64 Comments

1. asher:

Thanks for your great coverage! It’s good to hear of Ed Koch supporting the President. I think the support of traditional liberals like ourselves will be critical in this election, as I’ve noted here.

Now is the time to go all-out to make sure we win this one. Thanks for the part you are playing.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:45 am 2. asher:

I’ve been convinced for a couple of years that the DP is not going to be with us much longer; at least, not in its present form. It seems certain that by 2008 the Democrats will have to have totally reinvented their party to be viable. I still think democracy is poorly served by our present two-party system. The next few years will be very interesting indeed.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:51 am 3. Connecticut Yankee:

Roger– Love the Hawaiian shirt in Captain Ed’s photo.

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/003486.php

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:52 am 4. Terrye:

Roger:

You are looking slick.

I like Koch too. I always appreciated his guts and his humor. He seems like a good guy and I think he is voting for Bush because he loves that city and does not want to see it hurt again. Too bad the spoiled brats in the streets don’t agree.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:02 am 5. Knucklehead:

Koch is probably the only Democrat I don’t hold party-affiliation against. He is a decent man and downright entertaining. I cannot even imagine voting for any other Dem (I can’t vote for Koch unless he goes national) with the Blue Moon exception of a personal friend in a VERY local election.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:35 am 6. thibaud:

I asked him if he would favor a new centrist party, [and] he said he was born a Democrat and would die a Democrat

Decent guy but he’s of he wrong generation, in the wrong city. For a large number of northeastern jews and catholics who came of age in working middle-class families before 1975, the Democratic party is, well, like the mother Church. They’ll never leave the old lady.

The geographic core of a new centrist party IMHO will be the western US, where one’s likely to find much weaker party affiliation. The pull of urbanism’s a lot less, and so is the pull of tribal or group loyalty, which is about the only real source of coherence the major parties can draw on these days.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:42 am 7. thibaud:

The obvious symbol of a new centrist party isn’t Koch or Giuliani but the socially-tolerant self-made immigrant millionaire governor of Kalivoornia.

Is Arnold at the convention, Roger? He’s the one to put the new party proposal to.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:45 am 8. notthisgirl:

Roger-

Do you know if Dennis Hopper is really there? When did he turn Republican - or is this like a Koch thing.

Also, have you seen the likes of Don King yet … oh my God.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:47 am 9. exguru:

I wonder if Koch would go with you to the Frick…

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:48 am 10. thibaud:

Watch your language, guru.

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:12 am 11. Catherine:

No one’s forgetting 9-11. Not by a long shot.

That’s why we’re having a collective nervous breakdown over this election.

What’s that concept?

Regression under stress?

Under severe stress people & animals tend to regress to “earlier” behaviors . . . we’ve now regressed all the way back to 1971.

Which I, of course, think is a Good Thing.

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:16 am 12. TmjUtah:

There’s nothing wrong with a two party system, especially in a robust constitutional republic.

The problem we have today is that one party has broken faith with the basic intent of the constitution. You can’t empower government to babysit without stripping individuals of the personal responsibility inherent in pursuing happiness. I won’t even address the quest to make everyone sexless, secular, and devoid of national identity in favor of cultural balkanization.

It’s going to take more than reinvention to return Democrats to the debate, much less to power.

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:19 am 13. D Anghelone:

Looks like our host lost his laptop but he at least has that Nextel gig.

How are the bloggers being treated with regards the MSM?

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:23 am 14. ricpic:

“How’m I doin’?”

“How’m I doin’?”

Well, as an ex-NewYorker who lived in a crime ridden decaying New York through your terms in office; a New York that was turned around by Republican Rudy — all I can say is, “Not too well Ed, not too well.”

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:47 am 15. Catherine:

Given what history I’ve managed to absorb so far, I’d go further than TimJUtah & say I don’t want a third party.

Multiple-party systems open the door to far-right and far-left parties gaining power via coalition politics.

Apparently, one of the reasons we’ve never had a serious socialist party here is that we only have two parties, period. The two-party system seems to push everyone in toward the center.

I think.

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:53 am 16. RandMan:

Do you know if Dennis Hopper is really there? When did he turn Republican - or is this like a Koch thing.

I’m paraphrasing here, but Hopper was quoted as saying he became a Republican when he sobered up. LOL

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:54 am 17. Swopa:

He is pro War of Terror…

Dr. Freud, your slip is showing.

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:57 am 18. Catherine:

I just missed a guess.

The new Gallup poll has 56% of Americans saying Bush should specifically denounce the Swift Boat ads, 32% saying he should not, 12% no opinion.

My strong sense has been that the majority of Americans would not like hearing the President “denounce” a group of Vietnam veterans.

I think I’m going to stick to my guns on this one, since polls just don’t get at the “cognitive unconscious,” or any other unconscious, for that matter.

Actually, that reminds me: before we have our next France-bashing fest around here, I am assigning every last one of you guys to read my husband’s experience in Normandy this week (it’s on the France thread).

I mean it.

In fact, I might just go so far as to post it again.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:00 am 19. lindenen:

Who knew Dr. Freud wore dresses?

Tom Beavans is cute! And so are you, Roger! But you should have brought a digital camera so you could get pictures of Dennis Hopper. If he’s sobered up, does this mean he is no longer insane?

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:01 am 20. lindenen:

Can you link to it, Catherine?

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:03 am 21. Rick Ballard:

Catherine,

You can link to it by clicking the date/time stamp of the original comment and inserting it like any other link.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:20 am 22. Terrye:

Catherine:

I agree with you on the issue of a two party system. I think there would be greater chaos and a greater chance of a minority taking control with a third party. Case in point: if not for Ross Perot Clinton would not have become president.

I also tend to agree with you on the swiftie question. For one thing it is not the president’s place to denounce the ads and for another it would not help. I think that a lot of Republicans are worried the president will be blamed for the ads and there will be a backlash and so some many want him to distance himself. I think his warm gooshy remarks about Kerry helped with that.

I was informed via email that my book [Unfit for Command] was shipped on Friday. Considering the number of people sending in money and buying the book I think this will stick around for awhile.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:27 am 23. Samuel:

A new centrist party? You have got to be kidding, right? Unless we change our political system a third party will simply continue as always. It will either lead to the death-knell of one of the other parties, as with the Whigs who were replaced by the Republicans, or like the following which is more the usual fate of the third Party…

It was tried recently, it was the Reform Party and what happened? (Can anybody say Bull-Moose or Dixiecrat?) This is merely a Spoiler Party, its actions are temporary and ends up dead. The Reform Party ended up as a cauldron of political misfits that ended up destroying themselves. Face it, an independent minded person will never successfully be established into a “United Independant Minded Party”, IT IS AN OXY-MORON! Believe me, polarization is much better then fractionalization.

Let’s see, Swifty O’Niel voted for Perot, Gore and now will probably vote Bush. Is there really a set place for a guy like him? I would not wish European style fractionalzation on anyone as in the end the fractions have to unite to fight off other fractions any way, lining up under one title is much greater. Tribalism (fractionalization) is what we have greatly avoided in the land of ours and gladly so. It is one of the many reasons I am a Republican now and not a Democrat as the play to divide people into interests throwing out the idea of color-blindness in the process is just too problematic.

A loyal oppostion is important, but a third party has more the effect of disloyal opposition. In 1992 Perot sought to destroy Bush Sr. In 2000 he endorsed his son, and sought the destruction fo Gore, go figure. I am with Catherine on this one.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:31 am 24. dennisw:

Egg salad sandwich with Mayor Koch? It doesn’t get more hamisha than that.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:33 am 25. Sun-Tzu:

ricpic:

IIRC, there was a certain Dinkins administration between Ed Koch and Rudy.

More to the point, Koch pulled NYC out of the fiscal disaster that Abe Beame had left behind. (Beame, iirc, happily blamed the Ford Administration for NYC’s woes, when they refused to bail NYC out.)

Koch, even back then, angered a lot of Dems, by demanding personal responsibility. I remember when he complained about how welfare recipients refused to do for themselves, but expected things done for them. And who can forget his suggestion that the UN leave town?

Roger, tell Mr. Koch that there are some still around who remember his days as mayor and still salute Hizzoner.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:35 am 26. Terrye:

Catherine:

I read your post on France and I would think that in Normandy Americans would be well thought of. I am sure that it depends a great deal on where you are and who you talk to. I also think their press is just about as representative of the people as ours is.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:48 am 27. Knucklehead:

Sun-Tzu,

The Dinkens administration was a debacle. NYC really sucked back then. It was clear that Dinkens was wrecking the city after Koch had done such a fine job of saving it. Then Guliani came in and recovered it again and made it a nice, safe, place for Moonbats to gather any time of the day or night and scream about what a fascist Rudi was. During Dinkens Moonbat gathering generally turned into violent mayhem - but I guess they think that’s a good thing.

Aug 30, 2004 - 11:55 am 28. Knucklehead:

Yo, Catherine! We religious-whackos of the VRWC have long since learned to love the sinner (the French) while hating the sin (France). (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) It doesn’t matter if every single French individual wanted to put a loving BubbaLock on the privates of the nearest Yank. The French are about as “hands off” as a population can be when it comes to the foreign policy of their government. And the foreign policy of the French government has long been primarily interested in containing the American Hyperhegemon and re-establishing France as a world power.

Aug 30, 2004 - 12:02 pm 29. Terrye:

I have direct tv and rarely watch the networks anymore but I hear that Bush did an interview with Matt Lauer from NBC and part of it was on Meet The Press and part on the Today show.

Did anybody see it and if so how was it?

Aug 30, 2004 - 12:16 pm 30. Percy Dovetonsils:

Two quick questions, everyone:

I can’t watch television news channels (my blood pressure won’t allow it - seriously), so I was wondering if the media was giving any play to the “Moonbattery in Manhattan” we’ve been reading about on blogs - you know, the jeering, the fire, the urine balloons, the famed assault on the gal in the cocktail dress? I read on the Chicago Boyz blog that some of this footage had been broadcast. I personally would be stunned if the media presented the protestors as anything other than slightly shaggier Gandhis.

And Roger, any word on how the MSM types and the delegates are interacting? Or are both sides still awaiting their cootie shots before approaching the other?

Aug 30, 2004 - 12:20 pm 31. Terrye:

Percy:

I watched some of the coverage on Fox and they mentioned that a mother and daughter from the south thought their lives were in danger. The reporters assured them this was not the case. They also mentioned that the protestors seemed to know where the parties are because they were there waiting for the people so they could scream at them.

Oh yeah, these are the kind of people that need to be running the country. you betcha.

Aug 30, 2004 - 12:59 pm 32. Dr. Manhattan:

The Koch line calls to mind a joke (I heard it in the context of Argentinian politics, but it’ll do here as well):

Politician: “I was born a Democrat, and I’ll die a Democrat.”

Questioner: “And in between?”

Aug 30, 2004 - 12:59 pm 33. Catherine:

Rick B

Thank you!

You are my how-to-post-stuff-on-the-internet guru.

I will now attempt to post a link.

Aug 30, 2004 - 1:32 pm 34. Catherine:

France

Well, now I can’t find the post, but I still have it in Word, since I have to write everything there because otherwise Typepad eats it up.

It’s short, so I’ll re-post:

France news: my husband has been there for a week, in Normandy, and he says the feelings of warmth and even love of French people towards Americans are astonishing.

Yesterday he went into a cheese shop and the owner started talking to him, and of course it emerged that my husband is from America, and on the basis of that fact alone–”I’m from America”–the man insisted on giving my husband his name and phone number because he wants to invite him to his home and prepare him dinner when he returns to France.

We are living in such strange times. I suppose all times are strange in their way, but this one has really got me mystified.

You look at the PEW POLLS and the KOFI UTTERANCES and the WORLD PRESS and the only thing you hear is: World-to-America, F*** Off.

Then you walk into a cheese shop in Normandy and receive a personal invitation to dinner at a man’s house because you are an American.

We had the same experience in England in March. I had thought that was just because England is our ally and friend (and blood relation, when it comes to that).

Now I’m not so sure.

Aug 30, 2004 - 1:42 pm 35. TmjUtah:

Roger L. -

My question for Blog Row and for the Media is what will it take for the Democrats to seek new leadership?

They lost the congress in 1994. They lost the presidency in 2000. They lost the midterms in 2002.

Just a guess, but I am willing to go out on a limb and predict they are going to lose in 2004, too. What business runs the same CEO, much less board of directors, while declining from Fortune 500 status all the way to something less profitable than The Nation magazine?

Who stands on deck? I don’t think anybody does.

Samuel -

Multiparty coalitions arise in countries where individual liberties are not protected. The ability of governments elsewhere to dictate individual behaviours and make it stick makes the available pie (tangible chunks of power) easier to cut into slices.

Under our system, based on inalienable individual rights, succinctly defined branches of government (and duties/limits thereof), and backed up (until the last couple of generations) by courts that did their job, it took large, predictable bloc majorities to enact sweeping change. The rise of socialist thought in America was a transplant from European nations, especially from the continent, where wholesale dislocation of social order by government fiat had become en vogue over the course of a century.

I cannot see how any Herd of Cats political party can hope to compete here nationally. The codified tenets of limited government coupled with the evolution of the national electorate away from welfare state solutions for America has severely limited the amount of income that can be redistributed. There is room for social security (after reform) and issues like Pell grants, student loans, transition training, yes, but there’s not going to be any national programs providing ‘free’ health care, human-free wilderness areas encompassing entire states, federalized no-kill animal shelters, or federal living wage legislation.

It’s not going to happen because A) the interest groups that would benefit are too narrow (i.e. Vegan Gay Unitarians of Color Supporting Meat Free Chili for School Lunches) for any individual satisfied agenda to stand alone at the ballot box nationally and B) the cost of implementing enough programs to attempt to sate enough splinter groups to constitute a monolithic majority would bankrupt the country.

This is all just my hack opinion, of course. I stand by it just the same. Kerry at arm’s length fails the laugh test for candidate for president of the United States in this year 2004. Looking at the whole proposal, beginning with his core political beliefs, and then the public record from Vietnam, his activism, his chair warming in the Senate, right up until now, there’s NOTHING to vote FOR unless you count party affiliation…which by itself, even in a time of peace and stability, is a crappy standard of decision. When the stakes are war, economic upheaval, and tremendous social change, it would be nice if voters looked at performance vice ideology.

Kerry’s nomination appealed to the Clintons; a safe loser, and apparently inoffensive enough not to embarass The Party too publicly. A losing candidacy that they could package as another example of the evil genius of Karl Rove at work, and one they could keep in their pocket for the three years they would be maneuvering Hillary into the dock for 2008. They thought they had avoided Dean. Then Kerry trotted out this obscene war hero platform and started a fire that couldn’t be put out by merely dispatching private detectives and friendly media shills.

Samuel, I’d be mighty interested to know what your take is on the bench roster available to the Dems for national leadership. A crushing Bush win coupled with significant house gains and even a few senate seats would seem to demand some sort of realignment on the part of the DNC. It’s past time, in my opinion, but who in their right mind would take the job?

Aug 30, 2004 - 1:44 pm 36. Catherine:

Terrye

I think that a lot of Republicans are worried the president will be blamed for the ads and there will be a backlash and so some many want him to distance himself. I think his warm gooshy remarks about Kerry helped with that.

This is the moment when I really am starting to think Karl Rove is a genius.

It seems to me as if they’ve handled things exactly right, and IMO it is a tricky issue for the Bushies, even though the Swifties help overall.

I would think that in Normandy Americans would be well thought of. I am sure that it depends a great deal on where you are and who you talk to.

Yes, he says the atmosphere in Paris is completely different, though it’s not hostile there, either.

The difference is that in Paris people don’t invite you to their homes for dinner only because you’re an American. There has to be some other reason, too.

I am sure that it depends a great deal on where you are and who you talk to.

Actually, in Normandy, no. My husband was blown away. Instant warmth and affection towards a total stranger from America has been the norm in his week there. (I should have mentioned that he has your perception, too, that Normandy is almost certainly uniquely warm towards Americans).

I know I keep mentioning our quick trip to England, but it bears repeating given how much anti-Americanism we’re exposed to: we had exactly the same experience in London in March.

Everywhere we went people were extraordinarily welcoming, warm and kind to us because we were Americans. It was unmistakeable.

The weird thing in London was that Americans seemed to make up a good proportion of the local population, so it was odd being treated like welcome guests in a place that is starting to feel like home away from home.

Samuel

Thank you for explaining what I can’t at this point!

As I have to keep mentioning, I’m just beginning to read history, so I can’t recite chapter and verse on “coalition politics.”

But the minute I did begin my reading in this area I developed a horror of many-partied political systems.

Israel, btw, seems to have the worst system you can have in this regard—-and I’d be interested to see if you agree.

I’ll garble this a bit, but Israel has a “representational system” (is that the right term?) where each designated group in the culture (each designated party?) gets the number of representatives their group has voted in.

This is the exact system the U.N. is trying to impose on Iraq, which will be a disaster.

The U.N. person wants to adopt such a system to make sure a certain number of women are elected.

Aug 30, 2004 - 1:59 pm 37. Catherine:

Terrye

I forgot—

I also think their press is just about as representative of the people as ours is.

Right, exactly.

We just have to keep reminding ourselves not to take press descriptions of other country’s citizens at face value any more than we would want people to assume that our media fully and accurately portray Americans.

One problem with the press, for me, is that I can’t figure out how to “discount” news stories the way I can “discount” film reviews.

Once I’ve read a few reviews by a critic, I can tell how I would feel differently about a movie he or she likes or dislikes. The NYTIMES is especially great in this respect: any time they write a the movie it but it’s clear that he/she had a lot of fun watching it, you know it’s going to be fabulous.

But with news stories I can’t do this unless I know a fair amount about the subject matter already.

I’ll read a TIMES story that sounds utterly thorough and convincing, and I’ll think, ‘OK, what am I missing?’

It’s usually omething, and it’s usually pretty well disguised.

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:06 pm 38. Catherine:

TimJUtah & Samuel

Samuel, I’d be mighty interested to know what your take is on the bench roster available to the Dems for national leadership. A crushing Bush win coupled with significant house gains and even a few senate seats would seem to demand some sort of realignment on the part of the DNC. It’s past time, in my opinion, but who in their right mind would take the job?

That’s exactly my question.

I have to say, on Dennis Miller one night I saw a NYC Democrat (has a seat in the NY State House)–last name Wiener–who I loved. He described himself as a “libertarian Democrat” and was young. Early 40s at most.

If there are lots more like him, the Democratic Party will be unrecognizeable at some point.

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:13 pm 39. Catherine:

Sorry, blathering on—-

I just remembered one of the things I liked about the NYC Dem.

He had supported Wesley Clark in the primaries, and when he mentioned Clark, Miller surprised blurted out, “Wesley Clark! The guy was a nutjob, wasn’t he?!”

Wiener obviously had not anticipated this reaction at all, and was thrown off his feed, but his recovery time was about 1 second.

He said, “Now you tell me.”

He was great. Serious, a straight-shooter, and not a trace of sanctimonious moralizing.

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:16 pm 40. Rick Ballard:

Catherine,

If I’m your internet guru, you have my prayers. Roger has possibly fouled up the main page layout with the hat pics and I can’t get to the archives. I’ll do a search later on for the France post. Given a second Catherine’s existence would addition of an initial in your sig be too hierarchical?

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:19 pm 41. TmjUtah:

Catherine -

It’s just Tee - Em - Jay, ma’am. Tango Mike Juliet.

Samuel -

My question stands, but just for clarity I’ll amplify that I don’t think there is anything unified enough to constitute a ‘party’, at least past the ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ sense of alliance.

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:23 pm 42. Terrye:

Catherine:

I think most of us are honestly curious about people from other countries and cultures and so when we meet them in a non political setting we want to hear from them.

I also think that people like Americans they just don’t think it is cool to admit it. If they don’t why do so many of them insist on coming here?

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:26 pm 43. WichitaBoy:

Catherine

re: France

I think it’s very hard for us Americans to avoid projecting or “mirror-imaging” when we think about Europe. Those societies really are different from ours. They really do have a medieval past which makes absolutely no sense to us.

One of our new neighbors is from England and her husband is from Ireland. She worked her way through college (”university”) and as a result was socially ostracized by those from the aristocracy who didn’t have to work. I explained to her that it’s just the opposite here: the trustifarians who don’t have to work are ashamed of themselves for not having anything meaningful to do with their lives. Even to this day, even in the UK, the words “aristocracy” and “working-class” really mean something. In the US, everyone is middle-class, and everyone is expected to work at something. (Well, upon reflecting on the example of John Kerry, it may be that things are different in Boston and that it’s cool in Boston to not have to work, to act like a snobby aristocrat. If so, that’s still the insignificant exception, and the people I know at Harvard feel otherwise, to say the least.) “Aristocracy” here just means some guy who bought a Mercedes-Benz, but in Europe it really means something. Everyone here is a “liberal”. That’s why the word keeps getting redefined.

This is why the Labour Party/Socialist Parties has/have been so successful in Europe: if you can’t succeed by dint of your own efforts no matter what you do, then you might as well punish those above you by making everybody forcibly equal. It also explains the success of the Euroelites in setting the agenda against the popular will: at heart they all believe in aristocracy still, it’s just that the definition of aristocracy has been shifted from landed wealth to high test scores.

It’s also clear why those in the U.S. with high test scores (e.g., Hillary) would prefer a system in which they would be in complete control. Democracy is so messy. Plumbers getting a say in our health care system. Imagine!

