Who's Next?
Gigantic rock concerts are good for hearing crappy live renditions of old songs, seeing the backs of a lot of people's heads, getting wasted and dehydrated, and later on wearing a t-shirt so you can say how fun it all was.
But if they couldn't even get Kerry elected, how can they be expected to save the world?
Daltrey and Geldof, veterans of just about every big charity concert in history, apparently believe as I do.
THE WHO's ROGER DALTRY has blasted the big Wembley gig Gore is organising to raise awareness of global warming.
The huge concert - which features performances from the likes of MADONNA and RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS - is taking place at Wembley on July 7 and in other countries around the world.
But Roger, who played with U2 at Live Aid and Live8, reckons the whole thing is a waste of time.
Speaking exclusively to Bizarre, Roger said: "Bo***cks to that! The last thing the planet needs is a rock concert.
"I can't believe it. Let's burn even more fuel.
"We have problems with global warming, but the questions and the answers are so huge I don't know what a rock concert's ever going to do to help.
"Everybody on this planet at the moment, unless they are living in the deepest rainforest in Brazil, knows about climate change.”
The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”
Actually, that last one is a brilliant idea. In a sense, that's why I no longer complain about high gas prices. They're the only way to truly motivate people to conserve and find alternative energy sources.
Here's what Geldof said:
Roger's comments come hot on the heels of SIR BOB GELDOFÂ’s equally scathing views.
Last week the Live Aid hero lashed out, saying: "Why is Gore actually organising them? To make us aware of the greenhouse effect?
"Everybody's known about that problem for years. We are all f***ing conscious of global warming."
Roger Daltrey earned even more respect from me, by recognizing that these mega-benefit boondoggles have become exercises in musical back-slapping.
Again Roger complains that unlike the original Live Aid in 1985, where the money went directly to famine relief, the follow-up 20 years later had no achievable aims.
Roger moaned: "What did we really achieve at Live 8? We got loads of platitudes and no action.
"Who were we kidding there?"
I think what he's saying is, "The sixties are over dudes." It's time to start trusting people over 30. Or at least stop believing music can change the world like you did when you were 18.
1
"Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss" -The Who
"Politians are the same the world over, always trying to build a bridge where there is no river." -Krushchev
Posted by: Casca at May 20, 2007 04:58 PM (2gORp)
2
Your blog is very famous for the little girl/
Whose absence will be heard all around the world...
You are forgiven.
5
Good luck, Annie. Thanks for all that you gave us. Goodbye.
Posted by: Robbie at May 20, 2007 09:01 PM (B04jK)
6
Thanks annie. I'll miss you too.
Good luck always.
Posted by: d-rod at May 20, 2007 11:39 PM (RUg8X)
7
Dear Annika,
Before you go, I want you to know that you were the most intellectual of all the masturbatory stimuli that I have ever encountered. I will fondly miss you, but not for long. My own harem of Asian mail-order brides will be assembled soon. I am not a selfish man, though. In honor of you, I want to share them with the world. They will comprise "The Litterbox", my cathouse. I promise you, at least, I will sometimes unconsciously call out your name in my wet dreams. I won't forget you.
Fapping vigorously for the last time,
Spanky
Posted by: Spanky at May 20, 2007 11:51 PM (8/tWk)
8
Rad, you are fucking hilarious!
Get some Korean girls. They have bigger breasts.
Posted by: Casca at May 21, 2007 12:02 AM (2gORp)
9
Thank you, Casca. I will definitely take that into consideration.
I guess I'll leave an additional parting thought for you guys to contemplate. Strawman gives new meaning to the term "invertebrate." Not only is he spineless, Strawman was also blessed with an inverted urethra. In other words, his dick naturally runs 180 degrees in the opposite direction, like an innie navel, and intrudes through his anus. This condition forces him to sit down just to take a piss.
Posted by: Spanky at May 21, 2007 07:33 AM (bSS5O)
10
"This condition forces him to sit down just to take a piss"
AKA a Sitzpinkler. And yes it is!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 21, 2007 08:01 PM (cOyko)
11
Indeed, Radical Redneck. Indeed.
Since I'm back again, I reckon I'll provide an epilogue of commentary on some of "The Final Post" posts.
-If Billy's musings about Annika being male are true, I will immediately cut off my right fucking hand after I use a weed eater on my genitals.
-I see that Will couldn't keep his narcissistic attention whore-ism under wraps for the finale. Instead of posting a simple, minimalist "k thx bai" tribute to the hostess, he had to get on a soapbox for his agenda one more time. He is like a vegan soliciting converts. Sure, vegans may be right that eating greens is better for you, but as long as it's a free country, that doesn't mean I will change my dietary habits just to placate their desires. Whether it is lobbying to eat green or be "green", the solicitors of both camps can toss my salad.
Setting aside the anti-corporate populist rhetoric, Will's preening, jejune vilification of lobbyists and special interest groups is laughably hypocritical. After all, each of us as individuals have our own special interests to advance. I've got to make a living, so I don't have the time nor do I feel compelled to camp out like an assclown in front of the Capitol in an attempt to influence my representatives with a placard. That's why I pay proxies, such as the NRA, and Will pays GreenPeace and NAMBLA to do that shit, instead.
Will is the epitome of square. I wouldn't be surprised if such uber squareness had manifested itself on his flesh peg. As children, we knew the futility of inserting square pegs into round holes. Not even a wooden lathe could save Will's sex life.
/Spankilogue
Posted by: Spanky at May 23, 2007 08:27 AM (vcfqn)
1
How about "Just Plain Bill" by Eating Louisiana?
Or, "The Boy is Mine", by Monica?
Posted by: shelly at May 17, 2007 10:40 AM (JQe3J)
2
My write in vote is for "The B*tch is back" Elton John....
Posted by: howard at May 17, 2007 11:54 AM (48jPo)
3
She seriously should use that song. I think it would be awesome, even in a feminist sort of way. Bitch is nothing to be ashamed of. I think if we gotta have a female president, she probably should be a bitch.
Posted by: annika at May 17, 2007 11:59 AM (zAOEU)
4
I think I'd like to wait for you to be President, thank you very much.
Posted by: Shelly at May 17, 2007 01:32 PM (JQe3J)
8
I think one must consider "Wedding Bell Blues" by Laura Nyro:
"Bill...I love you so; I always will.. I look at you and see the passion eyes of May"..(etc. etc.)
These paradoxical lyrics, when applied to the Clintons, came out about the time Hill was meeting Bill if I'm not incorrect. After learning of his political aspirations I can just picture her, "come on and marry me Biiiiiiiilll, come on and marry me Biiiiiillll," as I think the song went.
Posted by: Mike C. at May 17, 2007 06:46 PM (h/YdH)
Scott Card On GW
From Orson Scott Card's* recent column, "Civilization Watch," on the global warming debate:
How many thousands do you want to spend this year on preventing global warming? And after you find out that there's no proof that humans even cause it, or that it's even a bad thing, how many thousands do you want to spend "just in case"?
Two thousand? Surely you can afford two thousand. What about five thousand?
You're not writing your check. I guess you're not such a true believer after all.
[GW advocate and columnist Andrew] Brod also ignores the fact that the British government report was issued in support of policy changes that are, by any rational standard, pathetic. The changes they are making are ludicrously inadequate to change the levels of greenhouse gases to any significant degree. Given that the results will be near zero, any costs, however divided, might seem exorbitant.
Brod likens this to insurance, but it is not. Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss. It does not prevent a loss. The valid comparison is to protection money: Somebody comes to you and demands you pay money "or you might have a fire." You pay the money so that they won't burn you out of business.
That's what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can't prove anything is actually happening, but look how many people we've got to agree with us! You'd better make a whole bunch of sacrifices which, by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western anti-industrial religion of ecodeism -- or global warming will get you!
Regarding proof, it should be obvious that there can be no proof of a theory that is designed to predict future events. Predictions of future catastrophe can only be proven by waiting to see if it happens. Computerized models that purport to project future events are not proof that those events will take place.
At the most basic metaphysical level, we are all ignorant of the future. I can predict that the earth will continue to revolve as it did today, and thus the sun will come up tomorrow. But to a metaphysical certainty, I have no idea whether I will be proven correct until it happens. If I look out my window, I can't even say for certain that the earth is spinning, or even that it is round. For those facts, I rely on the scientific consensus and my blind faith in the research and observations of others. I have enough confidence in those observations that I don't worry if they are wrong.
But global warming predictions are not based on observations. They can't be, because no one can observe the future. Therefore, when I make a judgment that global warming science is right or wrong, metaphysically speaking, I have no idea what the truth is. Whatever my opinion is, it can only be based on the observations of others, since I have not done the research. But the important point is that nobody has made the relevant observations necessary for proof. Not even the scientists. The data cannot be collected or observed, since the data does not yet exist.
For hundreds of years, Newton's laws were considered to be truth for two simple reasons. First, they accurately described the observed motion of objects and second, they accurately predicted the motion of objects as observed in the future. Based on the technology that existed to detect the necessary proof, Newton's laws were reliable.
Now, of course, we know that Newton's laws are wrong — or at least incomplete. Einstein has superceded them. Only advances in technology have allowed us to see that descriptions of reality based on Newton's work could only approximate reality. Newton gets us close enough for most purposes, but metaphysically speaking, it is not truth.
Yet for hundreds of years, Newton's laws were indistinguishable from the accepted version of reality. (Einstein blew a hole in that by showing us that reality itself is relative.) But the point I'm trying to make is that scientific consensus does not equal truth — even if the scientific consensus, as with pre-Einsteinian physics, conforms to observed reality and appears to predict future observed reality. Global warming theory, since it seeks to predict catastrophes that are far off in the future, doesn't even have those things going for it.†
* A science fiction writer. I read his most famous book Ender's Game, and thought it was creepy and over-rated.
† Which is not to say that GW science is wrong, only that we can not presently know whether it's right or wrong. This is why there's such an emphasis on "consensus." But the media, who don't understand the scientific method, continue to misrepresent "consensus" as truth, when in fact it is not. Without the ability to obtain proof, consensus is about the best people can do, but it is still something short of proof.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 12, 2007 11:51 AM (iXkL1)
2
The Apollo astronauts got to the moon using Newtonian mechanics, even though that was decades after Einstein, and even though no-one had done that before. The expectation that the atmosphere will get warmer as the CO2 goes up is grounded in physics which is just as fundamental. I think you would be better advised to get behind the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which is a technology-driven Bush initiative for dealing with the problem.
Posted by: mitchell porter at May 12, 2007 11:06 PM (275PL)
3
The error in Newtoninan physics is negligible and only becomes a factor at the extremes, for instance when something travels at close to light speed. That's why I said: "Newton gets us close enough for most purposes, but metaphysically speaking, it is not truth."
I don't deny that there is science behind the predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I'm making philosophical and rhetorical points here. One, we can't know if the theory is correct without observations. Two, my Newtonian analogy suggests that "consensus" is not always truth, so don't get too excited when you hear the word.
Posted by: annika at May 13, 2007 07:04 AM (WfR6S)
4
Annika,
The problem I have with the reasoning of your piece is that you are talking about living in a material, probabilistic world where "truth" is not relevant. Scientists search for best answers to observable phenomena and then make statistical statements about the outcome of similar events in the future. It generally works and everything we do, drive over a bridge, take an elevator, eat the contents of any package, land on the moon with the confidence that it is there when we have never touched it and only infer its presence from observations made from 235K miles away, etc.
To impose the philosophic idea of "truth" to the realms of science is not productive and cannot be helpful in support any predictions about outcomes in the future.
You, me and the rest all live in a world of probabilities that we, for the most part, reliably predict each moment. To dismiss GW as unknowable because assuming a truth in the future is prohibited by definition advances nothing.
I am not convinced that the activities of humans have caused or exacerbated the global warming that seems to be occurring. I am not sure how much I am willing to spend to attempt to affect it. I am sure that dismissing it is not judicious given the possible catastrophic outcomes, nor am I moving inland or filling sandbags in Battery Park.
Posted by: Strawman at May 13, 2007 09:18 AM (et8nf)
5
In the second paragraph, Roach makes another point about how Global Warming resembles a religious movement.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 13, 2007 09:40 AM (iXkL1)
6
rAYGUN,
Tell me what does not resemble a religious movement.
The belief that the war in Iraq is important to the GWOT?
The belief that a gun laden America is a safer America?
Posted by: Strawman at May 13, 2007 10:32 AM (et8nf)
7
"The belief that the war in Iraq is important to the GWOT?"
For all of his faults, Bush had the foresight to confront terror-sponsoring states before they could someday enable a nuclear kamikaze attack on our soil.
Before the invasion, there were at least 4 enemy states suspected of developing nuclear weapons: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Libya*. Now, Iran and North Korea remain. In response to the continued Iranian threat, the Gulf Arab States are ostensibly pursuing their own nuclear development programs for supposedly civil purposes. Motivated by a history of racial/ethnic (Arab vs. Persian) and sectarian (Sunni vs. Shia) tensions, a nuclear arms race** is underway in the Middle East. If Iran were stopped, this trend could be reversed.
