Our Man Al
This (from Kos, via Rilkefan's Rilkeblog) reminds me why I volunteered and voted for Gore.
Damn, reminds me also of the opening of Farenheit 9/11, the slowmo pics of Gore waving to the camera, and the voiceover asking what might have happened if the Florida votes had been counted. W couldn't even be bothered to cut his vacation short. Al was out there chartering flights and unloading boxes and wouldn't even talk to the press about it, lest it be politicized. That's a helluva guy right there.
Reminds me also of the differences between recent Democratic and Republican ex-presidents. Carter builds houses for the poor. Reagan mostly just rode horses. Bush '41 (and Quayle and Norman Swartzkopf) made mega-bucks by, among other things, lobbying Sierra Leone--on behalf of rich hunters--to let people come in and shoot their few remaining lions.
As you know, I disagree with the Dems on a lot of things, but they sure do nominate better human beings for president.
This (from Kos, via Rilkefan's Rilkeblog) reminds me why I volunteered and voted for Gore.
Damn, reminds me also of the opening of Farenheit 9/11, the slowmo pics of Gore waving to the camera, and the voiceover asking what might have happened if the Florida votes had been counted. W couldn't even be bothered to cut his vacation short. Al was out there chartering flights and unloading boxes and wouldn't even talk to the press about it, lest it be politicized. That's a helluva guy right there.
Reminds me also of the differences between recent Democratic and Republican ex-presidents. Carter builds houses for the poor. Reagan mostly just rode horses. Bush '41 (and Quayle and Norman Swartzkopf) made mega-bucks by, among other things, lobbying Sierra Leone--on behalf of rich hunters--to let people come in and shoot their few remaining lions.
As you know, I disagree with the Dems on a lot of things, but they sure do nominate better human beings for president.
posted by Winston Smith at
4:22 PM
15 Comments:
You maybe meant to link to the Kos article...
I am coming to the conclusion that I simply adore nerds who know what the fuck they are doing, do it well, and do it because they think it is the right thing to do.
I don't imagine I will ever run for office or advise anyone who does, based on this point of view. This is not a good situation. People who actually have brains, think about stuff, and do stuff are no longer viable for elected office (nevermind political appointees). Actually doing the intellectual and practical lifting is wimpy. WTF?
Winston, (and I'm not being snotty here), what exactly is it about Democrats that you disagree with?
Serious question. I know you like guns, and I know you aren't a fan of the nanny-state, but really, what do you disagree with? Guns are, well, done with, the NRA and reality won.
Nanny-state is useful shorthand, but doesn't do much to define or describe policies you disagree with. I borrow this term from previous posts.
So...what exactly is it that causes you to periodically reiterate your disagreements with Democrats (and not in a specific way, but more as a general matter of principle)?
I think it's about maintaining intellectual street cred: if you claim to be suspicious of both parties, it makes you look like a high-minded intellect above petty partisanship.
Now, I actually do hate both parties, but that's because I'm a super shrill ultra-lefty.
Rilkefan: right--I'll fix the link.
First Anonymous: I hear you, brother. Amen.
Funkmeister: How do I disagree with Democrats? Let me count the ways: Guns, as you note. The nanny state, as you note. Their tendency to undervalue individual responsibility and self-reliance (as manifested e.g. in their horror at the idea of private retirement accounts). Their spinelessness in failing to stand up against the invasion of Iraq. Motor voter. Howard Dean. Knee-jerk anti-Roberts-ism, coddling the lame-ass teachers' unions...egad...now see what you've done?
But mostly it's the Dem's kooky left wing that I can't stand--like I can't stand the Republicans' kooky right wing. It's--as I've often said--mostly that the kooky left is a weak fringe in the Dems, whereas the kooky right is in charge of the Republicans.
So, like Paul Krugman, I say: you expect me to pick on the lame-ass Democrats EQUALLY? But they're irrelevant, and their flaws--numerous though they are--are still minor in comparison to those of the Republicans. AND THEY'RE LAME!
Also: as I've said before, I attribute part of the rise of the radical right to the fact that Dems were unwilling to stand up to the nutty left PC crowd back in the '80's. Damn, that pissed me off.
Anyway, none of this means that I don't LOVE the Dems, because I do, in the way that you might love a lame-ass drunken good-for nothing uncle with a heart of gold.
I dunno. Something like that. Who gives a rat's ass what I think.
P.s. Matthew, I don't actually think you're shrill. I'm just giving you sheeet.
Not that it matters what I think.
Winston,
It's hard to be politically moderate in a polarized partisan world. This country needs more political parties. Unfortunately, no faction of either party can support a third party, because the other party would benefit.
I dunno, Winston, I AM pretty much "left wing." I guess my saving grace is that I'm not "kooky" (although that inflatable nut-sac thing does intrigue me).
I guess my saving grace is that I'm not "kooky"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, or, "I am not a crook."
Sorry, I couldn't let this one pass. One of the hallmarks of insanity is adjudging oneself sane. The hallmark of true sanity is questioning one's own.
Who among us can get that inflatable nut-sac picture out of his mind...
Motor voter???
Re: Dems: "as manifested e.g. in their horror at the idea of private retirement accounts"
Winston,
We who like to think of ourselves as members of the reality-based community are really only opposed to private accounts as substitutes to SS rather than add-ons. Spend some time looking around Brad DeLong's site if you want to see the insidiousness of private carve-outs laid bare, and the virtues of add-ons highlited.
Just pickin' on one of your strawmen ;)
Tom, I was having fun with Winston's own metrics. But from your comments here, I have a hard time believing you've ever doubted your own sanity, given your consistent ability to parse the true nature of the universe.
The Republicans, arguably even since Ike, and with the possible exception of Nixon, nominate spokesmen for President. They are fundamentally skeptical of democracy, preferring to manipulate the voting public (and the nonvoting public) in various ways. The Dems manipulate too (see Sy Hersh's "Dark Side of Camelot"), but tend to nominate people of some vision and of some optimism in people. Unfortunately, the Dems can't seem to believe how completely corrupt and ruthless the Republicans have become, because of their sunny view of people. Unfortunately as well, Dems who manage to make it inside the beltway are as humanly seduceable as anyone else by power, status, money, and sex. One wonders, then, just how long it's going to take before the US gets it's Napoleon/Mussolini--a strong man on a white horse who seems to uphold virtues and who will sweep away the rotting wreckage of what once was a (sorta) real democracy grounded in patriarchy and slavery? The Katrina debacle brings us ever closer to this next phase.
GROW IT YOURSELF!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home