In real life there are many many factors other than high test scores which are important. Honesty. Toughness. Moral courage. The ability to rally the troops. And so forth. The list is endless. The world is an infinite-dimensional, not a 1-dimensional space. When there’s no single criterion for success, as in the U.S., then there’s great hope for everybody. Anybody who wants to succeed can, somewhere, at some game or other, succeed. This has always been our greatest strength.

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:31 pm 44. Sandy P:

–)–last name Wiener–who I loved. He described himself as a “libertarian Democrat” and was young. Early 40s at most.–

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

He’s a WHINER!

Drives me nuts want to slap him thru the TV.

LIAR, LIAR LIAR!

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:38 pm 45. Terrye:

Wichita Boy:

You know what they say, timing is everything. And some people have an innate sense of timing. Call it instinct. Whatever it is, it transcends birth right or education.

Aug 30, 2004 - 2:45 pm 46. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Catherine

The term you want is “proportional representation” where (roughly) a party gets seats in parliament proportional to their votes. Thus an itty, bitty party might get a seat or two, even though no representative got more than 3% of the vote.

It leads to insane governments - Israel occasionally demonstrates this.

As for Normans, they’re provincials. To a Parisien, they are outcasts almost as much as we are. I didn’t spend enough time there to chat - just went to the D-Day stuff and the Bayonne Tapestry.

I would guess that the people who were so very nice to us when we lived in Suresne (Paris suburb) in 1991 would still be that way. When relationships are personal, politics are less likely to be an issue. On the other hand, the daily late night hike we took through what we called “little Iraq” might be dangerous.

When we visited Paris in ‘79, some of the people were quite obnoxious. In fact, in one fancy restuarant they were so obnoxious that we decided to return the favor, to the horror of their other patrons. Heh heh.

Aug 30, 2004 - 3:12 pm 47. Catherine:

T M J Utah

Good Lord.

After all these months of reading your posts, as well as your name, you are telling me that you are NOT “Tim” J Utah?

OK, so now, in addition to having no memory & no ability to bend Typekey to my will, I’m blind to bat.

SORRY.

Aug 30, 2004 - 3:33 pm 48. Catherine:

“Blind to bat”?

Blind to boot.

I’m sure that’s what I meant.

Aug 30, 2004 - 3:34 pm 49. Catherine:

Sandy P

PLEASE DON’T TELL ME THAT!!!!!!!

PLEASE!!!!!

PLEASE!!!!!

Maybe I’m also delusional.

Aug 30, 2004 - 3:35 pm 50. Knucklehead:

Catherine,

How ’bout blind as a bat to boot (I don’t know what it means!)

Regarding France and your Lesser One-Third… approximately how old was the cheesemonger? Age matters in Europe when it comes to whether they like Americans or not.

And speaking of cheese, it brings to mind one of my favorite real-life quips. Completely OT, but here goes anyway.

It was some sort of social gathering, probably a wedding reception. A well-heeled and well-spoken woman of middle age was going on and on about how fabulous women were and finished her diatribe with the classic cliche, “Women are like fine wine. They get better with age.”

A man at the table (not me!) immediately replied, “The same can be said of smelly cheese.” Brought down the house (well, OK, only those of us within earshot).

Aug 30, 2004 - 3:43 pm 51. Samuel:

TmjUtah

It is interesting, I can read into the first paragraph and not even see who the person posting was yet I already know it is you, I concur completely with what you said. As far as…

Samuel, I’d be mighty interested to know what your take is on the bench roster available to the Dems for national leadership. A crushing Bush win coupled with significant house gains and even a few senate seats would seem to demand some sort of realignment on the part of the DNC. It’s past time, in my opinion, but who in their right mind would take the job?

–

No one can, it is time for a History lesson. It will require leadership in the form of a President. There are few that could do it. A person like an Eisenhower type character might jump in, bridge some gaps and help them out, Wes Clark was not that man, I don’t see him and I don’t see Hillary doing it without a split in the Libertarian/Social Conservative base which is possible. The Republicans are way deeper in their bench but this too comes with its own perils.

You have just asked a question I could write a book on. I‚Äôll try to sum it up for it will lay out to Republican perils as well. History always repeats itself in some form or another, who plays the fool or not can be changed, but people will be found to play the parts. Politically the cycle and comparisons are…

Franklin Roosevelt = Ronald Reagan

These guys both were responsible for changing the world of Politics. One for the left, one for the right. Before FDR the Republicans had been much more in control of politics after FDR we had a period of time when it went back and forth but it ended up favoring Democrats, but either way both these guys changed the baseline for the arguments of the day.

Harry Truman = George Bush Sr.

Both these guys followed the icons of their day. They were VP’s and had the distinct honor of tying up the loose ends of their predecessors foreign policies. Truman presided over the end of WWII and started the Korean War. Bush presided over the end of the Cold War and started the Gulf War. Both Wars remained unresolved. In the end both were not given the respect they deserved for their accomplishments and run out of town. I hold Bush Sr. in higher regard in retrospect. I have always regarded Harry Truman in high esteem.

Dwight Eisenhower = Bill Clinton

People here might say, “No way!” but the comparisons are just as apropos. Both served under times when their respective parties were in decline and tried to moderate their Parties. Both were viewed as moderates and helped bridged dissension in their ranks. Interestingly when Eisenhower took office Republicans held a slim majority in Congress. This majority was lost in the Midterms to the Democrats in 1954, yet it remained close for about a decade, more on this later. This history was repeated exactly in 1994 when in Mid-terms the Democrats lost this majority to Republicans.

