shrill and wrong on the science if you can Mr. Construction Worker.

While you tell them off Mr. Indian Chief, Ann consider that: On Fox News Sunday, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Peter Hoekstra vehemently opposed Gen. Hayden to be appointed to the CIA. Hoekstra claimed that Hayden would be "the wrong choice" for the job. Hoekstra was concerned that Hayden, as a member of the military, would be seen as "under the sway" of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

HOEKSTRA:I do believe he's the wrong person and the wrong place at the wrong time...We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time.

WALLACE: Well, is it your feeling that as an active general that General Hayden would be under the sway of Don Rumsfeld?

HOEKSTRA: I think that clearly will be the perception in the CIA both I think here in Washington and again at the CIA. I don’t think you can underestimate the difficulty in rebuilding, reshaping and transforming the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the debate we don’t need at this time....

The House and Senate agree: no active military to lead the CIA.

Members of the Senate committee that would consider
President Bush's nominee also expressed reservations, saying the CIA is a civilian agency and putting Hayden atop it would concentrate too much power in the military for intelligence matters. ... A second committee member, GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss (news, bio, voting record) of Georgia, added, "I think the fact that he is a part of the military today would be the major problem."

Off to the elliptical machine, throw your grenades Mr. Fireman.; 5/7/06, 12:17 PM
Bissage said...: Adam Nelson: I'm not here to defend everything the government does. I'm here to make a quip every now and then hoping it provides amusement and (maybe, just maybe) insight. It would also be nice to learn a thing or two.

That said, I don't know what it means "when the government categorizes student protests in response to on-campus military recruiting as terrorist threats." The connexion link was about DoD surveillance of LGBT group(s) and it looked to me like DoD admitted it was wrong and dropped the program. I'm sure your right. I simply don't understand.

But I will say this: If you think the dark night of facism is descending on the United States, don't rest your hopes on John Kerry. You will find yourself disappointed. That's my opinion.; 5/7/06, 12:24 PM
The Drill SGT said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5/7/06, 12:42 PM
The Drill SGT said...: Quxxo (Symbol Man in these strings).

I think the attribution of Hayden as unacceptable as the DCIA because he is on active duty is a stretch too far.

1. He was the Director of the NSA, a co-equal of the CIA (with a bigger budget BTW) under our current structure.

2. Hayden is currently Negroponte's deputy as the Director of National Intelligence. The gossip around town is that Goss left because he was not happy taking orders from Negroponte/Hayden. To say now that Hayden after getting the CIA job at Negropointe's request would cave to Rumsfeld and DIS his former and current boss Negroponte seems absurd to me and others.

3. There have been several military types as DCI in the past, roughly 1/3 of the Directors were generals or admirals. Certainly the father of the CIA, Colonel Donovan was not under Marshall's sway during WWII.

You might have had a point under the old organization (though I don't think so) where the DCIA was also the DCI, but not with a DNI in place.; 5/7/06, 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank you, Seven. You're doing yeoman's work here while the rest of us fritter away our Sunday morning.; 5/7/06, 12:44 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5/7/06, 12:45 PM
Laura Reynolds said...: Not sure if its embedded in of the longer and more thoughtful posts, but the simple reason we talk about Gore and Kerry so much is we have an entirely different world than 1996 or before. No blogs for one. But come on Gore and Kerry have not gone silently into the night, they deserve to be commented upon just as much as they feel the need to comment.

And they continue to provide ample reason to be thankful they did not win. But as was so wisely stated yesterday, "your mileage may vary"; 5/7/06, 12:48 PM
Goatwhacker said...: The ad hominem attacks are interesting. For the record, I am calling you Symbol Man because I don't want to invest the time to recreate or copy and paste your name.

You could say "the artist formerly known as quxxo".; 5/7/06, 12:50 PM
Bissage said...: PatCA is right. Seven Machos has been the Iron Man today (Well, seven Iron Men, actually) and I just wanted to say something funny, sort of, as, you know, my little way of saying thank you.

So okay. Ready? Here it comes: "My name is John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!; 5/7/06, 2:42 PM
Paco Wové said...: You could say "the artist formerly known as quxxo".

But "The troll formerly known as quxxo" would be better.; 5/7/06, 3:27 PM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/7/06, 4:11 PM
knox said...: Ugh, the Bush-haters love to fancy they are oppressed victims of a fascist regime... that way mere "voicing of dissent" is no longer just an opinion, like the rest of us, it's actual "heroism*... Nice way of looking at it, really. You get to be all brave and rebellious just by running your mouth.; 5/7/06, 4:35 PM
Charlie Martin said...: Look, the core underlying assumption to a lot of this "suppressing dissent" stuff is clear: you are suppressing dissent if you challenge it. Thus we end up with Tim Robbins complaining about losing his First Amendment rights --- in the National Press Club, on C-SPAN.; 5/7/06, 7:22 PM
tm said...: I'm surprised people are failing to follow Kerry's argument, which roughly goes like this:

Dissent is being characterized as treason (which is certainly the case), and that's not a good thing.

Not so complicated, really.; 5/7/06, 7:31 PM
tjl said...: Geoduck2 observed, "I'm so bored of Kerry."

So is everybody else, Geo, but for some reason he isn't getting the message and won't go away quietly.

I used to live in Massachusetts, and can't remember anyone ever having the slightest fondness for Kerry personally. By what strange political dynamic does he keep getting reelected?; 5/7/06, 9:22 PM
vnjagvet said...: This started as a discussion on Kerry's OT BS argument that unnamed people are stifling dissent.

Now it has migrated somewhat into a discussion of Rumsfeld.

There is heavy fire against him for allegedly not taking the advice of his subordinates.

That is a problem that recurs for CEOs in government and in industry. The multiplicity of recommended options and the necessity of making a decision to take but one of them happens all of the time.

Those who recommend the options not taken often are disappointed, for they usually made those recommendations in good faith, and gave the CEO the benefit of their best judgment.

That seems to me to be what happened here.; 5/7/06, 9:44 PM
MadisonMan said...: By what strange political dynamic does he keep getting reelected?

That's an interesting question -- the only real talent he has is for generating quotes that, out of context (and sometimes in), make him sound like he's broken into Patrick Kennedy's desk drawers. I think he tries to make himself sound funny, or un-elite. And completely and utterly fails, every single time.; 5/7/06, 9:54 PM
The Drill SGT said...: vnjagvet said...
There is heavy fire against him for allegedly not taking the advice of his subordinates.

That is a problem that recurs for CEOs in government and in industry. The multiplicity of recommended options and the necessity of making a decision to take but one of them happens all of the time.

Reminds me of advice I was given when I was a young Army Captain commanding my first company. I was told that I should train my people to not present me problems, but to come in with at least 2 good alternatives. The next piece of advice (secret) was that I should answer the first question of the day YES and the second NO, etc. The theory being that my subordinates, having weighed the alternatives, were presenting basically equal options and the real sticking point was somebody with the balls to make a decision and then stick with it. sort of applicable in rummy's case.

The corollary to vnjagvet's observation and mine is that no matter what, 50% of the people will not have gotten their choice.

The final bits of wisdom are that

1. decisions need to be made. A good decision done in time is far better for the unit, that the perfect decision made too late.

2. and nothing frightens your subordinates more than a leader that makes decisions and doesn't stick with then and changes again, and again.... That in part is what made Kerry scary to some.; 5/7/06, 10:03 PM
The Drill SGT said...: them, not then; 5/7/06, 10:05 PM
The Drill SGT said...: I wish the democrat's would give me both somebody I trusted on security and some reasonable policy choices.

The Pelosi and Reid policy seems to be summarized as:

Bush is incompetent in his ______ policy (fill in the blank with one of GWOT, IRAQ, DARFUR, AIDS, etc) and if we were in power, we'd do it better. Trust us!; 5/7/06, 10:15 PM
tm said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 5/7/06, 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Have I fallen through a looking glass or something?

There is no member of the current administration that can get a word in edgewise in any forum anywhere. An immediate agitprop theater group is set up to disrupt or cancel any forum in which anybody in the current government is featured. While Senator Kerry was making his remarks, how many borderline psychopaths shouted epithets at him and hurled pies at him and disrupted his remarks? Just curious.

Yes, Slippery is right for a change. There is no way that Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rove, or any of the cluster f*ck could book time on Meet the Press, or Fox News Sunday, or This Week, or Face the Nation or Late Edition.

The news media is systematically suppressing the Administration.

They hate the Administration.

Yes, Slippery Cheese is right. He is mad as a hatter.; 5/7/06, 10:50 PM
tm said...: "What politician, journalist, blogger, or non-crazy person on the left or right has said that dissent is treason?"

Here's a nice round-up. Re: treason charges: obviously, they're not gonna happen, but that's not relevant to Kerry's argument, which, as I take it, was simply that the equation of political disagreement with treason is deleterious w/re/to political discourse.

And that strikes me as a pretty uncontroversial assertion. It may or may not be a Very Big Deal, but it clearly isn't good.; 5/7/06, 10:54 PM
tm said...: This started as a discussion on Kerry's OT BS argument that unnamed people are stifling dissent.

Kerry's argument is that people are trying to short-circuit substantive discussion by just dismissing dissenters as traitors and such.; 5/7/06, 11:05 PM
tm said...: Like I said, Johnny, calling those that disagree traitors may not be such a big deal in the grand scheme of things - a point on which you obviously agree with me - but it's pretty hard to characterize it as a great step forward in the national discourse.; 5/7/06, 11:07 PM
Beth said...: Sippican, are you not counting all the Sunday morning news/talk shows as forums? The admin's talking heads get plenty of time to make their case on every network.

And what's wrong with a pie between fellow clowns once in awhile? Just kidding. Slinging stuff is wrong. Slinging questions in public forums, and responding to unsatisfactory answers, is good.; 5/7/06, 11:08 PM
Anonymous said...: The only way an administration official can get a forum with the news media is by illegally leaking to them on the authority of the veep and pee.; 5/7/06, 11:45 PM
Anonymous said...: "Intolerance for dissent" means this...
Egyptian bloggers arrested

not criticism from your fellow citizens.; 5/8/06, 10:55 AM
SippicanCottage said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/8/06, 11:55 AM
Beth said...: Sippican,

You should make your way into the audience next time Rumsfeld is speaking. You'll confound both sides of the political spectrum, and get on TV, too.

I guess we're happy watching Iron Chef and American Idol, and accepting the lowest-common-denominator antics of TV news and interviews. I doubt Rumsfeld or any other appointed or elected official is displeased with that dynamic.; 5/8/06, 3:27 PM