While Saddam may not have had an extensive nuclear program at the time of our invasion, Iran leaves no doubt that they are indeed working to acquire nukes and have announced their willingness and intent to use them. Like North Korea, Iran was developing them before 9/11. If Bush had never invaded Iraq and maintained the regional status quo, Iran would have made the bomb first and Saddam would have inevitably countered his neighboring Persian nemesis by resuming his own nuclear development.
In order to preserve the Middle Eastern balance of power, some realists would say that Iraq would have been justified in pursuing a deterrent in the case of Iran joining the nuclear club. However, Saddam has proven that he wasn't much of a rational actor based on several gross miscalculations (such as invading Iran and Kuwait) he has made. He and his sons could never be trusted to responsibly possess such a capability.
If Bush had let the sleeping dogs of Iraq and Iran lie, we'd have still had to invade, or even destroy, them both later anyway. Like they say, "Either you pay the bill now, or pay it later with compounded interest."
*Saddam was captured a week before the Libyans' revelation, BTW. Make your own conclusions about how that could have factored into their decision.
**I would also like to point out the irony that, despite Israel having most likely possessed a nuclear deterrent for a couple decades now, it is the fear of Iranian domination that pushed the Arab states into starting their own nuclear programs.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 13, 2007 02:04 PM (iXkL1)
8
Raygun,
Stupid conclusions based on lies and more!
The number of fallacious unerlying arguments supporting the crap above is typical of the reasoning that passes for TRUTH around here. Iraq had NO nuculer program to name the first, and the only non-nuke WMD's they had we sold them. Trhey had no capacity to make anything more frightening than discolored powdered milk.
GIve it up, pal. Invasion cover by tattered hankies of trumped up bullshit and fear of GWOT is still a crime that last time I checked my moral compass.
Posted by: Strawman at May 14, 2007 06:22 AM (et8nf)
9
Straw,
That's a rebuttal? Everything he wrote is accurate. You know it and, therefore, couldn't rebut it with anything besides childish, ad hominem attacks. They did not have a functioning weapon, but they did have a nuclear program. And they were actively trying to put the pieces together to develop a weapon.
Stop tring to re-write history to fit your political agenda.
Posted by: blu at May 14, 2007 07:54 AM (o6U00)
10
Anni, you are mixing domains (philosophy and science); briefly put, science is the pursuit of knowledge through observation, hypothesis, analysis, and repetition, not necessarily in that order. Philosophy is too long a topic to espouse on here, but suffice to say, any issue can have any number of arguments presented/asserted with varying levels of support. Let's examine some of yours;
1. But global warming predictions are not based on observations.
The science of climatology is based on observations of climate trends, leveraging astrophysics, atmospheric physics, chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology, among others. From these observations, multi-variate climatic behaviors are deduced and trialed against the existing data. The current models have enhanced behavior rulesets that are fairly well calibrated against the best data we have at our disposal. Can they accurately predict the future? Have predictions from early, rough models 20 years ago done well against observations over the same timeframe? See below.
The blurb you quoted from Card is full of empty, baseless claims; he clearly doesn't have anything to offer but emotive cues. Paying attention to pundits and talking heads on this subject is an utter waste of time; they really don't know anything more than they've read from some other pundit or shill. If you want to learn something interesting on this subject in a semi-daily fashion, I recommend reading this blog by a group of paleoclimatologists and modelers.
You'll see today's article about an early climate model from 1988 and how its predictions almost 20 years ago stacks up to climate observations over that same time period.
2. the important point is that nobody has made the relevant observations necessary for proof.
We technically haven't proven a link between smoking and lung cancer, though there are definitely clear epidemiological trends. Remember, Newton was very close to being completely correct, just not at the extreme edges. So if climate models are 99% correct, or even just 90% correct, that's enough in the ballpark to make decisions about mitigation and adaptation (the latter not being 'free' by a long shot).
There is not the space in a short message like this to explain the many aspects with any depth of detail. I recommend that you visit RealClimate about twice a week to come up to speed on the subject and stay current. Indeed, I challenge anyone here to do so and stay a denialist for more than 3 months.
Posted by: will at May 15, 2007 11:40 AM (z62e3)
11
Will,
There are many, many men and women much smarter and well-informed than you who are "denialists."
Such arrogance....
Posted by: blu at May 15, 2007 05:08 PM (YIU3p)
12
blu, you make an interesting pronouncement, though there is a dearth of metrics to support your claim. I make it a point to choose to listen to those who know what they are talking about, instead of simply babbling away like Card. Being smarter about sources keeps one from having their head filled with propaganda by the "much smarter and well-informed" pundits, lobbyists, and surrogates.
Afraid to accept my challenge? I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse.
Posted by: will at May 15, 2007 06:29 PM (h7Ciu)
13
No doubt, you are more on top of it than the numerous scientists that don't support your position.
You are a propogandist for a cause. That's it. Unfortunately, your cause will do little more than destroy economies and hurt poor and middle class people while doing nothing for the environment. How many people are you willing to put out of work, Will?
Posted by: blu at May 15, 2007 07:22 PM (YIU3p)
14
blu wrote: No doubt, you are more on top of it than the numerous scientists that don't support your position.
I appreciate your confidence in my abilities, but you'll find that there are really a tiny minority of scientists actively involved in climate research who support your position. And every year or so, they have to step back from one or more claims; early 90's "It's a LIE that the Earth is warming"; late 90's "Ok, it's warming, but it's a LIE that warming could result from human activities."; early 2000's "Ok, so human warming is taking place, but it's a LIE that it accounts for most of the warming"; now "We just don't know enough".
You are a propogandist for a cause. That's it.
That's it, eh? Ok, I'll humour you; Show me the misinformation I've peddled, and the propaganda techniques I've used to peddle it. Be clear and concise with your analysis. I'll even give you a link for your benefit;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts
Unfortunately, your cause will do little more than destroy economies and hurt poor and middle class people while doing nothing for the environment. >i>
Unsupported assertion. Have the economies of Kyoto nations been destroyed? Let's look at Germany and the UK, two heavily industrialized nations; what impact has this had on their economies? How much debt are they currently carrying and how much do they go in the whole per year?
You find it easy to make specious statements, but unless you have naught but fustian
How many people are you willing to put out of work, Will?
:-) When are you going to stop beating your wife, blu?
Still afraid to accept my challenge? I'm frankly not surprised...
Posted by: will at May 16, 2007 04:18 AM (z62e3)
15
And blu, why not check out how accurate your vaunted climate skeptics really are, starting with the 'esteemed' Patrick Michaels;
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
Posted by: will at May 16, 2007 06:04 AM (z62e3)
16
I always find it curious that armchair denialists so frequently base their arguments with appeals to purported scientific authorities. If you're going to make the argument from authority, you need to explain why you choose to ignore the *vast* majority of authorities (climate scientists) who believe the case for anthropogenic global warming has been made.