John F. Kennedy = George W. Bush

This is where my theories on this gets even more confirmed. Every example I have given is very well historically mirrored despite the differences in the personalities and characters involved. 1960 was even a closer election then 2000. Like in 2000, in 1960 it was a sitting Vice President Richard Nixon (Nixon = Gore) who lost that election. He and others felt Kennedy and the Democrats stole the election from the Republicans. In truth there is more evidence to this then exists in 2000. Also Kennedy in truth lost the Popular Vote, but I won’t get into that here, but he did. Kennedy like Bush was considered lacking experience and unproven. For Bush 911 changed that perception, for Kennedy it was the Cuban Missile crisis.

Now getting to re-alignment, this is why I had previously thought this election would be like 1964 had Kennedy lived, in truth it may be, we just can’t know. I am positive Kennedy would have faced a much tougher re-election then LBJ as he (LBJ) successfully kept the George Wallace faction in check until 1968. (This hurt Dems in 1968 and 1972). One thing is for sure. The after he proved himself, the Kennedy Presidency marked the beginning of when voters finally deciding more going with the Democrats especially in Congress. We sit historically in such times. This would imply Bush should make enough difference to break the tie today. I stand by that belief. I believe there has been a 3-5 point shift in the electorate towards the Republicans. I also believe like in 1964, in 2004 we will start seeing this shift. As the shift appears inevitable then many fence sitters will jump to the winning Party, this is what happens. I will add that Democrats will be very electable especially on the National level if they put forward the better candidate as Presidency is more about leadership. This is why Republican had many Presidents during this time.

A real question is does Bush being alive make a historical difference? How will this effect the next elections when comparing 1968 and 1972 to future elections? One thing is very clear to me…

Civil Rights/Segregation = Social Conservative/Libertarian

The spilt between Civil Rights/Segregation along with the death of Robert Kennedy opened up the door for Nixon and the Republicans in 1968. It is very conceivable to me a Social Conservative/Libertarian split along with some bad actors could open the door for Hillary, Gore or someone else for that matter. I don’t know what will happen but historically we are at 1964 yet we just don’t know what 1964 would have been like do we? Remember changing characters will not change the tendency to repeat history at some level, I just hope Bush, Swartzanegger, McCain and Giuliani can keep the Republicans from doing a similar implosion that the Democrats suffered in 1968. We have at least four years to find out.

As far as Democrats? Well they are going to definately have to achieve this with there own Reagan/Roosevelt like charactor. If currently we are in 1964 then this person is just now being hatched and may not yet be known as his mark is many election cycles away (Obama?). I don’t know but I do wonder, who their next shrewed Nixonian like Politition that can exploit such a split is, because historically this split must occur first before they get to there FDR/Reagan like charactor. Could it be Hillary?

Also this is why we are re-living Vietnam. Historically this is like 1964 and Iraq does equal Vietnam in my histroy lesson. IT DOES NOT MEAN WE NEED TO LOSE! While history does repeat itself, the outcome can change if we go in eyes wide open with that understanding. Unfortunatley Iraq = Vietnam to the left but what is really significant is this means Vietnam\Iraq = Failure Vietnam to them. I view this as an opportunity to get it right. The left views it as an opportunity to confirm those failures and that is why I am no longer part of the left, that is why they call me a Neo-con.

Aug 30, 2004 - 3:48 pm 52. Catherine:

Hi WichitaBoy!

“Aristocracy” here just means some guy who bought a Mercedes-Benz, but in Europe it really means something

Did you see the cool photo-essay in WEEK IN REVIEW on this exact subject?

It was a series of photos of European aristocrats, accompanied by an essay saying, I think, exactly what you’re saying—and putting this forward as a core reason for the two cultures to be both attracted and repelled by each other, as well as frequently confused. I wish to heck I’d saved it.

I think there’s something else going on, too, though; something having to do with 9-11.

It’s almost as if we’re having a love-hate relationship with the rest of the world, or the rest of the world is having a love-hate relationship with us.

As the bad feelings about America seem to have grown vastly stronger since 9-11, the good feelings seem, perhaps, to have grown that much stronger, too.

Aug 30, 2004 - 3:48 pm 53. Catherine:

Knucklehead

How ’bout blind as a bat to boot (I don’t know what it means!)

Please.

I’m addled enough as it is.

I’m also proofreading galleys today, in theory, and this whole thread is making me very, very nervous.

This probably wasn’t the day to find out that Tim J is actually TMJ.

On the other hand, perhaps I should choose to see this development as a wake-up call.

(I’ll ask my husband how old the guy was. Still, he said everyone, everywhere was acting the same way. I’m assuming he ran across at least one or two people under the age of, um, 70.)

Rick B

(Your name is Rick, right? Not RK or some such.)

The Other Catherine said she’ll start signing as “Catherine AZ,” since she’s from Arizona, so I probably don’t need to add any further initials to my name at this point. (Which is good, since I was just now sitting here thinking to myself, “Will TypeKey even let me do that?” I’m letting Catherine AZ go first, God bless her.)

Samuel

Wow!

I just noticed a long, patented Samuel post.

Oh, boy!

Obviously I won’t be returning to proofreading any time soon.

John Moore

proportional representation

Thanks.

I’m going to try to commit that to memory.

Israel sounds like a horror, the little I’ve read about their system.

Aug 30, 2004 - 4:01 pm 54. Catherine:

Samuel

Wow! As always.

I have only one thing to drop in: I’ve noticed that George Bush, Sr. is getting incredibly good press everywhere you turn.

