» Fringe Blog – Writing on Film, Culture, and Things on the Fringe

Those Big Jerks

jelewis8 — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:30:50 +0000

Apparently, there’s a war on. And this is a new thing in the sense that different people who have never before been killed…are being killed. This has brought loads of condemnation upon the killers, though I must note, a lot fewer people have been killed in this particular war-in-progress than the last major conflict started by some of the same people who started and fought in it. Anyway, this war is different from the other war currently happening in another location very close to the new war that’s occurring, though it’s a war of different reasons.
See, what happened was, there was an exchange of rocketry and various other projectiles, which are now so passe as to be nearly uneventful, at least as explained by the news media, faithful purveyors of the understated blood red headline (eg. Gaza Rocket Attacks Kill Two, Palestinians Still Not Mollified). Headlines like these are designed to mask both the perpetrators of the rocket attacks and simultaneously to imply that Israel is both to blame and is responsible for making the Palestinians happy (or whoever is at the other end of the Middle East Ire Stick–they all pretty much have it in for the Jews). Sidenotes like that are a bit off-topic, but they do illustrate the nature of war in today’s instant news-on-demand world.
So anyway, after a tiny tiny exchange of rocketry, two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped, a few others were killed, and now Israel is shelling the hell out of Lebanon. Did I mention it’s Israel’s fault for letting their soldiers to be kidnapped? For that matter, it certainly wouldn’t have happened if Israel didn’t have an army in the first place. So clearly we know who’s responsible for this one.
You have the usual tired grumblings from Old Europe, which is so out of touch with anything resembling even an Abstract, Surreal, or even Dadaist, much less a realistic portraiture state of the world, it begins to look and sound like a new and heretofore unseen art movement. You have Jacques Chirac point out what does seem to be the statement to end all statements when he says “One may well ask if there isn’t today a kind of wish to destroy Lebanon — its infrastructure, its roads, its communications, its energy, its airport.” Hmmm, one may well ask if there is such a wish. One may also well ask if France has an answer. Unfortunately, no, but Chirac does wax poetic and sobbingly Lennonesque when he asks “And for what?”
But that’s not the most amusing statement. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero says of the conflict, “It will only lead to an escalation of the violence.” The violence will only lead to an escalation in the violence. I would like to nominate Zapatero as the person most likely to cease living because of death of some sort at some point in the future. Though at least he’s not living in France, where in October of 2003, lack of air conditioning killed more people than have died in this war so far. In fact, Old Europe’s statistical probability of killing someone just by signing a new constitution is heavier than the number of swing-and-misses experienced by the various Arab hitters who have stepped up to the plate from time to time thinking they had a pair. Not to say Arabs aren’t brave, or testicle-less. A minority of those that do have testicles have proudly ensured that each of their progeny believes Israel’s existence is a blight upon Allah’s wrinkly face, and with a pat on the back, strap that last velcro dynamite holder onto their kid’s chest with the instruction “Aim for the women and children.”
So it’s Hezbollah who kidnapped the soldiers. They’re always doing something crazy–they’re the Evil Knieval’s of the Middle East. Why should Israel bomb innocent non-Hezbollah citizenry in Beirut when they had nothing to do with the policies enacted by the outlaw terrorist organization?
Well, there’s that ugly word policy. And the outlaw terrorist organization? Elected by the free and democratic Lebanese people. Progress is usually defined by forward motion, not two steps forward, three steps back. But hey, blame the Jews. After all, they started it when they began to exist as a people.
Big jerks.

Playing Not To Lose

jelewis8 — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:21:40 +0000

The world can be a great sunshiney ball of happiness. But clearly, there are things wrong with it that need to be fixed NOW through community and working together and impeaching President Bush and mollifying those downtrodden Middle Eastern folk who’ve been oppressed by cartoons and oil barons all their lives (Halliburton, I’m looking at you!). We could solve these various dilemmas in short order if only we were to enact the following:
1) Higher taxes for the rich
2) Cease and desist all war activities
3) Bush is a terrorist
I was thinking about the plan Democrats have put out for fixing the world, and I realized I wasn’t sure what it was. A bit of research and I came up with the above three-pronged system. Now, I’m as much a fan of the second point as anyone, so long as the other guys also agree to 4) Cease and desist from blowing up innocent civilians and developing long range chemical and biological weaponry.
I don’t deny that President Bush is strong on defense but weak on national matters, and what’s worse, he’s a pigeon turd-bombing a picnic at PR, which his opponents use to make his strengths seem like weaknesses. So the Republicans don’t have a terribly tenable position. Except for one fact: their opponents are Democrats, which is about as fair as pitting a cat against an Centaurian battle fleet. Even when the Republicans screw up, the Democrats have nothing of substance. Then there’s the self-sabotage.
It’s no secret how most Democrats feel about the war. What’s astonishing is their view of Bush as basically a really stupid, but totally evil, puppet. Behind the strings, or with his fingers up Bush’s backside, is Satan. That’s how bad it’s gotten. Even their portrayal of the man is uneven. He’s a chimp…but he somehow tricked everyone into the war; he’s a mental midget…yet somehow he’s managed to elude stupidity prosecution; he lied and people died…but people in the Middle East and the South seem to love him; he’s obviously a racist…yet blacks are deserting the Democratic party in droves. What gives? Is this a party of answers, or cue cards for a karaoke song played endlessly?
Coupled with a media that has done its best to paint everything Bush does as the incarnation of totalitarianism, you have the making of a major religion. They’ve got their sins, their virtues, their belief in the infallibility of their mouthpieces, the inviolability of the liberal doctrine and its missionary spread across the globe. They’ve even got their anti-Christ. All they lack is a messiah.
Here’s the fun part: those top-tiered Dems with money to spare for election campaigns and full-page anti-war advertisements, don’t actually believe in things like taxing the rich. Oh, they say they do, but look at their tax returns, and you find every possible loophole exploited for maximum return, minimum excretion. John Kerry paid less in taxes than Dubya last year, even though he’s worth more. And a fix for the messy business of war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Not an alternative solution in sight. As for Bush himself, they’re reduced to making up resolutions to censure Bush and then voting against their own resolution for fear of uniting the Republicans around national security, which they know they’re weak on, and which they know, deep down, they have little valid criticism on which to stand. But introduce the possibility of censure, and it gets in the public’s mind. The media massages it until you find out Bush was actually responsible for the Holocaust.
Oh wait, that was just an anti-war sign, one of many at the faltering, paltry anti-war protests playing out like a sad, fourth run theatrical showing. Seems lately they’re more interested in protesting the evil puppet master Bush than the war. And which war are they protesting, anyway? Afghanistan? That’s not a war, that’s a couple guys with AK’s shooting wildly into the air, hoping to hit anyone who looks like they’re wearing a US uniform. Iraq? Well…is it a war or an occupation? Maybe they’re protesting the so-called civil war, though if it was really a civil war, wouldn’t we see legitimate government factions fighting against each other? Unless terrorists have suddenly become bonified, I’d say we have more of a tribal conflict than a civil war. Either way, Bush started it, if you ask any protester. Get ‘im outta here.
There’s a term in sports when you’re ahead and you begin playing conservatively. It’s called ‘playing not to lose’. The Dems have been playing it for six straight years. The sad thing is, they were never ahead to begin with.

Spinning the Iraq Elections

jelewis8 — Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:36:22 +0000

One of the big problems the Left has with the right wing’s jubilation at the success of the Iraqi elections is the “after the fact” justification for the war. Lefties like to claim that building up democracy in Iraq was never a primary objective for the administration nor its supporters, and that “current justifications” now make a lie of the “original” justifications for going into Iraq; ie., the presence of WMD in Iraq.
This is wrong on two counts. First, the WMD argument is incomplete when viewed next to the more general consensus (from both Republicans and Democrats alike) that Saddam had not and was not going to disarm. Under the eyes of the UN’s own chemical, biological, and atomic weapons inspectors, it was generally believed that Saddam was bluffing and stalling for time, that he had hidden weapons not yet discovered by the UN, and that he would, at a later date once sanctions were removed, reopen weapons development programs and explore nuclear options. This is borne out by documented quotes from UN officials and US politicians, both Republican and Democrat.
Further, the evidence that Saddam was not going to disarm led to the more specific claim that Weapons of Mass Destruction were indeed present inside Iraq borders, hidden by Saddam for use at a later, less restrictive time. This was one of the many justifications made by the Administration to support war action, but is a point of contention for the Left. However, since this claim was only one of many claims made on behalf of the argument in favour of going to war, assertions made by the Left, that the President’s sole justification for attacking Iraq was rooted and vested in the specific WMD claims, is in fact a straw man. In fact, it was only one of the given justifications over the course of the months preceding and during the war in Iraq, from January through August of 2003.
Finally, the Administration made it clear that the war on Iraq was in fact not its own war, but was part of the larger War on Terror. Ideological semantics aside, the Administration saw Iraq as the first domino that needed to fall for a free Middle East.
This brings many on the Left to their current beef with right wingers who proudly tout the success of the Iraqi elections. Is it true, as the Left will claim, that democratization of Iraq was never an original objective? Or is it true, as the Left also will claim, that democratization of Iraq was, at best, a minor footnote in the pantheon of reasons the Administration trotted out?
Here is another credibility flaw in the Left’s complaints – they seem to believe that the President offered only one or two false justifications (“Bush Lied, People Died”) and that he offered a plethora of excuses, none of which warranted action. In other words, in their eyes, nothing Bush said warranted or justified the war.
Be that as it may, the straw men Lefties set up to complicate the issue can be knocked down easily.
It is a fact that the President never posited the WMD claim as the sole reason that disarming Saddam and taking him out. And as the following links to speeches and press conferences Bush gave demonstrate, promoting a free and democratic Iraq was always in the cards, and indeed was one of the major justifications for going in.
From a March 2003 speech:

“Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq’s liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people. We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq’s economy. We’ll make sure that Iraq’s natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people.
Iraq has the potential to be a great nation. Iraq’s people are skilled and educated. We’ll push as quickly as possible for an Iraqi interim authority to draw upon the talents of Iraq’s people to rebuild their nation. We’re committed to the goal of a unified Iraq, with democratic institutions of which members of all ethnic and religious groups are treated with dignity and respect.
To achieve this vision, we will work closely with the international community, including the United Nations and our coalition partners. If military force is required, we’ll quickly seek new Security Council resolutions to encourage broad participation in the process of helping the Iraqi people to build a free Iraq.

From a February 2003 speech:

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.(Applause.)

Not to mention this April 2003 speech in which Bush discusses democracy in Iraq as the ultimate goal.
The Left may hem and haw about the illegitimacy of the Right’s jubilation, calling it a false “told-you-so” mentality, but the evidence simply doesn’t support that conclusion. Threat of force was the initial response to concerns over Saddam and his growing belligerence, supported by UN Resolutions 1441 and 687; intelligence suggested Saddam’s weapons and weapons programs were in stasis, and could be used to threaten the United States and the free world; in weighing the factors, democracy and the benefits of a free Iraq, along with the threat of an armed Saddam and historical precedent, were touted as reasons justifying military action in Iraq.
That minds and memories are short is not surprising. That the Left would spin the elections this way is.

On Influence, Numbers, and Quality Control

jelewis8 — Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:47:27 +0000

All hail the influence of the blogosphere! Which is hardly the watershed paradigm it was purported to be, if you believe this CNN/Money survey found on Professor Bainbridge, though depending on who you talk to, blogs are in fact, all that and a bag of chips, unless they’re under fire for pushing misleading exit poll numbers, but then again, the people who are calling blogs out are also the same ones saying blogging is the new mainstream media. Strangely, it’s the (old?) mainstream media that’s doing all the talking, finger pointing, and retracting, er, qualifying. And, as Instapundit cites from the link, “…The numbers they and other bloggers posted came from the National Election Pool, an organization owned by the big networks and the Associated Press. NEP’s numbers go to those outfits and to other media organizations that pay boatloads of money to get a peek. The numbers weren’t some Internet invention, but data generated at the request of the mainstream media.” Who’s selling what to whom, how much, and why?
As James Joyner points out, bloggers are hardly calling themselves mainstream, though traffic data suggests the blogosphere has a wide reaching audience, and levies quite a bit of influence among its denizens, who often are highly critical of Big Media’s coverage (or lack thereof). Joyner also argues that the numbers Big Media is using to do its finger pointing may not accurately represent influence. Which may also explain how Big Media’s numbers can remain high whilst its influence steadily decreases.
Big Media used to lack a quality control mechanism on the outside, but with blogs, it is a lot harder to “get away with” errancy, shoddy reporting, and underhanded methods, as CBS found out earlier in the summer. Ombudsmen can only do so much, and often (as in the case of Daniel Okrent for the New York Times) are seen as shills for their own paper. Bloggers are more often happy enough to elevate the role of the blogosphere whilst ignoring or downplaying their own, personal role in the blogosphere. Thus the disconnect between a blog or group of blogs having influence is seen differently than the blogosphere as a whole as having influence. And too, blogs, or rather their owners, are not compartmentalized by a centralizing agency, and thus any numbers coming straight from the blogosphere are suspect, at least as being standardless.
Then there’s the argument for and against accuracy in Big Media and the blogosphere. A CBS correspondent argues that blogs present information in a factually misleading manner (via Instapundit). Then again, it was the blogosphere that brought CBS to its misleading knees in the case of its premiere investigative journalism team airing forged documents that alleged Bush was derelict in his National Guard duties.
Clearly, the influence of the blogosphere is not yet vaunted to superstar status. And whilst blogs like to toot the blogosphere’s horn, especially when in conjunction with something Big Media has done, it seems that Big Media has built a strawman out of the blogosphere, with the intention of tearing it down to size, in order to vault its image. Most blogs on the mainstream right, left, and center tend to see the blogosphere’s role as auxiliary, functioning as a kind of quality control, fact-checking entity with which Big Media might be measured and weighed. And though blogs don’t seem to want to be labeled as mainstream, there are those who continue to insist that blogs are vying for the top. They will foster a misperception which will further erode the tenuous relationship between the blogosphere and Big Media.

My Sex Is Better Than Yours

jelewis8 — Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:26:56 +0000

According to this poll, more Republicans are satisfied with their sex lives than Democrats. The poll roughly correspond to Bush’s lead over Kerry according to Gallup et al, so I’m not sure how much I trust these numbers (About as much as I trust an anti-war documentary by Jane Fonda), but they do suggest that making love is more satisfying when you’re on the Right side of the bed.
Could it be the Left’s tendency toward “charitability” makes them preturnaturally grouchy with the person(s) they’re sleeping with, perhaps even turning them off from sex completely? After years of giving away the taxpayers’ money to illegal aliens, single mothers (who’ve already had their day of sex in the sun), deadbeats who can’t seem to “find a job”, and all the other welfare recipients; decades of government assistance programs; and labour legislation designed to give the working man his due, mightn’t the Liberals be tired of once more providing for someone else’s needs, even sexual ones? Could the Liberals have “goodwill fatigue”?
The Right has it right on. And they’re getting it on too, with more success in bed and business. Republicans are greedy, self-serving, and uncharitable–ideal combinant characteristics for a stunning experience in the sack. Think about it. Money is sex, and sex is power, and the Republicans are dying for all of it. They’re humping like rabbits and loving it. Not only is it the sex, but all the rewards it brings those engaged in it. Unless you end up giving it all away afterward, like the liberals. That’s where being greedy and self-serving comes into play. The greedier you are, the more sex you’re likely to have (and enjoy), and the more money you’ll make. It’s a finely tuned, vicious circle that Republicans seem to thrive inside.
Think of all the little ditties Republicans have embraced. Preemptive strikes. Screw diplomacy. Mission accomplished! Smart bombs! The French suck! All highly sexualized terms, all part of that double world the Right seems so adept at living in. While liberals can barely function if they’re not helping the impoverished, leaving sanctions in place, or setting up college funds for illegal aliens, conservatives are thrusting away at everything that seems to present a problem. Saddam Hussein? Thrust. WMD? Pre-emptive strike, thrust. 9/11? Thrust. Iran? Foreplay, baby.
Thus it is not surprising that more Republicans find sex more meaningful than Democrats. After all, they know the truth: humanity just isn’t worth the celibacy.

Definitely No Votes For Leipzig

jelewis8 — Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:02:27 +0000

Jonathan Freedland writes that the world should have a say in United States elections. My first thought was that the piece is a satire, exposed by Freedland’s Swiftian name and uncommon ideas cobbled together in a pseudo-serious manner. He even uses the phrase “a modest proposal”. It’s a poor satire, however; a sad descendent of Jonathan Swift’s superior essay on cooking and eating Irish babies. With none of A Modest Proposal‘s wit or ghastly imagery, Freedland rewrites the satire genre by actually being semi-serious about his outlandish idea, something real satirists understand is not the purpose of the literary form.
Freedland surmises that since the US’ influence over the rest of the world is so complete, the whole world should have a say in who gets elected President.
So perhaps it’s time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this election, shouldn’t everyone in the world have a vote? Despite Bob Dole, shouldn’t the men who want to be president win the support of Liverpool and Leipzig as well as Louisville and Lexington?
Everyone in the world is also affected by the American military. Are we to allow other countries to decide our defense budget? The last time I checked the United States was still sovereign. Freedland goes on to point out staples of Liberal thought, which he then cites as reasons the world should have a say in our electoral contests.
Everyone from Madrid to Bali is now drawn into the “war on terror” declared by President Bush. We might believe that war is being badly mishandled – that US actions are aggravating the threat rather than reducing it – and that we or our neighbours will eventually pay the price for those errors. We might fear that the Bush policy is inflaming al-Qaida, making it more not less likely to strike in our towns and cities, but right now we cannot do anything to change that policy. Instead we have to watch the US campaign on TV, with our fingers crossed – impotent spectators of a contest that could shake up our lives.
War affects bystanders just as much as the major combatants. Does that imply the bystanders should or even can help determine whether such a war will be fought? War is, by implication, a casualty-based enterprise, and its industries are made by inflammation of sentiments and policies. And its combatants may wage it on a global scale; it is like a football game with no boundaries. The game will pile into the stands, regardless of whether the spectators wish it to. The nature and scale of war is like that. Pretentions of indignation are tools of rhetoric.
Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, postwar multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America’s allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements and the UN. The Bush era – not just Iraq, but Washington’s disdain for Kyoto, the test ban treaty, the international criminal court and the rest – suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside.
Someone in Europe finally gets it! Yes! Multilateral arrangements with the United States have always been suspect anyway, given Europe’s reliance on US might and money to achieve status not unlike an uncontested boxing champion who rests on previous laurels and accomplishments, all the while dwindling in true power to what Thomas Bray calls a “90 pound weakling”. Multilateral, in this sense, means the US shoulders at least 85% of the burden.
Freedland writes as if Bush was solely responsible for Kyoto’s demise, when the truth is that Kyoto was never a worthy document, proven by other signatories’ flaunting of its measures; proven by Clinton’s failure to sign it; proven by John Kerry’s stated unwillingness to sign it; proven by Japan and Germany and China all unable to meet its impossible restrictions on emissions. As for the international criminal court, the only name you need to say is Milosevic.
Freedland seems to forget that while Americans have sole authority to decide their leaders, they do so under a democratic Constitution. Is every country affected by United States foreign policy decisions willing to effect the American Constitution and all its democratic responsibilities? Will Americans help to choose other countries’ leaders?
And I wonder: If the United States withdrew from world affairs completely, exorcising its foreign military bases, eliminating foreign aid, restricting border access, eliminated its scientific, industrial, and commercial presence from outside our borders–how long would it take for Mr. Freedland to humbly request we go back to exerting our power over the rest of the world?

9/11 Apology

jelewis8 — Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:06:27 +0000

Freemuslims.org apologizes for 9/11, for Darfur, for Beslan, Madrid, and countless other acts of barbarism and terrorism. This is by far the single most responsible thing I’ve heard a Muslim say in the past three years. Sad that the sentiments of this writer are not echoed by all of Islam.
It is a start, though. Bravo to that.

John Kerry, Chess Player

jelewis8 — Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:06:04 +0000

A recent Reuters headline proclaimed “KERRY SAYS BUSH’S IRAQ WAR COSTING U.S. AT HOME”. Bush’s Iraq War. It’s his war, that interloper, that election fraudster. No, Kerry didn’t say those latter names, though it’s implied. Bush stole the election, now he owns the war. His war, not his election. In fact, it’s the fact that it’s not his election that makes “his war” so painful. That’s why Kerry’s been saying he’d have done the same thing as Bush, “only better”. Well of course. The right war is the right war no matter who’s in charge. Unless whoever’s in charge defrauded the country out of a legitimate leader, then it’s the “wrong war at the wrong time.” Which is what Kerry just finished saying a few days ago. Oh, but that was after he rebuked Howard Dean for saying the same thing back in December of 2003. One thing you have to credit Kerry for is his ability to take on as many different positions on any one subject as an entire country might have. Plus some. He’s the whole unwashed masses by himself!
Kerry just doesn’t get it. This isn’t Bush’s war, even if you are against it. It’s everyone’s war, whether you want it to be or not. Giving Bush possession of a worldwide conflict is a rhetorical fallacy–political maneuvering designed to deflect the fact that Kerry has offered nothing of substance to make us believe he has a different or better plan for the troops, for the war effort, for the overseas and domestic anti-terror campaign. Saying he’ll accomplish tasks “better than Bush” is a stink that can only come from Kerry having his head up his own behind.
Which explains why Kerry has been loathe to talk to the press. He’s scared stiff the reporters, however many of them are in fact rooting for him to win, will ask him something more difficult than why he supports taxing SUV owners to death while he himself owns several. Well, he doesn’t own them, the family does. Along with those energy-hog mansions. Of course, living in the “two Americas” as he does, it’s a simple equation. They that don’t have equals what John Kerry is not.
Here’s Kerry’s “nuanced” approach to the war in Iraq: “I would not have made the wrong choices that are now forcing us to pay nearly the entire cost of this war — $200 billion that we’re not investing in education, health care and job creation here at home.”
Never mind that he fails to articulate just how he would have made the right choices, or what those right choices would be. For Kerry, the right choice is apparently any choice that both agrees with the President’s requests for action and disagrees with their implementation, as evidenced by his vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq and his vote against $87 billion funding for troop operations there and in Afghanistan. Presumably, Kerry was hoping the $87 billion that he voted against would have gone instead to health care or education or some other domestic need. This despite the fact that certain funds can only be used in conjunction with the purpose for which they’re raised. In other words, $200 billion for health care and education costs aren’t going to be borne by military funding.
Kerry has since said that Bush rushed to war instead of pursuing diplomacy. Kerry reminds us that Bush vowed to build an international coalition, but the United States was bearing the burden in human lives and financial cost. All those Brits and Aussies don’t seem to have pinged Kerry’s “Ultimate Cost Radar”. Finally, Kerry points out that Bush said military action could be avoided and then prematurely ended arms inspections. What constitutes “premature” is something only Kerry, perhaps with a little help from Clinton, could define.
Decades of sanctions, more than a year and a half of diplomacy through both US and UN channels, troops and promised monetary support from over forty countries, and yet Kerry persists in saying Bush failed in pre-war negotiation with Iraq. It’s a classic failure setup, designed to entrap your opponent regardless of what he says or does. Kerry’s a master of playing fast and loose with facts and quotes to suit his minute-by-minute needs. And when the rook comes barrelling down, much like the Swift Boat Veterans, pull a knight’s tour so that even the best move by your opponent looks like a violation. They say George Bush is a master poker player. I’d put money on Kerry being a chess man. The way he moves and thinks gives credence to Garry Kasparov’s statement that “Chess is mental torture.”
Kerry better stop thinking that this is Bush’s war and start thinking of it as the war of the nation and the world if he wants a spot in that Oval Office. He’ll inherit a host of matters that he will not have the luxury of calling someone else’s problem. Thus far, Kerry’s campaign has been most reflective of a man who is quite unwilling to take responsibility for his own statements and decisions, much less someone else’s. Can someone run a country on that mentality? Kerry seems hellbent on trying, regardless of what he says 50% of the time.

Convention Bounce

jelewis8 — Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:11:54 +0000

Kerry’s people are happy about his position in the polls and in the public’s mind after the Democratic National Convention left Kerry with a “negative bounce”.

Democrats were dismissive. “We’re extremely pleased with where John Kerry and John Edwards are,” Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry’s campaign manager, said Monday.
Two other post-convention polls released Monday also showed Kerry failing to get the traditional boost from the convention. One showed his support unchanged; the other had him up 3 percentage points among likely voters. Neither found Bush gaining ground.
Some of the same voices who confidently predicted at least a modest bounce for Kerry last week suggested theories for why that didn’t happen: The Democrats miscalculated by limiting the partisan bashing of Bush. Or perhaps in this polarized electorate there’s simply no one left to persuade. Or Kerry could still benefit from a delayed bounce.

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t be happy about my candidate not getting a much needed boost from increased media exposure froma convention built up around the idea that you’re the top guy for the upcoming job. Those Kerry people are crafty craftsmen, but even if they pull out all the stops–and I think the only thing that would work here is to have Kerry levitate, really levitate–I can’t imagine him getting any more of a boost. The problem is, he’s just not that interesting, exciting, or worthwhile.
Let’s face it–this election is about which guy we believe will be better at sending our guys to kill the bad guys–sure there are other issues, but none more important or engaging. Something about protecting the country from enemies foreign tends to grab people’s attention. What’s Kerry’s schtick? I’ll hand control over to those mincers at the UN.
Bush, on the other hand, sends out thousands of our guys to kill thousands of the bad guys. And because we’re good at killing bad guys, that’s generally been favourable for him. Go troops!
Now that the Democrats have blown their wad and Kerry’s still lagging behind, I guess there’s only one thing left to do: smear campaign. Involving the Bush twins and that midget from Jackass.
Hey, the Democrats can dream.

Send John Kerry

jelewis8 — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:51:32 +0000

Transcript of Bill Clinton’s speech last night at the DNC.

John Kerry and John Edwards, have good ideas:
- To make this economy work again for middle-class Americans;
- To restore fiscal responsibility;
- To save Social Security; to make healthcare more affordable and college more available;
- To free us from dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in clean energy;
- To rally the world to win the war on terror and to make more friends and fewer terrorists.

With the exception of the first point (the economy is already showing remarkable growth, fueled by middle-class American investments back into the economy), I agree with everything on that list.
I’m curious how Bush will respond to this, especially in the fiscal responsibility arena, in which he’s really botched things.