Regarding Card's article, he seems to claim that all the recent warming is due to solar forcing. I'm going to make my own appeal to authority: see this claim thoroughly debunked by climate scientists at Real Climate.
Also, you claim that AGW theory can only be tested by waiting to see what happens in the future, and indeed that future predictions is all that the science is about. This is false. Much of the science involves explaining what forcings caused recent warming.
Posted by: Samuel Quill at May 29, 2007 11:37 PM (9HjfR)
Draft Thurl Ravenscroft!
I feel the need to disabuse you all of the myth that is Fred Thompson.
Fred Thompson is not the savior. Repeat. Fred Thompson is not the savior. He does not ride a white stallion. He does not wear a white hat. Thus, he can not ride to the rescue of a Republican party that has lost its way. Stop expecting him to.
I'm not convinced that Fred Thompson will enter the presidential race. Neither am I convinced that if he runs he will win the nomination. He's currently polling third. Third is not first. Third is third. And right now that means he's in the low teens. Despite the fact that a lot of otherwise reasonable people think he's a viable candidate, polling in the teens does not indicate a huge groundswell of support.
I think a lot of people are projecting their own hopes on Fred, unreasonably. Sure, none of the top candidates are perfect conservatives. Sure, George W. Bush has been a disappointment for those of us who idolize Ronald Reagan. But wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him so. And wishing Fred Thompson is another Ronald Reagan does not make him electable.
I've accepted this fact and you should too: We will not see another Ronald Reagan in our lifetime. The best we can hope for is that our presidents try to emulate him, but they will never duplicate him. The man was that great.
Please also remember the following (those of you who know a lot about Reagan should already know this): Reagan was a great man and a great president because above all, he was a great thinker. He thought big things, and he thought about them all his life. Before he entered politics he had his own idea of how the world should work. When he entered public life he put his ideas into practice. But make no mistake, the thinking part came first.
Fred Thompson has it exactly backwards, and too many people are forgetting that. Reagan left acting to enter public service. Fred Thompson left public service to become an actor. That should tell you something about their comparative priorities.
And don't tell me people aren't attracted to Thompson in large part because he is an actor. I'm sure the theory is that his acting experience should give him the ability to connect to the average voter. Reagan was an actor and he was "the great communicator." Therefore all actors who run for office should make great communicators. It sounds silly when you say it out loud because it is silly.
"But," you say, "Fred Thompson agrees with me on all the issues." Yah well, so do I. Why don't you write my name in? Being right on the issues is not enough, and never has been. Running for president is a huge, difficult job and I don't think Fred has what it takes to win.
First, you gotta have the right contacts, and lots of them. What contacts does Fred have? Contacts get you donors, and volunteers, who in turn get you money. You need a lot of money to run for president, and this time around you need a lot more than during past elections because the big states have all moved their primaries up front. Name recognition is not enough.
You still need money because you have to pay big staffs, and consultants, and they all have to travel, and you have to buy ads and computers and cell phones and pay rent on offices in fifty states, and spend your money on countless other expenses that eat it up like crazy. At this late date, Thompson's rivals have too big a head start.
Besides that, all the most experienced consultants are spoken for. Who's going to guide Thompson's campaign? Will he have to settle for some amateur? If you think these things don't matter, you're dreaming. Bush got half his contacts from family and business connections. The other half Karl Rove brought with him.
I'll always remember something I heard Phil Jackson say to his team in a huddle during one of their losing playoff runs. "I know you guys want to win, wanting to win is not enough." I know lots of people want Thompson to win, but it's not enough. He has to have the resources, the money, the people, the contacts, the ideas and the fire in the belly. I don't see him having any of that stuff. All I see is a relatively likeable conservative, who's been flattered way too much for anyone's good.
And as for qualifications, I have as much executive experience as Fred Thompson. What has he ever run in his life? A few months ago I explained one reason why I prefer candidates with executive experience over former legislators.
Theoretically, executives must work in the real world where results are expected. Therefore, they should be more results oriented. Legislators on the other hand, work in a world of theoretical projections, possibilities and imaginary outcomes. When they fuck up, they're rarely held to account because they simply blame the other party, the executive, or both.
Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, Thompson only had eight years experience in the Senate. What are his accomplishments? If you can name any, how do they match up with Rudy's, or Romney's or Huckabee's records as executives. Even more than running for the post, being president is also a huge, difficult job. Thompson would need on-the-job training. I don't care how solid he is on the issues. I'm really not sure I want someone who's never run an organization running the executive branch of the most important organization on the planet.
"But, he's got a great speaking voice..." Okay. He does have a pleasant baritone. But if that's all it takes to get your vote, why stop at baritone? Why not draft a bass? If vocal timbre is all it takes to be president, we should have had a President Thurl Ravenscroft!
1
"The best we can hope for is that our presidents try to emulate him, but they will never duplicate him."
Sadly, you're right about that, but I'm still hoping you are wrong about Thompson.
"Reagan was a great man and a great president because above all, he was a great thinker.
Indeed. Gerard Baker recently noted:
[The President was being briefed on the invasion plans by his senior military officers just before the Grenada operation. As was often the case, Mr Reagan did not seem to be paying close attention, according to one of those present. But when the briefing was over he had one question. He wanted to hear again the number of troops the planners were going to send in. He was told a figure and shook his head. “Make it twice that,” he told a slightly puzzled general. Asked why, the President said calmly: “If Jimmy Carter had sent 16 helicopters rather than eight to Desert One to rescue the US hostages in Iran in 1980, you’d be sitting here briefing him today, not me.”]
To me, however, Reagan's biggest "sin of omission", as far as I know, was not suitably avenging the deaths of those Marines in Beirut. By "suitably", I mean that the administration's response should have been to depopulate the area within a 300 mile radius. It would provide some solace if I at least knew that KGB-styled acts of clandestine retribution were carried out by our gov't against the Hezbos.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 10, 2007 10:16 PM (iXkL1)
2
Never see another Reagan? Hmmmm, well since I lived through the Reagan years as a Reaganite, I'll tell you this. You're seeing one now. Oh, he's not the great communicator, but most of it is there, and he's younger and more vigorous.
Almost nothing happened in the second Reagan administration. Reagan is remembered for confronting the Russkys, thus winning the cold war, an issue much in doubt when he left office, and for making the hard correct decision on tightening the money supply and ending inflation. Controlling inflation unleashed the torrent of economic growth that we live on today, but few recognize this.
Dubyah will be remembered for leading us out of the darkness of 9/11, and confronting Islam. We'll need to wait twenty years to get it in perspective.
Posted by: Casca at May 11, 2007 06:51 AM (Y7t14)
3
I have to agree with Casca on his point. As far as foreign policy and taxes are concerned, Dubya is every bit a Reaganite. His fiscal spending, however, has been a disaster.
The biggest problem with candidates now is that they spend too much time talking about Reagan and not enough time just being a Reaganite. They need to stop talking about how great Reagan was and concentrate on going forward with the conservative agenda.
I don't know that we'll see a Reagan in the '08 election, but if the GOP gets stomped a couple more times like they did this passed November, someone is going to get the message and start acting like a true conservative again.
4
"Dubyah will be remembered for leading us out of the darkness of 9/11, and confronting Islam."
You're right, Casca. However, his once admirable stubbornness to cling to nation-building is bogging down our anti-proliferation efforts. As the Derb once stated...
[GWB should borrow a rhetorical figure from the Great Liberator and say: "If I could stop nukes from spreading around the Middle East without democratizing any of their countries, I would do it; and if I could stop it by democratizing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about democratization, and the Muslim Middle East, I do because I believe it helps to stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology to people who should not have it."]
Posted by: reagan80 at May 11, 2007 07:51 AM (iXkL1)
5
Aw shucks Annika, next you'll be telling me that there's no Santa Clause!
Posted by: Janette at May 11, 2007 08:58 AM (5R+zg)
6
re the Santa Clause, Tim Allen has done the most extensive research on that issue.
Posted by: annika at May 11, 2007 09:12 AM (zAOEU)
7
This is a wonderful observation about Reagan's "thinking". The reason Reagan was so great is that he brought true conservatism to the White House, for the first time ever, maybe.
Reagan was a conservative visionary at a moment when few - outside of true believers - believed conservatism would work.
The Laffer Curve was less than a decade old when Reagan embraced it as his raison d'etre for tax cuts. The took some guts.
Reagan was a visionary on the USSR. Reagan did his own thinking - as Annika points out - on a range of social and societal issues. The man was his own thinker, and his own man. Reagan was a talented communicator who could dismiss his critics with a flick of his wrist.
GWB - I should say I am a big, humongous fan of GWB. I literally thank God that GWB is our President. GWB is a visionary about Islamism. GWB has done, maybe, as much as could've been done about Islamism, given the domestic cultural and political forces GWB was dealing with.
GWB is an earnest thinker about issues. He generally makes good decisions, and he generally plays the political knife-fight game well.
But GWB is not the seasoned and independent thinker Reagan was. Reagan made his national tour of public meetings in the early 1960's, when he represented GE. These meetings were the equivalent of talk radio. Reagan matched wits with all comers. I always think this was like graduate school for Reagan's political thinking. I believe it seasoned him, and forged his beliefs, and gave him confidence in his beliefs.
A confident President - a seasoned thinker, with confidence in his own beliefs - would've never signed McCain-Feingold into law; would've never filed a friend of the court brief in favor of Affirmative Action in the Michigan case; would've never allowed U.S. controlled Al Hurra to broadcast Islamist propaganda; would've never allowed Condi to meet with Assad. A seasoned President would've already "slipped", during a pre-speech sound test, and said into a hot mike: "the bombing of Tehran begins in 5 minutes."
I say this with great respect: I love GWB to death. But he is not the visionary, seasoned, confident intellect or talent which Reagan was.
Posted by: gcotharn at May 11, 2007 11:23 AM (Ucsqp)
8
I will say this: Roberts and Alito are about ten zillion times better than Reagan's SC appointees. They are about twenty zillion times better than danged Sandra O'Connor was. If GWB had not come along and defeated Gore, our nation might now be crumpled down upon our knees, groping in the dirt. Thank God for GWB. History will look upon GWB with great favor, I think. Many decades from now, GWB might gain status as one of our nation's finest Presidents. Even if a worst case Iraq scenario occurs, and Iraq falls to an Islamist dictatorship, GWB has nevertheless introduced a vibrant democratic conversation into that region - for the first time in history. You can't keep people down on farm, once they have seen the big city. That vibrant democratic conversation will reap great and historic long term benefits - regardless of what happens in the short term. GWB rocks!
Posted by: gcotharn at May 11, 2007 11:38 AM (Ucsqp)
Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 08:15 AM (h/YdH)
10
DRAFT CASCA FOR PRESIDENT!!!
P.S. I don't think I've got 20 years to wait for GWB to be proclained a great president; I'm ready to do it now.
Posted by: shelly at May 12, 2007 08:17 AM (h/YdH)
11
Even David McCullough wouldn't be able to turn GWB into a great president, if the surge fails.
Posted by: annika at May 12, 2007 08:23 AM (WfR6S)
12
I am a radical in this area: our definition of success in Iraq is skewed. Decades from now, we may see that our venture in Iraq has already succeeded, via introducing a vibrant democratic conversation into the region, for the first time in history.
I think some rocky form of democratic government is likely to succeed long term in Iraq. I think that is a humongous historic achievement, though our Congress and media will, in the immediate, call it failure.
If the worst case happens, and democratic government is a complete failure in the immediate, I say any theocratic government will be eventually overthrown by a more moderate, open, and free government. Even in the worst case, our regional introduction of democracy will take hold, and will win out, eventually.
I'm way out on a limb with my opinion, but that is truly the way I see it.
Posted by: gcotharn at May 12, 2007 09:49 AM (Ucsqp)
13
"The reason Reagan was so great is that he brought true conservatism to the White House, for the first time ever, maybe."
Don't forget Coolidge.
"GWB has done, maybe, as much as could've been done about Islamism, given the domestic cultural and political forces GWB was dealing with."
True. Bush did everything he could to wage a good-intentioned war without having a draft. However, that is everything short of just carpet-bombing the place into submission or salting their walter supplies. While we may not have enough troops to perform a successful nation-building campaign, we do have more than enough to kill and break anything in their path. The administration should have listened to Ralph Peters sooner instead of persisting on idealistic, politically correct warfighting.
On getting more troops for the war, Neal Boortz had this idea:
[Getting more hardware is easy. Place the order and pay for it. Easy enough. But how do we get more troops? Some in Congress have called for a draft. Bad move. A Military draft is essentially forced labor. Short of an invasion of our shores by an aggressor, there is absolutely no public support for a draft in this country. Period. So we're going to have to recruit more troops.But Iraq remains a dangerous place. Not too many people are going to want to sign up, knowing that they could come home in a body bag. But there is a way to get more people to sign up, and you can do it in a second. How do you think Halliburton is getting people to fly over to Iraq and drive trucks? You might say nobody in their right mind would do that.But they're doing so because of one reason and one reason only: money. Private contractors are bringing people in to do jobs like that for six figures. If the U.S. Military announced tomorrow that the recruiting bonus was $50,000 and the annual combat pay was being increased to $100,000, we'd have all the troops we'd ever need. While they're at it, how about jacking up the death benefit to a million dollars? Whatever it takes.]
"....would've never allowed Condi to meet with Assad...."
I would also like to add to that list, "...would've never frittered away the treasury war chest, several months into the Iraq war, for a prescription entitlement program."
And, finally, I second Shelly's motion.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 12, 2007 01:42 PM (iXkL1)
14
Good Gawd, I go on the road for a couple of days, and good fellowship breaks out. I love you guys too, even when you're wrong. I'm unelectable.
Republican Primary Update
On one issue, I am not a "big tent" Republican. I don't think there should be room for pro-abortion candidates in the Republican party. But I think abortion is a great moral evil, so it follows that I don't think there should pro-abortion candidates in the Democratic party either. Nevertheless, I don't live in a perfect world. Much as I am confounded by his illogical position on the abortion issue, Rudy Giuliani is still the front-runner for my party's nomination.
But the same can't be said of Mitt Romney, who even after getting rave reviews for his debate performance last Thursday night, still remains mired in fourth place. Gallup even has him losing ground after the debate.
What's the difference between Romney and Giuliani? Both have flip-flopped on abortion. (So did I, by the way. Although I came over from the dark side much earlier than Romney, who "says" he switched in 2004). Giuliani donated to Planned Parenthood three times. Romney's wife donated $150 only once, back in 1994.
Both men supposedly have an impressive record of accomplishments. Rudy's is better known to me. He fixed an unfixable city, I watched him do it. Romney did something or other with the Olympics and as far as I know he was a successful governor of Massachussets.
One might say it's anti-Mormon prejudice. It might be, there certainly is some of that going on. But I don't think that explains all of it. I personally don't have any problem with Romney's religion, yet I don't like him at all. What's up with that?
I think one reason I don't like him is that he polls so badly, and I badly want to win. Would I like him better if he were a stronger candidate? Perhaps. I'm open to voting for Romney in the primary (which is more than I can say for Rudy or McCain), if Romney could somehow prove that he can beat Hillary, but so far he hasn't proven that.
Then there's the intangible slickness factor. Romney seems slick. I'll admit that's a silly reason not to vote for somebody, but I doubt I'm the only one who has noticed it about him. I also doubt I'm the only one who's slick-averse after eight years of Clinton. Would America vote for slick over shrew? I don't know. But I do know Romney's got a lot of work to do if he's going to get my vote.
For now, I'm leaning towards Mike Huckabee. He impressed me* during last week's debate, although he's not good on tax policy from what I understand. He has zero chance in hell of winning the nomination and Hillary would crush him like a bug anyway. But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general.
_______________
1
"But I always vote my conscience in the primary, and save my pragmatism for the general."
Great. I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
If all the one-issue voters do that we could end up with Huckabee or Brownback or [insert any other pro-life, "I love Jesus", uninspiring, white male]and get our asses handed to us by Hillary or Obama.
I know we've already had this debate, but I think '08 is a different sort of year. The country does not support this war, and, fair or not, they are not likely to vote for a person that closely resembles George Bush in social policy or that sounds exactly the same on the GWOT. (Don't get me wrong: I think Bush is correct on the GWOT, but he is probably the worst possible salesman for the job.)
We need a person who is socially moderate enough to attract independent voters - who we have been losing lately - but not so moderate that he loses the conservatives. Rudy fits that criteria pretty well. Yeah, he's pro-choice but so is most of America. Abortion is just not an issue that the majority sit home and worry about.
I, personally, will spend a lot more time worrying about a candidates view on the GWOT, his fiscal policy, his view on illegal immigration, and his ability to kick Hillary's fucking ass. Rudy is the only Republican - currently declared -that can beat Hillary. Nobody else has a fucking prayer.
Reps need to decide if they want to be "right" or if they want to win. Do you want 75% of what you like or 10% of what you want?
I wanna win.
Posted by: blu at May 09, 2007 06:36 PM (NntAN)
2
Greetings Annika,
I like Mitt for a number of reasons and not because he's a mormon, which I happen to also be, but for all the other reasons. I like what he did for the Olympics and that he was a governor of a state. Sadly, he has the same kind of experience that Jimmy Carter had in 1976. I think we are more savy at choosing elected officals than we were then.
I like Rudi, warts and all. No slickness about him that's for sure.
Posted by: Drake Steel at May 09, 2007 11:58 PM (CiU4y)
3
Just found your blog and you rock! Sucks that you are ending this stellar commentary in a few days, I wish I'd discovered it sooner.
Your political commentary made me stand up and cheer, and laugh out loud. Good stuff! Best of luck to you ~
Posted by: Lalah at May 10, 2007 01:41 AM (TYera)
4
I agree with Blu, and I will go even further.
The last two Republican Presidents were both selected partly because of their strong anti-abortion stands and what did it get us? Two clueless blue-bloods with nearly zero fiscal responsibility.
Maybe its time to draw a little from the other side of the big tent.
Posted by: kyle N at May 10, 2007 03:29 AM (uKJF8)
5
Of all the candidates currently in the race, I, too, like Huckabee's politics best. However, we all know he's pretty much dead in the water. I am, however, still holding a place in my heart for Fred. I think that when he finally jumps in, he is going to dramatically alter the landscape for '08. And, we get someone from our side of the tent who is definitely electable.
6
Woe unto him who ignores the wisdom of Hewitt, and that other prescient Buckeye, Casca.
A poll doesn't tell you shit, unless you have the question asked, and the crosstabs. Without those two ingredients, you know nothing.
Posted by: Casca at May 10, 2007 06:43 AM (Y7t14)
7
Yes, the slick factor likely makes a number of people leery of Romney (though one of my sheep is a Romney).
Good of you to stand up for your principles and vote your conscience; if only more people did that instead of acted just like sheep.
And I too like many of Huckabee's stances, especially his answer to this question in the last debate.
Posted by: will at May 10, 2007 07:35 AM (z62e3)
8
I didn't have time to read the entry today but I wanted to ask: how did some of you regulars find Annika's Journal (which I will really miss)? I found this blog while guest-blogging for Doug TenNapel about a year ago. I just wanted to say thanks for putting a good blog out, and you're really smart and talented.
Posted by: Joules at May 10, 2007 11:55 AM (u4CYb)
9
I am just bewildered by anyone who thinks that Rudy is "Moderate". Rudy is as democrat as you can get. I would be completely shocked if someone as gun literate as Annika would give any support to a guy who would prefer to make guns illegal. (That's what he credits for his cleaning up of NYC. Nevermind the fact that it took a large police force to get the guns off the streets. But surely it was just the guns that made the difference. *rolleyes*)
Personally, Rudy and Hillary are synonymous in my mind. If Rudy wins the primary, I'll probably vote third party and that is WAY out of my character.
I really like Mike Huckabee. I think if the hard core Republicans out there actually did some research on the candidates, Huckabee would gain a lot of ground.
I agree with the "slick-factor" on Romney. He reminds me too much of Gore. (More in personality than in politics, but some of both.)
If Fred crashes the party, I'll be voting for him.
10
Yeah, Trint, it is a sad state of affairs that we are left with such shitty choices. If we're lucky, Rudy will go the "states' rights" route on gun control issues. BTW, remember that Bush originally pledged in 2000 to renew the "assault weapons" ban.
Anyway, I wish I would've been the first to say this to the Lefty shitheads. Thank you, Ed Kline.
[Oh, and let's be clear, my feelings about Bush in general are very similar to Lee’s, but I hate it when liberals chime in with their “I told you so” bullshit. It's like all of the sudden I am supposed to agree they were right all along. However, I don't remember liberals warning me in 2000 that Bush wasn't sufficiently conservative enough for me.I don't like Bush now because half the reasons liberals hated him aren't even true.(not that they ever give him credit for being a big government guy like themselves) And most importantly I don't remember the Democratic party giving me a viable alternative to Bush. As much as Bush’s second term has been a bitter pill for me to swallow, I would still prefer him over Gore or Kerry.]
[Well that's just it, Bob, I didn't do that. I addressed the whole ‘Bush was always incompetent’ thing. Bush turned 800,000 dollars into 15,000,000, in less than 10 years, so when you use his turn as a baseball owner as an indication of his ‘always being an incompetent’, I am going to call you on it. I also addressed the whole Sosa thing because you used that as well.The problem Bob is you did NOT tell me so. You (and when I say you I mean liberals, the Gore-Kerry advocate press and Bush’s Democratic opponents) told me many things. You told me that Bush would appoint Supreme Court justices who would rival Taliban members in how backward they are. Guys like horror of horrors Sam Alito, (which was fine with me). You did not tell me he would betray me by trying to nominate Harriet Myers. You told me that compassionate conservatism was nonsense, and Bush would gut government progams designed to help the poor(again fine by me), not expand entitlement programs like prescription drugs for the elderly. It's like I said before, you certainly didn't tell me that Bush’s conservatism was to be questioned. The case you made against Bush was that he was way too damn conservative. You were afraid he was another Reagan.(oh if only it were so) So you most certainly did NOT tell me so.]
Posted by: reagan80 at May 10, 2007 07:19 PM (iXkL1)
11
Thank you Lalah and Joules.
Good find Reagan80.
Posted by: annika at May 10, 2007 08:58 PM (WfR6S)
Posted by: Che' is my muse at May 11, 2007 12:07 AM (mXI7A)
13
"Rudy is as democrat as you can get."
"Rudy and Hillary are synonymous in my mind."
With all due respect, those are inane comments. Because a former mayor of America's largest city supports various forms of gun control doesn't make him a "Democrat." Neither does being pro-choice. Those are two policy positions that are supported by the majority of American citizens both Rep and Dem. Rudy's stated positions, however, on issues that matter more: GWOT, fiscal responsibility, illegal immigration, and judges are all solidly conservative - and distinctly different from Hillary and Obama's positions.
BTW, having several close friends that are cops, I can tell you that most police officers support various forms of gun control. Does that make them all "democrat as you can get"? I don't think so: Most are very conservative and vote accordingly. (I don't happen to agree with their position, but I'm not silly enough to think because their opinion on a single issue differs from mine makes them liberals.)
But, whatever, go vote third party and enjoy Hillary's 8 years. What kind of judges do you think she's going to select?
1
That's not a good polling question. The question should be, "Do you have an appropriate amount of healthcare coverage for this point in your life?"
Single under thirty? You probably don't need anything. Raising a family, or over forty, of course you need coverage.
Posted by: Casca at May 03, 2007 05:22 PM (2gORp)
2
Excellent point, Casca. The "uninsured" issue is such a load of crap when one considers that the vast majority of those in this group are young, single people who choose not to purchase insurance. Of course, the Lefties mischaracterize the data to try and make us all believe that socialized medicine is the answer.
Posted by: blu at May 03, 2007 05:55 PM (NntAN)
3
Blu,
Relax, and let your head out of your sphincter. The myth is that the younger cohorts don't need it. True they need it less but your characterization about the lefties and the manufactured need pointing to socialized medicine is uninformed.
Have you ever had a hospital stay? Do you have insurance? Do you pay out of pocket or are you infantilized by your employer or had a union bargain for you?
Posted by: Strawman at May 04, 2007 07:18 AM (et8nf)
4
I always find it interesting that some people will spend thousands on a vacation, shell out $300-$400 per month on a their vehicle, or spend $1200 on a television yet balk when asked to pay for their own healthcare and/or health insurance.
Posted by: TinyElvis at May 04, 2007 09:45 AM (6J+P7)
5
-Relax, and let your head out of your sphincter.
I can't believe it. Strawman has inspired me. He has given me an idea for a new creation. I will call it the "strawcolputin". It is like a turducken except the ingredients are different. Creating it requires Strawman, Gary Coleman, and Grigory Rasputin. The instructions for making it are as follows:
-You must first take Rasputin out of the jar ( http://tinyurl.com/2gedkr )
-Stick Rasputin up Gary Coleman's ass
-Continue to stick Gary Coleman up Strawman's ass
-Place the "strawcolputin" in pre-heated oven
-Bake until crispy
Posted by: Spanky at May 04, 2007 11:22 AM (gyiuI)
7
"The myth is that the younger cohorts don't need it."
"Need" is not even the point, Straw. Don't change the subject. The FACT, however, is that the data on the subject show that the vast majority choose not to purchase health insurance. The Left's Big Lie is that people just can't afford it or that it's unaccessible. Of course, as usual, the Left is purposely deceiving the public in order to try and pull off another power grab.
And, Straw, I'd never have a fucking thug union bargain for me. There are few things I despise more than unions. The damage they have done and continue to do to our economy is an outrage.
Posted by: blu at May 04, 2007 05:40 PM (NntAN)
8are you infantilized by your employer
Man, Kevlar Irony Proof™ The same freak who wet dreams about the gubmint infantalizing every single person's entire life through a heavy handed nanny state has the gall to call accepting partial insurance premiums (in liu of more pay) from an employer in exchange for productive work.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 12:09 PM (cOyko)
9
Straw, infantilized means more than the diaper you wear to The Vault on free night.
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 05, 2007 12:11 PM (cOyko)
10
RR,
Actually its the left that bothers me about health insurance. There is this belief that it is the obligation of an employer to provide it, and to not makes a company derelict.
I do believe you are correct, that there is no harm and much good if it has been negotiated between employer and employee or collectively between a union and an employer.
So, Red, since you see it as additional remuneration should the value of the employers contribution be taxed? And if not is that fair to stiffs like me who pay entirely out of after tax income?
Posted by: Strawman at May 05, 2007 05:16 PM (et8nf)
11So, Red, since you see it as additional remuneration should the value of the employers contribution be taxed?
Of course not. As a conservative I'm never in favor of new taxes. Plus, to use one of the leftists' favorite arguments, it is good public policy to encourage (not coerce) employers to use their purchasing power to offer low cost health insurance to their serfs. You know, as well as I, that most people wouldn't bother with
it unless they had a castastrophe staring them in their face. This way we cut back on the deadbeats running up huge hospital bills that end up on the taxpayer's back (like the illegals).
And if not is that fair to stiffs like me who pay entirely out of after tax income?
Nice try. Life aint fair. Again I know you know that medical payments and premiums are deductible for contractors if they exceed a very attainable percentage of one's income. Anyone middle or upper middle class should have no problem meeting this floor.
Are you suggesting additional tax relief should go to...The Rich™?
Bushbot!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 08, 2007 11:44 PM (Ch0M0)
12
Strawman is often really funny and kind of genteel and you guys are often...uh, not.
Posted by: Joules at May 15, 2007 04:07 PM (u4CYb)
Battle Royal
Memo to Republican candidates: here's one way to get Hillary's goat. Be polite. That was what Rick Lazio got wrong, when he did his famous "space invading" gesture during the 2000 NY senate race.
For more than two hours, France's presidential front-runner needled his challenger during a debate Wednesday, wrapping it in a veneer of chivalry and always addressing her as "Madame."
Finally, Segolene Royal snapped. The woman seeking to become France's first female president erupted in anger toward the end of the prime-time duel with conservative Nicolas Sarkozy.
It was surprising -- and potentially damaging -- that Royal, not Sarkozy, proved quick to anger. During their bitter election campaign, the Socialist has sought to portray her conservative rival as too unstable, too brutal, to lead the nuclear-armed nation.
In front of millions of television viewers, Sarkozy turned the tables. Royal got furious when he started talking about disabled children, saying he was "playing" with the issue. "I am very angry," she said.
"You become unhinged very easily, Madame," Sarkozy said. "To be president of the republic, one must be calm. . . . I don't know why Mrs. Royal, who's usually calm, has lost her calm."
Hey does anybody speak French? I think this is the video.
By the way, I know nothing about French politics, except that Royal is a hottie, and she's a socialist. Sarkozy, I remember, got in trouble during the recent "youth" riots for stating the obvious: that the rioters were thugs.
1
Sarkozy will likely win, Royal is just slinging mud (with the help of the media and celebrities of france). Sarkozy would be an interesting change of pace for French politics (not being a socialist), but uh, depends on how sneaky the democra...i mean socialists will be in trying to stop his agenda after the election.
2
The riots really brought out the worst in the French. (But did anybody expect anything less than the worst from these effete snobs?) As usual, the country's Left (and even some of the Right) refused to acknowledge that the thugs were thugs and that most were Muslim thugs. Funny thing is the Lefties are the same everywhere: it's never the thug's fault.
Posted by: blu at May 03, 2007 03:22 PM (NntAN)
3
[Royal got furious when he started talking about disabled children, saying he was "playing" with the issue.]
Ah, that reminds me of the 2000 presidential debates where Gore was saying that Bush was lying about wanting to spend all of the money on entitlements and shit. Kanye West is wrong: Bush really cares about black people.
Posted by: reagan80 at May 03, 2007 07:08 PM (gyiuI)
4
"Royal is a hottie, and she's a socialist"
Everything epitomized right there. Socialist bitch, keep yo' mouth shut! You/it's mouth, and you, have one purpose; and if you is spewing noise you ain't using it right!
Know your place!
Posted by: Radical Redneck at May 04, 2007 12:35 AM (hRcQE)
5
If you want me to make a transcript & translation of what's said on the video, A, I'll be happy to do so.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 04, 2007 04:49 AM (1PcL3)
6
Now that I've watched the vid, I can say that this isn't the moment where Royal has her meltdown. The announcer mentions, toward the end of the clip, that Sarko comes off as more precise in his suggested remedies and solutions than Royal does in hers.
At one point in this clip, Royal says, "You're joking!", but this isn't flying off the handle. I'm guessing, from the article you quoted, that her grand moment occurred further on.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 04, 2007 05:05 AM (1PcL3)
7
thanks for checking that Kevin. Most of the youtube clips seemed to show that one moment for some reason.
Posted by: annika at May 04, 2007 07:02 AM (WfR6S)
8
I'm pretty sure that clip is from a Swiss news channel, firstly because the guy doing the voiceover has a Swiss accent (he speaks in the slow, dopey way that French people mock), and secondly because, early on, he makes reference to the fact that "if 20 million French people watched it [the debate], a goodly proportion of 'romands' won't have missed it, either."
The French term "romands" is shorthand for "suisse-romands," i.e., French-speaking Swiss.
I checked around re: Royal's blowup... it doesn't appear to have been much more than a rash of finger-pointing, followed by Sarkozy's accusing Royal of having lost her temper, to which she replied that there are some things worth losing one's temper about, and that she would likely find reasons to be angry while in office, too (obviously, I'm not quoting this directly).
Final note: you called Royal "hot," but I think I'd call her "handsome" in the 1800s sense.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at May 04, 2007 07:19 AM (1PcL3)
9
She is way more than handsome. She's incredibly elegant, with a friendly face, beautiful hair, open and feminine eyes, and an extremely youthful appearance for a woman her age.
Any man with blood in his veins would find her attractive and want to get to know her better.
Romney's Book
Does Romney want to be president or not? Because naming Battlefield Earth as his favorite novel was probably not the best choice he could have made. It's not enough that he has that "Mormon problem," now he's got to add a "Scientology problem" to it.
1
He never had a chance to begin with. The only person on the planet who seriously thinks he can win is Professor Hewitt - the same guy who thought Harriet Miers was an excellent choice for a Supreme Court justice. (Don't get me wrong, I like Hugh but sometimes he's "just wrong.")
Posted by: blu at May 02, 2007 10:32 PM (NntAN)
2
Annika,
The article you linked had this quote:
“Mormonism sounds like a science fiction fantasy to some Americans,” Prothero said. “It seems one of the burdens of his campaign is to present an image of Mormonism that sounds more reasonable and less fantastic. This seems to be undercutting that effort.”
I'd love to see any article by Reuters, AP, or any other news service or paper that was willing to take a shot at Islam as easily as they will Christiantiy or its derivatives. (And, I gotta tell you, I think Mormonism is a cult, so it's not like I've got a lotta love for it.)
Don't hold your breath: CAIR has got everybody too damned scared.