Kerry’s intended foreign policy as president is described by his closest advisors as being like that of the first George Bush, only with a little more liberal interventionism thrown in (inconceivable with Kerry, but there it is); William Raspberry in WAPO says he likes the father, not the scary son; my own husband now routinely speaks of the first George Bush with respect.

I think this supports your contention that the country has been pulled 5-points-to-the-right.

Liberals who are moving rightward haven’t moved to George W. Bush’s column, but they have moved to George Bush, Sr’s column.

I also think there’s an unconscious emotion being expressed here that may be analogous to the “love-hate” emotions I’ve encountered in Europeans.

This is pure armchair analysis, obviously, but when you have people loathing the son but admiring the father . . . . that seems meaningful to me.

Aug 30, 2004 - 4:14 pm 55. Samuel:

Catherine

Thanks and sorry for the grammatical errors, speed and length of the post dictated this. I do believe George Bush Sr. deserves equal accolades with Harry Truman, unfortunately he was treated with equal disrespect. History will be kind to Bush Sr. for sure.

Also historically Dubya is JFK, I don’t care how offensive that sounds to some head in the sand liberal. I have many other proofs and statistics to prove my theories of where we are historically. In this the 1990’s = 1950’s (you know the good old days, that is what the 90’s will always be too many, especially Democrats), post WWII = post Cold War, Gulf War = Korea, Iraq = Vietnam, you get the picture. The electoral map and popular vote rehersals are just as mirrored, it is actually quite eerie. The “new” JFK is from the south and this of course means the 2000’s = 1960’s. Expect turbulation and dissent. What could be even scarier is this… Are we about to head into a new stupid decade? (2010’s = 1970’s). Oh no! Polyester suits with fat ties anyone?

Aug 30, 2004 - 4:33 pm 56. Terrye:

Catherine:

Yeah well they can admire the father all they want, but when it came to vote the man was a one termer.

Aug 30, 2004 - 4:35 pm 57. holdfast:

Catherine:

I must disagree, at least in part. I think that for a lot of Dems/Libs, praising Bush Senior is a lot like saying “some of my best friends are Jews/Blacks/whatever” - they’re trying to say that “I don’t disagree with all Republicans - but this Bush feller, boy he’s scary! But, see, I like the father - I do have an open mind, I really do!”

Aug 30, 2004 - 4:40 pm 58. Catherine:

holdfast

Well, I don’t know.

My husband, for sure, has developed some real affection/respect/regard for Bush, Sr. No question about it.

Of course, he’s under a lot of pressure from me to find some common ground we can both live on (and vice versa) . . . but William Raspberry didn’t sound a lot different. Though you may be right.

Still, when you have liberals thinking they have to claim that some of their best friends are Republicans, that’s a change, just as it was a change when people started saying “some of my best friends are black.” That’s a big move away from language like “n*****-lover,” a term people used as recently as the 1950s, right?

(Sadly, I don’t hear a lot of liberals claiming any Republican friends . . . )

Aug 30, 2004 - 5:59 pm 59. TmjUtah:

Samuel -

Thank you for the wonderful reply.

I note with interest the contemporary figures possibly in line for party leadership you did mention were mentioned in passing.

History does run in cycles…but where people are concerned, living, breathing, and acting, there is truly nothing written. You could indeed write a hugeous book on the evolution of political geography in America but I think you would overreach by attempting to subject the administrations following Bush 1 to any kind of definitive judgement…at least not just yet. The cards dealt in the hands since are still falling and there are several major rounds of draws, bets, and calls to come.

I must close this much too soon, but please consider a few variables for inclusion into your cycles:

1. An illiterate individual could still find gainful employment in over half the available occupations circa 1930. A highschool education opened up all but the highest professional circles.

2. The wave of socialism that exploded with the New Deal was driven by an elite coterie of closet communists at the highest level of U.S. government and intellectual circles. They believed that socialism, if not outright Stalinist communism, was the ultimate solution to injustice. The children of the depression that came of age in the sixties grew up listening to How FDR Saved Us at their parents’ knees…and by the time they got to any history classes, the fact that it was the war and not the New Deal that dragged us out of the depression was pretty hard to stumble across. Ditto that communism was on its way to killing more people than lost their lives in both world wars and wasn’t looking like changing anytime soon. Government was the solution…so we dipped back into income redistribution and social engineering on a massive scale beginning in the late sixties and right up until the early eighties when Reagan came in. The argument was loud and long…but the True Believers in big government woke up in 1989 to the reality that communism WAS a failure…

3. …and have yet to really accept that their central premise is fraudulent. In spite of owning public education, the entertainment industry, and most of media for over half a century they have lost the ability to convince people that sewage may somehow be made to flow uphill if only enough taxes are paid and said people believe exactly what they are told when they are told it.

4. Backlash. I still contend, in the small little tinfoil covered corner of my soul that I allow this thought to exist, that the failure of socialism and its adjunct philosophies (PoMo, MoRel, MultiCulti, etc) in America or anywhere else it has been embraced has been so profound, and so complete, that it is flat impossible that a highly educated, intelligent individual could honestly embrace the creed as a relevant political agenda for positive change, especially with the lessons of history AND an appreciation for our true strengths independent of government largesse.

That means that the current crop of leading liberal lights around the top of the DNC are either as crazy as they act, or are working a scam. Not the stuff that parties are built on.

Aug 30, 2004 - 8:32 pm 60. Samuel:

TmjUtah

Remember I do believe that history is repeated by those that refuse to understand. There is nothing that reqiures there to be a split in the Republican base. There is nothing to keep the Democrats from repeating the role of the fools.

In truth this could be more a repeat of 1864 and the Democrats could go the way of the Whigs for all I know. But up until now the history has been very much as I said and for that I believe the Republicans will increase in the congressional delegation and this will hold for a long time. Whether in the end Bush = JFK or Lincoln doesn’t matter as I believe he will achieve his due of historical greatness.

As for DNC leadership there just is no one on the horizon. In 1964 Reagan appeared and eventually took upon him that mantle of leadership. In my opinion none has come forward. I do believe the stresses between the libertarians and social consrvatives will be tested, the outcome has yet to be determined.

All your variables are true, the patterns of history are repeated. There is always a nation that dominates. It could dominate for a very long time like Rome or a very short time like with Alexander the Great, but the main point is that there is always a dominate culture and right now it is the United States. The same with eventually be true in our two Party system, one will come to dominate and how we arrrive there may vary, but we will arrive there and I just don’t see it being the Democrats any time soon. When it becomes obvious many fence sitters will go with the winner, it is just human nature.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:21 pm 61. TmjUtah:

Samuel -

1860 and the Whigs? *grin* It’s late here, too…

The longevity of empire isn’t defined by leadership. It is always defined by how adept the leadership is at avoiding fatal mistakes.

Our system, even after the trend toward government control begun in earnest in the thirties, still runs mostly on the rails laid down by the founders. It works, and frankly it works so damned well the impression it makes on observers is often intimidating. The ultimate arbiter in our political process is still the interests of free citizens as expressed through elections - not any one branch or agency or individual of government. The courts are really pushing the envelope and have in fact pierced it in a few places…but we can recover from that. We should be able to, at least. I hope.

I agree that there is a libertarian/conservative realignment underway on the right. I think the Republicans face no insurmountable challenges as a party there, though. The base principles are almost common - the friction comes from between the professional D.C. set and just about the entire rest of the voting faithful. History has shown that conservative politicians thrive against a challenge but often slack off after they think they’ve won. We’ll see.

The Democrats….well, I stand on my above about the scam angle. The grifters are the folks holding the keys to the Dem station wagon right now. Funny thing is, that set of wheels was a shiny little sports car when they boosted it in front of the liquor store lo those many years ago.

I agree with you one hundred percent about human nature. People ALWAYS base their actions on self-interest. The problem there is that it takes a certain level of book learning, mainly history, to make a man willing to work for long term goals. Without the benefit of perspective we would always be grasping for what is right in front of us. It takes faith to work for anything further down the road, and that’s where understanding what has worked and what hasn’t becomes so important.

Y’all have a fine tomorrow.

Aug 30, 2004 - 9:48 pm 62. Yehudit:

“Are we about to head into a new stupid decade? (2010’s = 1970’s). Oh no! Polyester suits with fat ties anyone?”

I’m not so much worried about the fat ties as about the domestic political violence of the early 70s. Symbionese Liberation Army, anyone? If Bush wins, narrowly or by a landslide, that’s what we’re going to get. (We need to elect him anyway, for all the reasons people here understand, but we will get political violence.)

I expect the new twist on it will be joint ventures in domestic terrorism by local Islamists and local extreme leftists, which we didn’t have in the 70s.

Aug 30, 2004 - 10:59 pm 63. Sun-Tzu:

Samuel:

A very interesting set of comparisons between past and present Presidents.

But I think that one of the flaws in this argument (the specifics, not the overall theme that history repeats itself in roughly comparable patterns) is the death of JFK.

As you note, JFK might have had a much tougher time being reelected, had he not been assassinated. His handling of crises, including striking unions and the Cuban Missile Crisis, almost certainly would have been placed under greater scrutiny—the valiant young President defeating Khrushchev in an uncompromising way (never mind those missiles in Turkey) might not have lasted as long, if that young President was running for reelection. Instead, LBJ was able to hold up the image of a martyred President as the legacy he would uphold.

Similarly, from most accounts, JFK was indifferent, at best on civil rights. Would he have pushed as hard as LBJ (ironically) did, to get Civil Rights legislation passed? Would he have been as adroit as LBJ? Most of all, would he have been willing to put at risk the Dems’ access to the South, when he himself had had such a close race in ‘60 (and possibly almost as close a race in ‘64)?

If he had not, and if there’d been no Vietnam (debatable proposition, I’m not sure which way JFK would have gone on that), then the late 1960s might well have been far less radicalized. There would still be Freedom Riders and the like, but whether there’d be a George Wallace evaporating (as happened), undercut by softer Democratic policies, or more fiery, having stood up to the Feds, a “Summer of Love,” and the peace movement (complete with Kent State) is certainly open to question.

Aug 31, 2004 - 7:09 am 64. Samuel:

Sun-Tzu

You actually are agreeing with me. Had Kennedy lived he would have handled things differently and smoothed over problems. Picture Cheney having to step in for Bush after an assasination in Iraq. I see Bush keeping things more even keel politically then Cheney for sure. This is why I said we will never know, but what makes the comparison interesting is the fact that by comparison we are at 1964 had Kennedy lived, so it will be different.

Yehudit

I agree and I was making light. I do not look forward to the political landscape of the next decade.

TmjUtah

I agree completely and like I mentioned above, the fact that Bush lives while Kennedy did not makes things very different. The only sure part of my comparison is up until Kennedy’s death, everything past that is what is being currently written, it is live and can be scripted differently. That being said certain aspects won’t. The political strife and divisions will rise, that part I would bet on.

Aug 31, 2004 - 5:48 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: