Mr. Kerry now describes the war in Iraq as a mistake, even though he once supported it. His critics say they believe the new stand reflects more politics than principle, and ignores other Democrats' concern that setting a fixed date will leave those in tough re-election fights open to Republican taunts that they are "cutting and running" in Iraq.Oh, please, if the Democrats don't even like him, can't they make him go away? You know, what the Democrats need is a presidential candidate who was critical of the war early on, but who now firmly supports the successful completion of the mission. Gore?
The Democrats' exasperation has increased in the last week, as they postponed a vote on Mr. Kerry's amendment to try to fashion a broader consensus among themselves. Democrats up for re-election asked him not to propose a fixed date. But Mr. Kerry, several Democrats said, was unwilling to budge from that idea, even though his co-sponsor, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, seemed willing to compromise for the sake of consensus. In the end, Mr. Kerry agreed only to extend his deadline, from Dec. 31 of this year to July 2007.
Mr. Kerry's insistence on pushing ahead with his own plan has left the Democrats divided, and open to renewed Republican accusations that they are indecisive and weak — the same ridicule that Republicans heaped on Mr. Kerry in 2004, when his "I was for it before I was against it" statement about a vote on money for the war became a punch line.
June 21, 2006
"Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly...."
"But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry," who was "never popular" anyway, says the NYT.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
I think they're essentially against the wall in '08, but they could make a strong showing in 2012 with a Schweitzer / Herseth ticket. Of course, to get there, they first have to get past this kos phase.
I know I'm usually the one leading the charge against comparative law, and this comparison isn't entirely a good fit, but the Dems seem to have gotten themselves into the same funk as did the Labour Party in Britain. Having been thoroughly discredited as a party of government, Labour got absolutely slaughtered in 1979 by a resurgent conservative party under the firm control of an unusually ideologically-driven leader, Margaret Thatcher. In 1983, they got an even sterner drubbing. Bits of the party began to detatch, thinking third party runs were the way to go (sound familiar?), others thought that all they had to do was sit back and do nothing, and when the Conservatives self-destructed, Labour would be returned to power without having to fundamentally change at all (sound familiar?) while some groups - particularly one called Militant Tendancy - essentially claimed that Labour had to move even further to the left (that should definitely sound familiar). Eventually, the realization set in that if they ever wanted to get back into power, they had to change, they had to get the ultra left out of the party, and they had to make a beeline back for a position that people could vote for. It took them until 1997 - nearly twenty years in the wilderness. It's easy to make the argument that Daily Kos is Militant Tendancy to Newt Gingrich's Margaret Thatcher, Al Gore's Jim Callaghan, and John Kerry's Paul Foot, and I suppose that there's an argument that Joe Biden is Neil Kinnock (no -- wait -- that's just Biden's speeches, sorry), but it's much harder, to see which Democrat is going to step up to the plate and say to the party, "shit, you guys, we're going to be out of power until kingdom come if we don't do something." In other words, the Democrats need their very own Tony Blair - the question is who.
On the one hand, I tend to think that the failure of the Democrats to propose a serious alternative is kind of neat, because obviously, that keeps my party in power. But being in power shouldn't be an end in itself; the lack of any serious competition from the Democrats, I think, is having a serious and detrimental impact on the Congressional GOP, which has become lethargic, stagnant and - one has to suspect - increasingly corrupt (witness the Hill search mess). I have a vested interest in the Democrats becoming credible again, if for no reason other than because the competition will keep the GOP honest. If we lose the House this fall -- a couple of months ago, I thought that was certain, but after the Jefferson thing, it's becoming apparent that Democrats have found yet another way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -- that isn't something I particularly like the idea of, but it's like a penicillin shot in the ass: sure it hurts, and sure it isn't something you'd choose to do, but sometimes, it's the fastest and most efficient way to deal with the sickness.
My $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
The Democrats need another Harry S. Truman - an American who just happens to be a democrat, rather than vis-a-versa.
Thanks, Truly. I fixed it.
It would also help Democrats if they had some kind of overarching philosophy that would help them out here. They seem completely focused on the tactics of the situation rather than what the actual best course would be for the US or Iraq. Yes, there's an election coming up and they have to keep that in mind, but they've had years to focus on this. They're always acting like this was a pop quiz that surprised them on a Monday morning.
It is a typical Times article that smears Kerry. That's why as soon as I read it, I knew that I could count on you to repeat it. Congrats, I wish I could buy puts and calls on your behavior.
Read what Greg Sargent of the American Prospect has to say:
TIMES SHAFTS KERRY. Today's Times piece about Democratic debate over Iraq is quite a piece of work. First it bungles a key fact about John Kerry:
"Mr. Kerry now describes the war in Iraq as a mistake, even though he once supported it."
Actually, Kerry repeatedly described the war as a mistake during the 2004 campaign. What really happened was that he "supported" the President's request for the authorization to use force in Iraq if the President deemed it necessary. Then Kerry repeatedly criticized the President's use of that authorization to invade the way he did as a mistake. Is it too much to ask from The Times that they make this not-terribly-complex distinction?
Then the paper indulges in some highly questionable sourcing ... to portray Kerry as calculating and political:
"Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign. (Emphasis added.)"
Interviews "suggest" a frustration; his "peers" say he's political, though no "peer" is quoted saying so, even anonymously. Meanwhile, the piece also adds high up in the story that Kerry's position leaves Dems "open to Republican taunts that they are `cutting and running' in Iraq" without letting any Dem rebut that argument until the end of the piece. And of course the story features an obligatory reference to Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" campaign gaffe.
As the culture observing professor, how come on some days you ask why the Times is trying to disparage Mark Warner and others Dems and on other days you mindlessly repeat what they have to say about Clinton and Kerry?
Oh, great. More stalker complaints from a sociopath. Not a comment about the issue at hand, but about Ann. Never good enough or smart enough, by his reckoning, but somehow she remains the flame to his moth.
I suspect it's how the moon must feel, at night, just a cold stone, able only to reflect the sun.
but who now firmly supports the successful completion of the mission. Gore?
What do you think the mission is?
Is the mission achievable? What is the cost of the mission? What is the expected outcome for success and failure of the mission?
What is your experience relevant to your understanding of what completing the mission would take? What do acknowleged experts say? Are their views congruent with your views?
What are alternative uses of the resources of the mission?
What are the impacts on the US for maintaining the resources necessary to complete the mission?
Does the US have those resources? What does the US sacrifice by maintaining the resources necessary for the mission?
What is the mission? Has the mission evolved over time? If so, why? How has the mission evolved over time?
How do you measure the mission's achievements and progress? What do those measurements say in the period of time the mission has been going forward?
How do the American people feel about our completing the mission? What do the American people want? Should the American people's representatives stay firm and complete the mission if the American people feel otherwise?
What are the risks of not completing the mission? What are the risks of staying to complete the mission? What are the expected outcomes of each?
What has been the track record to date of the leaders that want us to complete the mission? Have they been doing a good job or a bad job? Have they made good decisions or bad decisions? Have they taken responsiblity for any mistakes they have made? Have they successfully managed the outcome so far? Have they been truthful to the people? Do they show an understanding of what it would take to complete the mission and the upsides and the downsides that we have just discussed above?
Is their understanding of the mission the same as your understanding of the mission?
What is the mission, and what is successful completion of the mission?
One of us is being very murky here in her thinking. I think that is a bad idea and I recommend use of the internet to help determine the facts and answers to these questions. Atrios, Hullabaloo, Talking Points Memo, Talk Left, Media Matters, Glenn Greenwald, Brad Delong, Crooks and Liars. All of these are excellent sources. If you care to go to radio, I would highly recommend the Al Franken show, The Thom Hartman show, Peter Werbe, and of course, Terri Gross.
You will find all of those sources well written, well sourced, informative, enlightening, entertaining and written by experts in economics, law, journalism, and music.
You need to firm up your notion of "complete the mission" -- your use of it is vague and would never pass muster in a freshman course. I would hope it would not be found acceptable in a law school.
Sloan: The Democrats need another Harry S. Truman - an American who just happens to be a democrat, rather than vis-a-versa.
Could that be Joe Lieberman?
The only Dems who - nationally - have been consistent, are Feingold and Lieberman. Feingold will appeal to the Kossacks, but get little support from moderates and the Dems will NOT support Lieberman.
If the goal of the party is to win the election, wouldn't you think they'd nominate a candidate that can win? Instead, the Dems choose to make a statement - which by the way (ok Quxxo, queue your stats) -most Americans don't believe in. The Dems need to communicate more than a "Bush Sucks! Cheney Sucks! Rumsfeld Sucks! Rove Sucks, and is Evil!" platform to win an election.
Re: "You need to firm up your notion of 'complete the mission' "
Moon interrogates sun.
"The Democrats need another Harry S. Truman - an American who just happens to be a democrat, rather than vis-a-versa."
Don't hold your breath.
Although I do think this article was meant to discredit Kerry to make the way for ...Gore or Hillary? don't worry, they will get back to their real work, bashing Scooter Libby, soon.
I forgot to add the last plank in the Dem platform:
"Most Americans are stupid and ignorant because they don't believe everything we do! [See planks 1-4]"
1-Bush Sucks!
2-Cheney Sucks!
3-Rumsfeld Sucks!
4-Rove Sucks, and is Evil!
Re: "unsourced editorializing"
Is that somehow new for the NYT? I find it standard operations, even unremarkable. The paper of record indeed.
Ann says: "You know, what the Democrats need is a presidential candidate who was critical of the war early on, but who now firmly supports the successful completion of the mission. Gore?"
I think that misses the real problem that the Dems have here. Ann's comment is about political personalities and tactics but doesn't get to the root of the Dem's problem (root causes, anyone?): why would it have made sense to be "critical of the war" early on, and why is it essential to support "successful completion" now?
I certainly agree that "successful completion" is critical. But the problem with framing the issue in these terms is that the real policy choices get lost in an exercise in retrospection -- if we knew then what we have learned by living through the last 3 years, things would have been done differently. Of course -- but that is a truism about all of life, and is unhelpful in coming up with national security policies to deal unknown and unknowable contingencies. "Learning from one's mistakes" is greatly to be desired in political leaders, assuming we can identify the reasons why particular past actions were mistakes. But bear in mind that the countervailing cliche is the imperative of facing today's world and avoiding the impulse to refight the last war instead. For a long time, the Dems have been all about constantly refighting one past war in particular.
The Dems as a party, and especially anyone who intends to seek the Dem Presidential nomination, need to articulate principles and policies that would guide their actions on national security issues. They need to explain how those policies and principles will keep America and its friends around the world safe, meet the terrorist threat, and provide a framework to move forward. The impression that condemns them as weak and unacceptable on national security issues is that, as a party, they stand for nothing, have no principles stronger than the latest poll results, and thus constantly shift in the wind depending on whatever they think might sell in the domestic political marketplace. Kerry's endless flip-flops on Iraq captures all of that perfectly -- it's all about pandering to what he (they) think voters (Dem base voters) want to hear for domestic political reasons, not about what makes sense from a national security perspective. In practice, it reeks of defeatism, celebrates every setback, and makes the highest virtue of national security policy the avoidance of difficult or long engagements abroad that might demand a domestic price to maintain. Ultimately the attitude projected by the Dems internalizes the notion that the US is the most dangerous player on the world stage (thus, the need to work only through the UN or other such institutions to avoid unilateral action and cabin US power). Individual Dem politicians resist aspects of that overall worldview, but I think it is where the Dem party as a whole is at.
Whatever one's views about Iraq, the GWOT or the American place on the world stage, there is nothing in the Dem's current approach to these issues that inspires respect, let alone support, from anyone except the "cut and run" crowd. And even the "cut and run" crowd can't tell you what national security policy the Dems should support or why, or what approach the US should take in dealing with the many national security challenges ahead. Instead, it all just gets reduced to soundbite-sized bromides -- work with the allies (except when an enemy like N. Korea demands othewise); unilaterally foreswear force upfront and pursue negotiations endlessly, whether or not there is any prospect of accomplishing the policy objective at hand; etc.
In short, before the Dems can find a standard bearer in '08, I think they have more basic problems to solve.
Kerry's position "I voted to authorize the war but I opposed Bush actually using that aithorization" appears to me to be as politically calculating as you can get. I don't think we need the NYT to make this case. Kerry does the job quite well on his own.
Agreed, much like his decision to vote for the $87 Billion for our troops when he needed to show that he was strong on the war and then voting against the $87 Billion for our troops when he needed an anti-war vote to beat Howard Dean in the presidential primary.
I think Gore has a real shot. His position on the war has been much more consistent than most other Dem, even if it's only because he was not in office and didn't have to vote on the resolution. Plus throw in his long term concern / obsession with the environment.
Anti-war plus environment scores points with the Kossacks and Hard Progressives and can translate into a win in the primaries.
He was VP during the 90's and presided over a tremendous economic boom. Never mind that it was built on an illusionary business model, the Dot Com's, and that the Clinton administration put the pin to the tech bubble when the DOJ sued Micro$oft in '98. And I mean really, when government officials start talking about how they may have beaten the economic cycle - buy bonds.
Anyway, presidential administrations generally get too much credit / blame for good / bad economic times, but Gore was VP and can be associated with the good economy of the '90s.
Plus, they, both Dem president AND Republican congress, managed to accidentally run the government with a surplus, though the actual size of it was grossly exaggerated by combining the ten year projection with principles of ceteris paribus (should be against the law the government to do that, and for me to use the term ceteris paribus).
"It was a simpler time!" (I'm quoting this from someone, and even though I don't know who, I don't want to be accused of plagiarism, so I give that person credit for the line, who ever it is). Times were good, for the most part, during Gore's tenure, and compared to the current terrorist threat the nation now faces, the '90s do seem like a simpler time, though the threat was there and the administration just chose to pass the hard decisions to the next guys. Regardless, if Gore plays his cards right, (left-of-center actually), he could foster a '90s nostalgia of sorts to appeal to the centrist vote.
'90s nostalgia = Popular AND electoral win for presidency, IF he can win his home state of Tennessee.
Of coarse, it all depends on who the Republicans pick as their guy. Guliani trumps Hillary, but I don't think he trumps Gore. Is Newt the ace-in-the-hole against the Big G???
This is a fairly long response, because a lot of the questions were repetative, both here and in previous threads.
What do you think the mission is?
If my counting is correct, you ask this question at least three different times in your rambling diatribe. See my answer from yesterday.
Is the mission achievable?
Progressing quite well, thank you.
What is the cost of the mission? What is the expected outcome for success and failure of the mission?
See below - you repeat yourself a lot here.
What is your experience relevant to your understanding of what completing the mission would take?
What is yours?
What do acknowledged experts say? Are their views congruent with your views?
Presumably, if you are asking about acknowledged experts, you are presumably asking about the President, VP, SecDef, SecState, and their officers either commanding or serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. And, yes, they are fairly consistent about this.
What are alternative uses of the resources of the mission?
None
What are the impacts on the US for maintaining the resources necessary to complete the mission?
What are the impacts of not doing it?
Does the US have those resources?
Yes.
What does the US sacrifice by maintaining the resources necessary for the mission?
What is the danger if it aborts the mission?
What is the mission?
This is getting boring.
Has the mission evolved over time? If so, why? How has the mission evolved over time?
Yes, because we didn't fully understand the dynamics, overestimated the resistance, and thus ultimately underestimated the resources left over.
How do you measure the mission's achievements and progress? What do those measurements say in the period of time the mission has been going forward?
Primarily by how many provinces, cities, etc. have had their security turned over to the Iraqis.
How do the American people feel about our completing the mission? What do the American people want? Should the American people's representatives stay firm and complete the mission if the American people feel otherwise?
Don't really care about this.
What are the risks of not completing the mission?
Catastrophic.
What are the risks of staying to complete the mission?
Significantly less.
What are the expected outcomes of each?
Staying the course: significant positive impact on the WoT. Cutting and running: significantly emboldened Islamofascism.
What has been the track record to date of the leaders that want us to complete the mission?
Good.Have they been doing a good job or a bad job?
Mostly good.
Have they made good decisions or bad decisions?
Mostly good.
Have they taken responsibility for any mistakes they have made?
BDS throwaway.
Have they successfully managed the outcome so far?
Yes.
Have they been truthful to the people?
Yes. Much more so than the opposition which ignores repeated statements of what the mission is in Iraq to blindly repeat the mantra of "what is the mission?"
Do they show an understanding of what it would take to complete the mission and the upsides and the downsides that we have just discussed above?
Yes.
Is their understanding of the mission the same as your understanding of the mission?
Yes.
What is the mission, and what is successful completion of the mission?
I have gotten bored answering this for you.
One of us is being very murky here in her thinking.
One of us is parroting BDS and liberal fabrications.
One can't help but wonder if the debate the Senate Democrats are demanding now will turn out to be as helpful to them as the last major debate on Iraq the Senate Democrats demanded, at just about the same time of year in the run-up to the 2002 elections. Only time will tell. It will be interesting to watch the results.
Randy Rogers
A few notes:
1. Markos and the rest of the Kos community adore Schweitzer. He's top 5 on the list of "adored politicians." Indeed, many have said they want him to run for POTUS in 2008.
2. Many folks at Kos do say that the only acceptable candidate from Congress would be one who voted "No" in 2003 and "No" on yesterday's vote. There's also a substantial contingent of "No more Senators!" folks, who demand, um...a governor who's voiciferiously anti-war. It's the same thing that drew people to Dean--they want a "no!" candidate.
3. Gore's not running. Period. I saw his movie, and what fascinated me about it is that Gore was 10X more animated when talking about the problems with global warming than he was when talking about his personal life. That seems to me to be a problem.
AA: "Gore?"
Oh, yes please. That's the ticket. Heh.
It's not an "upbeat." It's just that he showed genuine emotion and passion when talking about global warming and pretty much nothing else. I'm not expecting him to say "My sister died! Ain't that great!" (That would be disconcerting, in any event.) But there should be some show of emotion.
"I think Gore has a real shot."
Yes. And why doesn't he patch up his differences with his old buddy, and bring Bill Clinton in as the VP candidate? It may not do much for Bill's marriage (could Hillary get over "this"?) but it may be the winning ticket for 2008.
Any of you Conlaw people want to venture an opinion on whether Bill can run for VP? Is it clear, or a little murky, and how would the 12th and 22nd amendments play out in this case? Who would have to make the final decision as to eligibility?
He stinks, period. He couldn't even win Tennessee. Enough people can spot and are tired of his patrician ways and "I know what's best for you" poo poo. Plus I do believe many Americans remember his racist and devisive campaign rehetoric of class warfare. Did you like Donna Brazille? I think many of us did not, therefore, why hire the guy that would hire her? Like Kerry, he stands for nothing. Why else marginalize Lieberman during this election cycle?
I saw his movie, and what fascinated me about it is that Gore was 10X more animated when talking about the problems with global warming than he was when talking about his personal life. That seems to me to be a problem.
Far be it from me to defend the former Vice-President or his latest work of fiction but I don’t necessarily think that being more animated when talking about what one believes to be a serious problem (and reasonable people can certainly disagree on whether global climate change is a problem, the seriousness of it relative to other problems, and the costs-benefits of proposed “solutions”) than in making small talk about the family is a bad thing.
me,
"he still sighs loudly"
So sighs matter?
Richard Dolan,
"I certainly agree that "successful completion" is critical. But the problem with framing the issue in these terms is that the real policy choices get lost in an exercise in retrospection -- if we knew then what we have learned by living through the last 3 years, things would have been done differently. Of course -- but that is a truism about all of life, and is unhelpful in coming up with national security policies to deal unknown and unknowable contingencies."
I agree; to be a responsible party, the Democrats need to come up with a reasonable plan on how they will win the current war in Iraq, and on what they would do in the future with the struggle against Islamo-Fascists. Specifically how to handle the types of situations that Bill Clinton and George Bush faced over the past 14 years. What have they learned from that?
The problem, though, is that they realize that that "a reasonable plan" as I described will be pretty much exactly what this administration has been doing since 9/11.
What's wrong with Donna Brazile? (I like her as a Sunday morning news talk guest.)
What's wrong with Donna Brazile?
I'm glad you asked that because I was wondering the same thing myself. I have found her to be one of the few people "inside the beltway" willing to engage in an actual conversation instead sticking to the "talking points" du jour. Considering her partisan bona fides, I think she is refreshing. And somewhat unpredicatable, unlike so many in both parties who have held positions such as hers and insist that day is night despite all evidence to the contrary just because it is the official party position of that particular day.
Ken said:
"Only in a campaign in which foreign policy is a minimal issue can the Democrats win."
Either that's absolutely true, or it's just a staggering coincidence that the only two Democrats to win the White House since the '60s did so at a time when foreign affairs were low on the agenda: Carter (height of detente, and in any event, mainly attributable as a reaction to Watergate) and Clinton (Soviet Union dead, terrorism not yet percieved as a threat).
Harrison Bergeron said...
"There are several platforms that are serious losers . . . Gay Marriage, even though I voted against the amendment here in Georgia, everywhere it has been put to vote it has gotten 70% + people voting against it. That is a lot of Democrats voting against Gay Marriage."
Crunching the numbers on the Alabama referendum here, I demonstrated that somewhere in the vicinity of half of the Democratic primary voters voted for the amendment, and I would be far from surprised if those numbers were not reflected throughout the country. This fall is going to be interesting; no ban on homosexual marriage put to the general public has ever failed, nor even come close to failing. The big challenge for proponents is basically to make sure that the public doesn't get any say in the matter, which is certainly a familiar position for liberals, but it's not one that they like to think of themselves as defending in such explicit terms.
SF:
"Of coarse, it all depends on who the Republicans pick as their guy. Guliani trumps Hillary, but I don't think he trumps Gore. Is Newt the ace-in-the-hole against the Big G???"
You know what, I would love Newt to run, I think he will run, and if he does, I could very easily see myself voting for him. But Newt comes with some serious baggage, and he faces the serious problem that a lot of the base is going to want a candidate who will lead from the front on the sanctity of marriage, and frankly, a man with Newt Gingrich's personal history isn't someone who can be taken seriously if he opens his mouth about the sanctity of marriage. I also worry that there are a lot of people in this country who remember the 1990s, and remember the stuff that Newt did in the 1990s, and have a very low opinion of that conduct. But FWIW, I think he is, and should be, a very serious contender for the nominee, and if nothing else, I think running for the Presidency will get broader exposure for some of the ideas he's been trailing in the last few years, and will make the primary a much more rigorous and interesting process. Anyone who runs against Newt is going to have to relaly, really work for it, particularly in any prospective debates.
Donna Brazile? I hardly ever agree with her, but I like her. No way she gets any real blame for Gore 2000.
As for the Democrat's strategy, it seems pretty clear. From the end of the Cold War until 9/11 everyone was asleep. After 9/11 GWB said this is how I want to handle this problem (and it is a problem).
Ok so now there is plenty to criticize but unless the Dems come up with a reasonable alternative, they will have a hard time winning a national election. There is a not a day going by that we are not reminded of what these people will do to us. I don't always agree with this president but I am pretty certain I know what he wants to do. Did we ever know what Kerry wanted to do, Gore, etc.? Maybe, kinda sort of...
Matt - I'm pleased if the Kossacks could get behind any nominee that I don't think would be a disaster for America; I wouldn't vote for Schweitzer, but I'd like to be able to vote against someone while knowing that even if they win, they aren't going to be a complete disaster.
He stinks, period. He couldn't even win Tennessee.
He won the popular vote, so it seems that more people liked him than liked Bush on that day. So, I guess Bush stinks! He couldn't win more votes!
Todd said:
"Donna Brazile? Sure, she's alright to watch on This Week.
But let's not forget some of her more infamous moments in politics."
Donna Brazile has actually matured quite a bit since her thankless task of working on the Gore campaign. (Can you imagine two more discordant personalities?)
When the media and the Democratic base (essentially the same group) were infatuated with Howard Dean, Brazile firmly and publicly warned that no Democrat could be elected President who was not credible on defending the nation. So strongly did she believe this, she even published an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal to make the point.
Of course Peter Beinart of the New Republic later took up this theme and got much more recognition for it. But I think it took more courage for Brazile, so closely identified with Gore, to go out on a limb as she did.
John Althouse Cohen:
You are right: Gore doesn't have win Tennessee. That said, can you name the last President of the United States who was elected without carrying his home state?
John Althouse Cohen:
Mine was just an interjection of why people consistently mention Tennessee, John. I hadn't intended to take part in the debate as to whether Gore is electable in 2008.(The answer to my question is "Zero," BTW. There will be a first time, and it was almost 2000, but "close" only counts in horseshoes. :-)
But, if you insist, some of the reasons Al Gore is unelectable in 2008 might include the fact that he had all the power and prestige of incumbency when he ran in 2000, a unified party, one of the longest peace-time economic growth records in modern history, stock market growth that appeared to defy gravity (the bubble actually started bursting early in 2000 but not that many paid attention), the lowest unemployment rates ever post-World War II, no visible signs of major foreign wars or problems, apparent success in defusing the Korean nuclear problem (the truth came out later), apparent success in stopping the slaughter of innocents in Bosnia and Kosovo, and yet Al Gore couldn't do much more than tie an opponent whose inept public speaking style was the subject of ridicule, an opponent whose debating skills were limited, one who was generally derided by mainstream media and opinion-makers.
There's a reason for you John, based on hard facts, that Al Gore can't be elected in 2008. He was a lousy candidate then, probably the most inept since John Dewey threw his sure thing away by playing it safe in 1948. Finally, Al Gore has moved to the left since 2000 and the public hasn't.
quxxo: One of us is being very murky here in her thinking. I think that is a bad idea and I recommend use of the internet to help determine the facts and answers to these questions. Atrios, Hullabaloo, Talking Points Memo, Talk Left, Media Matters, Glenn Greenwald, Brad Delong, Crooks and Liars. All of these are excellent sources. If you care to go to radio, I would highly recommend the Al Franken show, The Thom Hartman show, Peter Werbe, and of course, Terri Gross.
Explains a lot.
Since you want some mission of yours completed, you may wish to check in at the NYTimes to see if your mission is the same as the President's. (Apparently the Prez thinks we need to stay in Iraq in order to win in 06 and 08).
If it still is, and since you think that the Army should be able to come on campus to recruit, I think you should offer the Army some free advertising on your site. They just raised the max age to join to 42 and they could use the ad space as well as your exhortations to your students and readers to join up. Illudium-Q36, DTL, MadisonMan, VD Studs, Marburg, The Anchor Chick, you could have your own platoon! (we all know the sloanbot would not pass the basic fitness test much less the turing test.) Many many others too.
The Althouse Platoon! Sign up here.
"I love when people romanticize dead Presidents. They tend to forget their problems - [In Truman's case] like Korea. He may have been moderate and integretous (sp) but losing 38,000 in three years fresh after WWII did not make him Mr Popular."
You consider the succesfull action to keep South Korea out of Pyongyang's hands - a decision of incaculable human and economic value - to be a problem?
Post a Comment