John Kerry's head has the look of a toby jug, set off in the background. Hillary Clinton has Little Orphan Annie irisless eye dots. And Ned Lamont -- hilariously drawn with a long neck and a pointy nose -- stares off to his right and points left.
But let's see what Broder has to say:
“It’s a dog’s breakfast,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which has done extensive polling on public attitudes toward the war. “The reason that Democrats aren’t talking about specific plans to end the war is because it’s hard to figure out what to say without alienating a broad swath of the electorate.”Distractable me: What exactly is "a dog's breakfast"? According to this, it's a poor job, a mess. Presumably, it's a wisecrack about how bad dinner is, right? One source says it's a variation on "a dog's dinner," but here we see that "a dog's breakfast" and "dog's dinner" are two completely different phrases. "The dog's dinner" means "Dressed or displayed in an ostentatiously smart manner." (Can't say that about the Dems plan for Iraq.)
Why a dog's breakfast is synonymous with mess or muddle and dog's dinner with smartness isn't at all clear. It appears that the two phrases were coined entirely independently of each other.See also the dog's bollocks? Really! No Clinton jokes! "The dog's bollocks" means excellent. Just an update on "the bee's knees." Would that the Democrats had some ideas that were the dog's bollocks. We're advised at the link that polite -- and rhyme-loving -- folks can say "the mutt's nuts."
'Dog's dinner' is first cited in ‘C. L. Anthony's play 'Touch Wood', 1934:"Why have you got those roses in your hair? You look like the dog's dinner."See also: the dog's bollocks.
But enough of this linguistic digression. We can't be all scholarly all the time here. We've got to pay some attention to the goofy world of politics some of the time. (And lord knows, it does bring the linkage.) So, back to Broder:
Among the Democrats trying to find the right message on Iraq is Eric Massa, a United States Naval Academy graduate who spent 24 years on active duty and then worked as a staff member in Congress. He is challenging a freshman Republican representative, John R. Kuhl Jr., for a seat in western New York State. Mr. Massa offers a thought-out critique of the Bush policy in Iraq, based on his years in uniform and his service as a senior NATO officer dealing with the civil warfare in Bosnia.Linguistic detour: "a fool's errand."
“We will never be successful in creating a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq at the tip of a bayonet,” he said. “That’s a fool’s errand. The longer we try it, the more dire the consequences.”
The Kuhl-Massa debate, if you can call it that, illuminates the difficulties at least some Democrats are having talking about Iraq. The more specific they are in proposing solutions to the impasse in Iraq, the more they open themselves to Republican charges of defeatism, or worse....Calibrating your policy like this doesn't really inspire us moderates.
A Pew Research Center poll released last week found that Democratic candidates attract strong support among Democratic voters by advocating immediate withdrawal, but that position tends to repel independents. The safest position appears to be supporting a timetable for withdrawal, which independents favor by 35 to 20 percent.
Bruce W. Jentleson, a professor of public policy at Duke University and an official in the State Department’s office of policy planning under President Bill Clinton, said ... “Many of them think it’s enough to run on negativity on the Bush policy. I’m not convinced that’s true. That feeds the perception that Democrats know what they’re against but not what they’re for.”So, yeah, it's a dog's breakfast.
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
The reason the Dems will not repeat their earlier performances is because the country has moved right since Carter. From 1932 - 1994, there was a generation who grew up with FDR and the Great Deppression. Most of that generation is dying out. Anyway, when JFK said "Pay any price, bear any burden" is not talking about the Kossite Democrats. And that is no dog Bollock.
Dave's a Karl Rove plant.
Ann, these new democrats think since they defeated Lieberman, they have discovered the wheel. All they do is attack with cliches and never enter the battle of ideas. If you are a Republican you are considered "stupid, nazi, etc." Until the adults re-enter the Democrat party and realize some issues are not partisan, they will never regain the majority
There are two current problems with the Democrats:
1) They have no firm political bedrocks except class warfare and abortion on demand. (both of which the American public are increasingly disenchanted with) They are forced to substitute polls for ideas. (yet another destructive legacy of Pres. Clinton)
2) As they continue to lose, they become increasingly strident, angry, dismissive, and engage in insulting and over the top rhetoric.
(see dave above)
"Ann, how much longer are you going to put up with abuse by this character "dave". He is full of hate not argument."
He makes an argument by example. Plus, it amuses me today to make fun of him. It's easy, but it's Sunday, and I'm trying to relax... in my own special way.
You know, if the Democrats' international relations position didn't so much resemble that of a "catcher" in a bath house, they might actually stand a chance of getting back in control of Congress.
Modern politics strongly favors the incumbent. Voters may not agree with the incumbent, but at least there is the perception that he stands for something.
Challengers have the daunting task of somehow communicating an alternative vision in the age of sound bites. There are no more Lincoln Douglas debates because we don't want them, and probably don't really care enough to invest the intellectual energy that it would take to follow one.
So opponents, in this instance, largely Dems, must craft tactics, not policies, and sound bites that might, just might catch our attention. It's hard to do well. You often come off as unserious and shallow--like Howard Dean.
But we apparently are satisfied with unserious and shallow representatives. We keep voting for them.
Funny--I just read "a dog's dinner" [apparently misused] for the first time in the newspaper yesterday:
"After driving by to check, she confirmed that one client's purple bougainvillea does indeed hold onto its bracts, rendering it 'about as attractive as dog's dinner,' while ones of other colors in the neighborhood have long since shed their bracts."
Regardless of proper usage, I like dog's dinner better, because breakfast is a bit of a mouthful and dinner aliterates.
Is phrases.org.uk the last word on the subject?
Of all the Democrats discussed, Biden is the only one who came across to me as serious about the issue. His plan is not suicidally infeasible.
Before I reread the post, I thought that he was calling for partition. And that would be a disaster for three reasons:
1. Iraqi's neighbors with significant Kurdish minorities would not stand for it. In particular, Turkey (a NATO ally) has made it plain that it would likely invade if the country were partitioned. Iran is also an issue, but not, IMHO, as much Syria.
2) Who gets the oil? Unfortunately, it is almost all in Kurdish and Shiite areas.
3) What about Baghdad? The ethnic violence there now is precisely because it is so ethnicly mixed.
But Biden is calling for three semi-autonomous areas, which might work. The Kurdish region is already that way, and the Kurds are happy to just sit up there and shoot any terrorists who try to sneak in. You still have the problem of Baghdad, but the other problems are much lessened this way.
A time table just gives the enemy a time line for how long they have to hunker down before we leave. Expect that if we announced such, that violence would significantly diminish for that period of time, as they marshal their resources, marking time until they can make their move after we finish our cut and run. And then the bloodbath.
Ann,
Thanks for the change of pace here. I think a lot of us, including apparently you, were exhausted in the discussion about breasts and Clinton. Fun every once in awhile, but I like this sort of thing much better.
That's right, keep demoralizing each other.
the Republicans called a cease-fire long ago..'though shall not speak ill of another republican'.
Their adminstration is seated in the congress, White house and supreme court for a reason.
Har-har-har.
Noah,
I am not sure that dogs are really omnivores, in the same way that we are. I would put them between cats on the one hand, which actually need meat to be healthy, and humans and pigs on the other, whose natural diet is a decent mix between plant and animal. In the wild, dogs are primarily carnivores, as evidenced by their teeth.
That said, I have a memory of my mother never quite understanding my logic when I was assigned the duty of sweeping the floor after dinner. Instead, I would let the puddle in, and she would do a better job than I would.
Also, we could tell when she was getting into the cat's food (served on the top of an upright freezer for just this reason), because we would invariably have a lot of dead birds in our yard, which my mother also didn't approve of.
We always attributed this to the fact that she had been spayed after two litters (we were somehow under the misguided impression that someone in their right mind might want to pay for a poodle, even with a good pedigree).
I should have been more precise, it was the poodle that was spayed after two litters.
Semanticleo,
"inimical"
You might want to look it up.
The Democrats do have a record of fiscal responsibility under the last Democratic president as opposed to the compassionate conservative deficits incurred by granting large tax cuts during this war called "a struggle for civilization."
as opposed to the compassionate conservative deficits incurred by granting large tax cuts during this war
You seemed to have missed the news that the tax cuts had exactly the effect that was predicted, they have produced record increases in the amount of tax money collected.
Gahrie, I will note that there's no way of knowing how the economy would have progressed had the tax cuts not been granted.
I'm assuming you have missed the news reports about the skyrocketing budget deficits and entitlements? The Republicans who control the Legislative and Executive branches behave as if a fire hose spraying money can solve any problem. Is it disgraceful. We're in a war for civilization, the President tells us, and not one mention is made of any kind of sacrifice.
The Democrats do have a record of fiscal responsibility under the last Democratic president
I think it's more "Divided Government has a record of fiscal responsibility." There was that thing where Newt Gingrich decided he was going to try governing from Congress, and shut the whole government down, after all.
Taxes and budget have to come through Congress. When it was a Republican Congress intent on frustrating the plans of a Democratic president (or at least, the Democratic plans of a Democratic president -- right-wing stuff like welfare reform, NAFTA, and the Defense of Marriage Act were all right by them) it's only natural they would be parsimonious with our tax money.
The incentives didn't quite line up the same way when it was a Republican President and a Republican Congress. And there's not the slightest reason to believe they would line up any better with a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.
That said, they might line for fiscal prudence and ratcheting down government bloat if we have a Democratic Congress (or even just a Democratic House) and a Republican President.
I'm assuming you have missed the news reports about the skyrocketing budget deficits and entitlements? The Republicans who control the Legislative and Executive branches behave as if a fire hose spraying money can solve any problem. Is it disgraceful. We're in a war for civilization, the President tells us, and not one mention is made of any kind of sacrifice.
These are entirely different things than the tax cuts, and frankly I agree with you about them.
Ahh, semanti Cleo wandered over here from JustOneMinute where he's still insisting that "Karl Rove did, too, damnit, out the super-duper double secret agent Valerie Plame, our top James Bond type 007, in order to get payback at the notably truthful Joe Wilson, and I don't care how many times Armitage says he did it or how much evidence says Plame wasn't covert and no actual crime was committed, so there!! And my mom, does too love me, she's just too busy for the past few years to see me or answer my calls."
Personally, I'd be willing to seriously consider any potential policy change the Dems would put forth, IF they would at the same time promise to own the results without whining or blaming Bush.
Finally, Ferd, Bush *and* the vast majority of Dems in Congress listed, literally, 23 causes for war with Iraq. The only one you can marginally argue about it WMD, and while no large amounts have been found some have, and it's pretty much an open question as to their existence at that time. Unless, of course, you want to consider the stance of EVERY SINGLE leading Democrat at the time. Nice try, though.
I share your political views. It's GOP by default. When the NYT is putting out a story like the one Ann features, you know the situation in the democratic party is dire.
The daves of this world have taken over the democratic party. They are so certain that because they are intellectually and morally superior to all others, they will win.
But they have not ever been able to get over 40 percent of the country to support their views.
Ann and Roger Simon are examples of disaffected democrats who have expressed frustration with dave-like political views and tactics.
dave and his gang don't like them at all. Which makes me like them all the more.
Dave:
I think if someone had sufficent time to comb through the Althouse archives, you could come up with a reasonably convincing case for a slight right-ward shift in Althouse. That's just my sense. She has less patience for Democratic/Media BS than before.
The real question is, why? Single professional woman, went to art school - this is your core demographic. The reason is people like you.
Freder: We're in a war for civilization, the President tells us, and not one mention is made of any kind of sacrifice.
Something I agree with you on. But I don't believe liberals believe this is a war for civilization ("It's a law enforcement problem!" - Kerry), and don't believe in sacrifice either.
------------------------------
WRT Topic at hand:
Gahrie is right. Other than race, class, and gender divisions, the modern Left has nothing to offer.
This phony "if we torture, we're just as bad as they are" is complete idiocy, and all but the most seriously deluded Democrats know it. You're going to tell the American people that we are the moral equivalent of Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah? Good luck.
America is an Enlightenment country at heart. We believe the world can be improved, problems can be solved. The Democrats must first believe in our moral standing to exist, and thrive. That power itself is not shameful. They must offer more than mere survival - we cannot forever be tip-toeing around, second-guessing, apologizing for our bulk, concilating and mediating with every discontent under the sun. Democrats must offer a vision of an America, firm in purpose, generous to friends, patient to the unreasonable, and lethal to enemies. There is a good reason why the Great Seal of the United States has olive branches and arrows. Friendship and peace are not intrinsically moral. A sycophant may have many friends, yet he is not moral. Morality requires the fortitude to make enemies if necessary.
Morality also requires the recognition that certain techniques of interrogation are immoral, no matter how evil the advesary (sic).
No it doesn't. Tell me why quarter should be given to an completely immoral enemy. There may be honor among theives, but there is none among terrorists. They hide behind children, rejoice when the children are hit instead of them, and parade the little bodies in front of fawning cameras. Why should mercy be shown?
There is nothing immoral about crushing the enemy. Socrates himself served as a hoplite in the Athenian army, saving the life of his friend, pupil, and brother-under-arms Alcibiades, at Potidaea. He did not save him with sophisticated rhetoric or charm, he saved his friend by disemboweling the enemy with his bronze spear, knocking them to the ground with his shield, and trampling them underfoot.
(Given your previous response, I fully expect you to ignore my entire post, choosing instead to create some trite objection to one sentence . But I'm not writing this for your benefit anyways.)
Though I respect John McCain's sacrifice and service to the country, I am unconvinced about the argument that a conservative (e.g. traditional and broad) common Article 3 of the Geneva Accords is needed to protect our soldiers in a future war. it was passed in 1949. Let's score our opponents since 1949 on their compliance:
North Koreans 1950-53: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Red Chinese 1950-53: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
North Vietnamese 1963-1975: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Viet Cong 1963-1975: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Pathe Lao 1963-1975: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Iraqi's I 1990-91: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Serbians 1995-96: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Somilis 1993: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Al Qaeda 1995- present: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
Iraqis Resistance II 2002-present: Nope, torture, kidnap and murder of real POWs
looks like the folks we fight aren't impressed by our compliance, oh and that was long before Bush stretched the envelope.
Go back before 1949:
Japanese WWII 1941-1945: Nope, torture, and murder of real POWs
Germans WWII1941-1945: Nope, torture, and murder of real POWs
I think we need to go back to Germany in 1918 to find an opponent that fought within what would be classed as civilized treatment of POWs.
Freder,
You go overboard a bit here. No major Republican leader is supporting torture, at least as applicable under treaty. Of course, you could extend the concept of torture to the point where merely having females interrogate Islamic prisoners is torture because in their belief system, it is demeaning.
What we are talking here is treatment more akin to what is routine in many police forces across the country, and is significantly less onerous than what is voluntarily undertaken by some of our military to prepare themselves for the significantly more brutal interrigation and incarceration that they can expect (before possible behading) should they be captured.
So, please don't blytely, blindly, and misleadingly use the word "torture" here. If you want to use that term, could you at least relate the treatment being discussed with the level of treatment that is proscribed in the treaty on torture that we have signed?
Germany and Japan ultimately adopted democracy when they saw it was the only path forward. It was not imposed.
Just because the nations went along with it doesn't mean that it wasn't imposed. We didn't give them a choice of government type.
The big difference between now and then is that we had completely broken the German and Japanese people. They knew that we would have no problem killing millions more of them if they got out of line. Iraq, in constrast, has felt our power, and the Iraqi people know that when push comes to shove we're not willing to engage in the kind of total war necessary to force them to bend to our will. That's why we're having trouble imposing democracy on them... because we're not willing to back up the imposition with force.
Fenrisulven, Noah:
Thanks. I have a penchant for being a little dramatic at times, but occasionally it actually works well.
Freder: You talk about the enlightenment and then you say we should adopt the moral values of the Ancient Greeks.
And just where, exactly, do you think Enlightenment values come from? (Hint: It rhymes with 'ancient freak'.)
---------------------------
WRT the topic:
I think it is possible to have a principled anti-war stance. It would have been possible to say, "No, we should not invade Iraq, it is far better to deploy 150,000 men and spend 1 trillion USD on a case-by-case basis, hitting terrorist bases as intellegence arises." But the time to say that was 2003, not 2006. Congress unanimously voted to depose Saddam - in 1999, under Clinton.
Today, in 2006, a principled anti-war stance would be to figure out an exit strategy that does not damage US interests. Having rejected the chance to object to the war before it was started, the principled anti-war stance is to figure out how to end the war quickly. To end the war we must either win it or lose it. The principled anti-war stance certainly would not be advocating the defeat of its own nation, so the only alternative to figure out the fastest way to win. This is important - anti-war should not mean hoping we lose. What does "win the war" mean? Stabilize Iraq, create conditions that allow for US troops to leave without leaving chaos behind.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, and for our nation, I don't think they have much credibility on this issue, at a time when we need alternatives to the Bush plan.
What if the Iraq War is already over and Iran has won?
How can the Iraq war be "over" and Iran have "won" when (a) we haven't even started fighting Iran yet and (b) we retain the capacity to annihilate them through either conventional or nuclear means?
We lost the Vietnam war because North Vietnam had the backing of a nuclear power; we could attack North Vietnam, but we couldn't risk attacking its backers in China and the USSR. The backers of the Iraqi insurgency, however, are just a bunch of pissant Muslim oil states with no nukes as of yet.
Granted, it may ultimately turn out that we're not willing to kill Iranians in order to support Iraq, in which case Iraq will remain a mess indefinitely. That scenario could, indeed, be classified as a loss. But given that the Iraqi government has only been in place a few months, it is awfully early to be waving the white flag.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा