62 Comments

1. ricpic:

“Maybe Marxism doesn’t work, but it is a dream of equality with an idealistic base.”

Sweet Jesus! You oughta be ashamed. A mountain of skulls and you STILL adhere to the “dream?!”

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:14 am 2. chuck:

Dunno, Roger. I think idealism is *way* overrated. Most every major crime of the last century, from the holocaust to the elimination of the Kulaks, was carried out by idealistic people. Idealism and morality are not the same thing. Pfui on those folks.

Off topic a bit. I’ve decided to start talking about utopians instead of leftist and rightist. The thing that Margaret Sanger’s eugenics, Hitler’s healthy racial values, Skinners Walden II, Stalin’s terror all have in common is a desire to make a better world through “scientific” planning and training the young in the “right” values. Lordy, Lordy, progressive ideas sure came a’cropper when extended to people.

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:33 am 3. mrp:

ricpic -

Yeesh. Lighten up. Some American (probably) naif selling Commie tracts is the least of our problems compared to the effluvia delivered by the gimlet-eyed Soros-Kerry-Moveon-ANSWER crowd.

Besides, it’s a good thing that our host treats others with respect (when they deserve it).

Consider the reactions endured by Julia Gorin as she spent her day in NYC working THE Bush-Cheney 2004 table.

Excerpt from the linked article:

Still, the far more common shadow that fell across our table was definitely cast in blue. Like the man who kept saying, “I can’t understand why you support Bush.” When my friend Kevin replied, “If you can’t understand why half the country supports Bush, you need to get out more,” the man deadpanned: “I get out plenty. I’m a college professor.” As our group laughed in stereo, he yelled, “Anti-intellectuals!” and stormed off.

What a country…

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:35 am 4. Roberts:

Oh, Roger, you are really taking me back now. Gypsie Boots used to live a couple blocks down the street from me in the ’80’s, that van of his is still imprinted on my mind like a burnt spot on the retina from looking at the sun.

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:39 am 5. thibaud:

Maria Teresa’s latest: “John will never send a boy or girl in a uniform anywhere in the world because of our need and greed for oil,” Teresa Heinz Kerry told about 1,200 supporters at the McAllen Civic Center.

So an heiress and her husband, who when they’re not driving gas-guzzling SUVs are jetting around the country in their privately-owned Gulfstream, are criticizing our oil dependence?!

Also, when will our MSM finally get the equation right? “Blood-for-oil” describes the policies of France and Russia who signed massive sweetheart oil deals that would have allowed Saddam to continue spilling the blood of thousands of his citizens each month.

Also, check out this other gem from Maria Teresa: [Heinz Kerry] said her husband, as president, would be able to approach the families of slain soldiers and say, “‘I did everything I could to prevent this, I’m sorry.’ “

But he voted for the war, right? Am I missing something here? Can we really afford to let these clowns into the White House?

Will someone please shut this woman up and lock her in the Sun Valley mansion?

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:41 am 6. Rhod:

Ricpic beat me to it.

My God, Roger. I hope that was a moment of wool-gathering.

Marxism is less about equality than it is about eliminating distinctions and individuality, even if a charnel house was the place to get it done. It’s a compulsion to conformity underpinned by the worse forms of coercion.

To trust that idealism lies at the bottom of every Marxist’s soul is fantastic.

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:42 am 7. chuck:

mrp,

Yeah, when they are harmless cranks they can be ignored. The problem is that sometimes the cranks gain power. Or rather, sometimes the rich and powerful become cranks. It is rather common, actually. The upper crust fights it out for power and recruits among the peasants as they can.

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:44 am 8. Rhod:

Rhod -

Answering myself, I realize that I’m also talking about Limousine Leftism.

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:44 am 9. chuck:

Will someone please shut this woman up and lock her in the Sun Valley mansion?

No! No! Why isn’t this woman on the evening news every night? That would be my dream.

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:48 am 10. tcobb:

It has always amazed me that the mainstream (”Liberal”) proponents of redistribution of the wealth don’t really mean that at all. What they really advocate is redistribution of income, which is, for the most part, the major component of “wealth” that the poor and the middle class have. The old rich, like the Kennedy clan, are protected by law from having their trust funds plundered by the tax man.

Long ago a college professor of mine described the Great Society programs as “an alliance of the poor and the rich against the middle.” In essence, as the argument went, the growing economic power of the middle class was a potential threat to established elites, and the best way to hinder or stamp it out would be to redistribute their income to the bottom of the economic spectrum. And it could all be done in the name of compassion. The middle class really didn’t have much “wealth” other than income, and if their income could be whittled away in a “progressive” manner, they wouldn’t have the means to acquire other types of wealth. I didn’t really buy into it at the time, but more and more I wonder if he wasn’t right.

Could it be that its not really about the “rich,” its about those upstart peasants who own small businesses who don’t know their place? How dare they think they should be allowed to make more than a high-ranking government bureaucrat or a tenured Sociology professor? How vulgar of them. Hell, its almost a certainty that they don’t even vacation in France.

Oct 11, 2004 - 10:52 am 11. Morgan:

thibaud -

“…would be able to approach the families of slain soldiers and say, ‘I did everything I could to prevent this, I’m sorry.’ ”

This jumped out at me, too. While I realize that we shouldn’t take the statements of a candidate’s wife as strict policy pronouncements, it is quite clear that this would exclude any action so long as an alternative course existed – i.e. never acting in response to any action other than a direct attack on the US. Maybe not even then.

That’s consistent with the vote against GW I and the absurd notion that the WOT only involves Al Qaeda, and would exclude military action in Darfur and similar situations.

Presumably it means that he would have continued working with the UN on Iraq until that option was gone. Which would be when, exactly?

If she really knows her husband’s mind, she is telling us that he will utterly abdicate his responsibility as President to protect the US, will rule out the use of military force to counter any humanitarian crisis, and will work with the UN until worse comes to worst.

Good plan.

Oct 11, 2004 - 11:02 am 12. Skookumchuk:

Morgan:

. . . i.e. never acting in response to any action other than a direct attack on the US. Maybe not even then.

Simple. The Islamonazis just make the dirty bomb or ebola outbreak untraceable, thatís all. Kinda like anthrax in the mail.

Oct 11, 2004 - 11:13 am 13. geezer:

Roger, I’d think there are far too many ghosts, not to mention the living hells created for millions around the world by K. Marx and his followers, for there to be much room for lefty nostalgia. That’s just a little too much “Boys From Brazil” for me, frankly.

One other thing Mama T said that pisses me off: referring to our MEN & WOMEN in uniform as “boys and girls.” Anyone who’s ever been one or led one should be rightly offended by that.

Oct 11, 2004 - 11:19 am 14. Brian:

tcobb: Your professor was onto something.

What was his name? Write any books?

Oct 11, 2004 - 11:23 am 15. tcobb:

Brian

I’m sorry, but this happened back in the mid-1970’s. My professor’s last name was Hoffman, but that’s all I can remember. Even so, the ideas he expressed in that regard did not originate with him. At the time he attributed them to a named someone, but due to a growing multitude of dead brain cells that memory is lost to me. ***SIGH –time to get another beer.

Oct 11, 2004 - 11:41 am 16. PeterUK:

tcobb

The equation has altered slightly,nowadays it is the the rich, the poor and the public sector.

I’ve never understood how it is possible to be a socialist billionaire,somewhere along the line a basic tenet of socialism has been broken,that of not exploiting the labour of others.It’s OK if one marries the money however

Oct 11, 2004 - 11:51 am 17. Yehudit:

“Consider the reactions endured by Julia Gorin as she spent her day in NYC working THE Bush-Cheney 2004 table.”

I staffed that table for several Saturdays, but I happened to miss the day Julie was there. I can vouch for everything she says. I wqas blown away by the ethnic diversity of the people who came up and told us they were voting for Bush. I keep reading how Bush is picking up black, Arab, Hispanic votes, and my own eyes tell me the same thing.

(Roger, the guy responsible for the table was a Maoist in his student radical youth. I told him to read your blog.)

Oct 11, 2004 - 12:13 pm 18. marc:

Now they are comparing Teresa Heinz with Mother Teresa!

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2004_1006.html

Editorial: Mother Teresa Jr.

Pittsburgh Tribune

I took my 3-year-old son to see Teresa Heinz Kerry speak at the Teamsters Temple in Lawrenceville on Monday.

We were sitting with a group of about six mothers with small children. Our seats were along the aisle Mrs. Kerry used to get to the stage.

On her way to the stage, Mrs. Kerry took the time to stop and greet our children. Mrs. Kerry’s manner with the children was something really special. She shook hands with my friend’s child; then she let my son give her a high-five. She smiled and talked to the children. She communicated a genuine sense of warmth and good humor.

I will always remember how this busy lady, on her way to make an important speech to hundreds of people, nevertheless took the time to pause and play with a group of tired preschoolers. It meant a lot to us. She’s going to be a fabulous first lady.

Rebecca O’Connell

Lawrenceville

Tell me again how many billions Mother Teresa had?

I don’t remember Mother Teresa calling anyone a “scumbag” or an “idiot”.

Mother Teresa Jr. indeed!!!

Oct 11, 2004 - 12:30 pm 19. Rick Ballard:

Now, now Marc, there are many millions of people across America who use “mother” as an adjective to describe Ms. Heinz. At least partially.

Oct 11, 2004 - 12:41 pm 20. ganzo azul:

Wealth of Others Helped to Shape Kerry’s Life

Last month, Mr. Kerry visited his old windsurfing pal John Chao, founder of American Windsurfer magazine, near the Columbia River Gorge in Oregon. The weather was calm, forcing them to cancel their windsurfing jaunt, and Mr. Kerry said he would fly back in a few days if the breeze picked up. Mr. Chao, sensing that a flight across country just to go windsurfing might play into the rich sportsman stereotype, advised him against it. Mr. Kerry agreed not to fly back, but added that he did not want to change his lifestyle for the sake of appearances. Mr. Chao recalled, “He said: ‘I’m not going to live my life in fear. I’m going to be who I am.‘ ”

I agree with Wretchard, there is something poignant about Kerry. In the anecdote above, Kerry capitulates and heeds the advice of his buddy but not without a parting shot to shore up his sense of entitlement.

Oct 11, 2004 - 12:55 pm 21. tcobb:

PeterUK

… a basic tenet of socialism has been broken,that of not exploiting the labour of others.

With all due respect, socialism is a method of economic organization; the idea that this method would result in not exploiting the labor of others was merely a conclusion that would presumably result from implementing such a system. Such a claim is unsupported by history. The plain fact is that in general socialistic schemes depend upon exploiting the labor of those who are exceptionally productive to support those who are not. Whatever “moral” glory that one may attach to such an idea is somewhat sullied by the historical record which indicates that in such systems they who can do most don’t bother to excel because there simply isn’t any point to doing so.

Altruism is kind of like sex. When it comes as a voluntary act, it can be wonderful indeed. But when its forced on you its called rape, and then its a very, very, very ugly thing.

Oct 11, 2004 - 12:57 pm 22. Peg C.:

Roger — Gypsy Boots is still around?? I used to see him at UCLA and that was 30 years ago! What a memory and thanks for the laugh. There is something sad, pathetic, even somewhat amusing about old lefties, but only as long as they’re not running for president or occupying positions of power. I love Belmont Club but I think he was too gentle with Kerry. By now, everyone who isn’t in foolish agreement with Kerry needs to be slam-dunking him AND his unbelievably ignorant, arrogant, offensive wife.

Oct 11, 2004 - 1:18 pm 23. richard mcenroe:

Check out Hugh Hewitt for Senator Gilligan’s Big Tax Dodge…

Oct 11, 2004 - 1:33 pm 24. Terrye:

I can not even imagine this silly woman as first lady.

For one thing we are not sending babies to Iraq for another is greed for oil what prompted her husband’s vote?

BTW looking at the price of oil I am wondering if maybe those foreign leaders Kerry was talking to live in the desert and pump oil out of the ground for a living.

Gee, would Kerry go behind the back of a sitting president and make a deal that could hurt other people just to gain a political advantage and would the Saudis put the screws to us?

Oct 11, 2004 - 1:51 pm 25. jerry:

Teresa said: “Maria Teresa: [Heinz Kerry] said her husband, as president, would be able to approach the families of slain soldiers and say, “‘I did everything I could to prevent this, I’m sorry.’ ”

But how would he approach the families who lost loved ones in the latest “nuisance” terrorist attack in the United States?

Oct 11, 2004 - 1:59 pm 26. Old Gunny:

geezer:

You are correct. Service folk are not “boys and girls”. Every time I read that, it grates on me. My daughter is a SSgt in the USMC and she is not a “girl”.

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:04 pm 27. jj:

A lot of these die-hard leftists are really good people who want only the best for everyone. Max Weiner of the Philadelphia Consumer Party was one of those, and beloved by most of the city. He used to hand out tracts on the street, but he influenced the course of events. Being a dreamer is neither a crime nor a guarantee of irrelevance. Was Ronald Reagan a pragmatist?

Remember that once upon a time democracy was a crackpot dream of a very few. If it hadn’t been the intellectual fad of Franklin’s times, our country might be a very different place. The difference is that communism and socialism have been given opportunities in the real world and failed. Many “crackpots” believe that the communist concept was never given a real chance before it was sandbagged by dictators. It’s hard to know if it could ever have worked.

US democracy itself came close to failing on several occasions, as Lincoln implied at Gettysburg. And the French Revolution showed that democracy could also be hijacked by monsters. (Thank God for Washington.) The only thing we can hope to do is learn from history and try to do better next time. It will be the dreamers, however, who make it better.

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:10 pm 28. PeterUK:

tcobb

This I know,it is also a method of social organisation.My point was that the cry of the socialist is “Down with the capitalist exploiters”,I wasn’t getting into a serious discussion on the dialectic of socialism,merely indicating the hypocrisy of the billionaire socialist.In this case I guarantee that the tomato pickers are not in a profit sharing scheme.

Here in the UK the government is squeezing “Middle England” to pay for public sevices,all kinds of stealth taxes instituted to pluck the goose without to much squawking.At the same time public sector recruitment is burgeoning so that middle class voter discontentment can be offset by a client class which the government hopes will keep them in power.

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:14 pm 29. Silicon valley Jim:

Terrye -

I can not even imagine this silly woman as first lady.

Unfortunately, I can. After eight years of Hillary, it doesn’t even take much imagination. Somebody with a lot of intelligence, a good education, no moral sense whatsoever, and an uncertain grasp of reality except insofar as it relates to lining her pockets or grasping power – that description applies to both of them, I think.

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:18 pm 30. chuck:

jj,

Many “crackpots” believe that the communist concept was never given a real chance before it was sandbagged by dictators. It’s hard to know if it could ever have worked.

Don’t be silly. It worked to empower dictators. This wasn’t bad luck crippling the communist concept, it was the natural outcome of a poorly thought out ideology.

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:20 pm 31. Syl:

OT

But I think this is extremely important, though I may be wrong.

We now know why Kaus supports Kerry!!!

Basically Kaus seems to believe that Bush is creating the ‘clash of civilizations’ that bin laden wants. That bin laden can use Iraq as being Bush’s war against Islam. That bin laden thus gets more recruits.

Let’s put aside all the other campaign rhetoric for a moment and go over the reasons why Kaus may be wrong or may be right…and without fear mongering invocations of nuclear clouds over Chicago.

Kaus’s thinking probably mirrors that of other sane Democrats and it’s important for us to hash the basics out.

From Kausfiles Friday, Oct 8, there are a couple of posts that indicate what Kaus’ position is:

Edwards’ great failure: To effectively make the case that Bush’s pursuit of the global war on terrror, as

opposed to the specific war in Iraq, is a dangerous disaster-in-the-making–not because we haven’t caught

Osama, but because we are creating the ‘clash of civilizations’ where there doesn’t have to be one.

and

Alert reader J.B. notes that if Cheney seems too-focused on state-sponsored terrorism, Kerry and

Edwards at least seem too focused on what might be called the “Great Man Theory of Terrorism,” placing

much too much public emphasis on the capture of Osama bin Laden– as if that would make the al Qaeda

network (and its future imitators) wither away. … P.S.: I don’t think Kerry really buys this theory–he also

said, in Debate #1

–I believe that a fresh start, new credibility, a president who can understand what we have to do to

reach out to the Muslim world to make it clear that this is not, you know — Osama bin Laden uses the

invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say that America has declared war on Islam.

We need to be smarter about now we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits.–

That’s why I’m for him. But the opportunistic public focus on bin Laden himself is off-putting

There it is.

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:38 pm 32. Terrye:

Syl:

A fresh new start? That is so stupid. These people are still pissy about losing Spain 500 years ago, a new guy in the Washington after four years does not represent a “fresh start”.

It just means a different infidel is in the White House and probably one who thinks they are a nuisance. woo hoo…betcha Zarqawi is worried…

How can Kaus be that naive? We had Clinton for 8 years. He did not get rid of Saddam. He did not go after Osama. He ask for and got more concessions from the Israelis than any other president and look where it got us.

sheesh..

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:55 pm 33. Roberts:

You could not be more wrong, jj. The violence and mass murder of Communism is inherent in the ideology. Karl Marx himself endorsed the violence of the Paris Commune in the 19th Century, and there has arisen no serious counter-vailing movement among the Left that fundamentally rejects the inherent violence of Communism.

Oct 11, 2004 - 2:57 pm 34. chuck:

Syl,

I certainly think that is a valid topic of debate. I do feel that both approaches need to be combined. If there are no state sponsors of terror, then it becomes a police problem, in the hunt them down and kill them sense. I believe this. If there are state sponsors, then terror is far more dangerous because a state commands more resources than any dispersed group. The big state sponsor left is Iran, and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia.

As to the clash of civilizations, I think the strong horse weak horse analysis works. We just have to be sure that terrorists are the weak horse and leave the rest of the Muslim world a way out. I also think propaganda mills like the BBC are promoting a clash of civilizations, although they probably see themselves as “innocent” bystanders in a clash between the US and the Muslim world. And let us not forget that Muslim groups have chosen this clash and promote and finance it. It is not a new development. I think Kaus puts to much faith in the power of the US to choose the nature of the conflict.

There is such a thing as a fear of war leading to appeasement and worse conflict in the long run. Chamberlain and all that. Making the call requires nerve, and we could be wrong, but there you go.

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:12 pm 35. maria horvath:

After reading the Matt Bai article about John Kerry in the New York Times Magazine yesterday, my husband came up with the answer to the question, Who is John Kerry, really?

He’s Chauncy Gardener, that empty, thoroughly empty but nice, vessel portrayed so well by Peter Sellers in Being There, based on the story by Jerzey Kosinski.

The analogy fits, right down to the role the media played in putting him forth as the ideal man.

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:13 pm 36. Foobarista:

A side question: What on Earth is Terayza doing campaigning in Texas?! If she were an actual campaign asset, one would think she’d be in Ohio or Florida. Of course, given her obvious moonbattery, maybe not…

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:15 pm 37. chuck:

maria horvath,

He’s Chauncy Gardener, that empty, thoroughly empty but nice, vessel portrayed so well by Peter Sellers in Being There

Heh, heh, and I walked out on the movie too.

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:18 pm 38. Dave Schuler:

It’s funny you should mention that, maria horvath. That’s what I was thinking of when I wrote my post Being there back in March.

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:25 pm 39. Syl:

Terrye and chuck

I agree with you both, of course.

chuck..I love the strong horse weak horse answer to clash of civilizations!

Who used the term ‘clash of civilizations’ anyway. I’m quite sure it was not bin laden himself.

Dammit, but Kaus seems to feel that our fighting back is the problem. What does he expect we should do? Talk them out of it?

AAAarrrrgghhh.

I feel so helpless!

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:37 pm 40. Percy Dovetonsils:

tcobb, nice point about “forced altruism.” It reminds me of a major peeve of mine: required community service, as demanded by either the workplace or by schools (as a condition for graduation). It’s something I’ve always found utterly offensive and counter-productive – and I say this as someone who worked in non-profits for nine and a half years.

For anyone interested in the topic, Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and “The Fatal Conceit” are still the classic texts for debunking socialism on both the economic and moral levels.

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:45 pm 41. ambisinistral:

Now they are comparing Teresa Heinz with Mother Teresa!

Well, Mother Teresa was pretty much a fraud, so why not?

Oct 11, 2004 - 3:57 pm 42. PeterUK:

Roberts,

So true,there is a nasty streak of accelerated Darwinism in Communism.The birth of the New Soviet co-operating man could only come about by the extinction of his antithesis,to this end the communists applied themselves with enthusiasm.

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:09 pm 43. WichitaBoy:

Syl,

You may be right about Kaus, I don’t konw. But my view is that he is rationalizing rather than being rational. Inside his deep subconscious it is impossible to contemplate voting for a Republican–he doesn’t have permission–so he’s grasping at whatever Kerry straw his fertile mind can concoct.

I believe that anyone who imagines it is possible to avoid a “conflict of civilizations” with Islam simply hasn’t looked into the nature of Islam very deeply. We’ve been in such a conflict since the birth of Islam. It’s just that in certain periods we were so far ahead that it was possible to entirely ignore the threat.

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:11 pm 44. Yehudit:

Here’s another example of us forcing democracy on the Arab world at gunpoint.

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:21 pm 45. Yehudit:

“Mother Teresa Jr. indeed!!!”

Well, that’s her hometown newspaper. She’s one of the biggest philanthropists in the city. I guess she is Mother Teresa to some of them.

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:27 pm 46. Terrye:

Syl:

I guess what annoys me so much is the obvious fact that ignoring these guys won’t work.

I think the truth is Kaus and his ilk think we are a big country with a large population and so what if some terrorists take out a few thousand of us, it won’t make that much difference. And if we fight back the Europeans and Arabs will be mad at us and we can’t have that. It is far more important to make the French waiter and British taxi drvier like us than it is to take the fight to the jihadis. Well really when you get down to it there isn’t a fight, just a pesky law enforcement issue. No big deal really. Not nearly as important as the price of a barrel of oil which is of course Bush’s fault.

So we just kinda go back to engaging the world and agreeing with all the people that say we are the problem. We are too wealthy. We use too many resources. We are bad bad bad bad….

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:27 pm 47. ambisinistral:

The clash of civilizations is within Islam itself. The root tenents of Islam can not withstand the onslaught of modernity. Jihadism, although different is scale, is not much different in motive than the Ghost Dancer movement — return to some sort of “pure” roots and the old ways can return.

The caliphate will not return. The internet, satellite TV and all the rest of the spread of global communications will be the undoing of the mideaval culture they cling to.

Getting the problem reduced to a law enforcement issue is an admirable goal, but it can’t be done through wishful thinking. Nor can it be done exclusively in the non-Islamic world. Afghanistan and Iraq are both, aside from from eliminating terrorist supporting states, shots across the bows of Islamic despots. Standing on a balcony firing an AK47 into the air and declaring jihad will get your pretty palaces leveled and you’ll end up either dead in a sealed cave or dragged from a hole in the ground.

It will be a long struggle. I think phase three has already began in Iran. I commented in another thread that the news coming out of Iran seems to indicate a shift in tactics by the resistance. Before one only read of rock and molitov cocktail type riots, over the last few weeks there have been several military type ambushes of police HQs and the like. Iran can train and equipt agitators and slip them into Iraq. The border is porous on both directions.

Ah, and what will Saddam swinging from the end of a rope lead to? Slowly but surely the Islmaic governments have to be pressured to police their own regions. As the guys with guns are driven deeper underground, the lure of the 21st century will take care of any nostalgia for the 7th century.

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:32 pm 48. chuck:

ambisinistral,

I asked my friend who just got back from Iran what it was like. He said that there was unrest and had been for some time, but that the problem was that there was no one to rally around, no group in the wings ready to take up the reins of power. I think I agree with him. The only near term hope I can think of is the Iranian army, and we were already down that road with Saddam. So, well h*ll, I have no idea what will happen there.

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:53 pm 49. Syl:

re the subject of this thread.

I have said many times that I liked Teresa. I liked her outspokenness and quirkiness and unpredictability.

I still do. Except she’s turning out to be gullible to kool-ade-drinking groupthink and way too predictable because of it.

Goes to show, money can’t buy you brains.

As for what she does or does not pay in taxes, I really don’t care. I give rich people a pass on how they handle their money. I really do. They can hire accountants and all to take care of it. More power to them.

Certain rich people’s attitudes towards the rest of us, well, that’s another story. But not all rich folks are like that.

I’m not sure what Bill Gate’s politics are. I suspect he would favor Kerry and the Democrats. But Gates would never look down his nose at someone with no money. He’s lived the American dream and knows what it is. I still think of Gates as a peer. A peer who made it big. And no way in hell am I jealous of his success.

Oct 11, 2004 - 4:59 pm 50. PeterUK:

Terrye,

You would be wasting you time,French waiters and British taxi drivers hate everybody.

Oct 11, 2004 - 5:29 pm 51. Charlie (Colorado):

“money can’t buy you brains.”

There’s a bumper sticker slogan.

Oct 11, 2004 - 5:41 pm 52. Connecticut Yankee:

Rudy Giuliani weighs in on Kerry’s comments about terrorism:

“As a former law enforcement person, he says ‘I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it.’ This is not illegal gambling; this isn’t prostitution. Having been a former law enforcement person for a lot longer than John Kerry ever was, I don’t understand his confusion. Even when he says ‘organized crime to a level where it isn?t not on the rise,’ it was not the goal of the Justice Department to just reduce organized crime. It was the goal of the Justice Department to eliminate organized crime. Was there some acceptable level of organized crime: two families, instead of five, or they can control one union but not the other?

The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we’re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we’ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry’s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.

It is consistent with his views on Vietnam: that we should have left and abandoned Vietnam. It is consistent with his view of Nicaragua and the Sandinistas. It is consistent with his view of opposing Ronald Reagan at every step of the way in the arms buildup that was necessary to destroy communism. It is consistent with his view of not supporting the Persian Gulf War, which was another extraordinary step. Whatever John Kerry’s global test is, the Persian Gulf War certainly would pass anyone?s global test. If it were up to John Kerry, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he’d still be controlling Kuwait.”

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008155.php

Oct 11, 2004 - 5:54 pm 53. Barrett:

One of the problems with Mr. and Mrs. Kerry is that as elites they believe they have the solution for all of us little people who are unable to think for ourselves. Thus, the paternalistic and socialistic view of government. However, because they are elites, they also believe that they are exempt from the prescriptions that apply to everyone else. As a result, they see no inconsistency or contradiction and seem genuinely indignant when questioned. They are also intellectualy dishonest. How else can they defend flying in their chartered jets, driving their SUVs and consuming without restraint? Their use in insignificant. It’s your consumption of {fill in the blank – oil, healthcare, etc.} that matters.

And to think, the Kerry’s are the beneficiaries of a Republican’s fortune. The irony is great. It also makes the Kerry’s that much more distasteful to anyone that wants to think about it for a minute.

Oct 11, 2004 - 5:56 pm 54. richard mcenroe:

Syl ó Nuh-uh. Money means you don’t have to buy brains. Just people to agree with you and stand between you and the consequences of your mistakes.

Yehudit ó That WaPo article can’t be right. I mean, if something like that was happening, wouldn’t I have read it in either one of the Times or on 60 Minutes?

Oct 11, 2004 - 5:58 pm 55. Barrett:

CT Yankee,

Yes, but Kerry will be safe because he will surrounded by Secret Service people who will sacrifice their lives to protect him if necessary.

I lost friends on 9-11. There is NO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF TERRORISM. Rudy is right and so are you.

Kerry is a scary guy and the world will be a more dangerous place if he is elected President.

Oct 11, 2004 - 6:03 pm 56. Barrett:

CT Yankee,

Yes, but Kerry will be safe because he will surrounded by Secret Service people who will sacrifice their lives to protect him if necessary.

I lost friends on 9-11. There is NO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF TERRORISM. Rudy is right and so are you.

Kerry is a scary guy and the world will be a more dangerous place if he is elected President.

Oct 11, 2004 - 6:04 pm 57. Barrett:

CT Yankee,

Yes, but Kerry will be safe because he will surrounded by Secret Service people who will sacrifice their lives to protect him if necessary.

I lost friends on 9-11. There is NO ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF TERRORISM. Rudy is right and so are you.

Kerry is a scary guy and the world will be a more dangerous place if he is elected President.

Oct 11, 2004 - 6:05 pm 58. Connecticut Yankee:

Barrett–

What you said about Kerry’s serene confidence in the safety of his own anointed skin no matter what happens to others was a thought that occurred to me the first time I read Bai’s article. So I was delighted to see Rudy call Kerry’s dangerous twaddle for what it is.

I sometimes wonder how the Secret Service agents assigned to Kerry really feel about their job.

Oct 11, 2004 - 6:17 pm 59. zeppenwolf:

“…while shopping at the Sunday Hollywood Farmer’s Market.”

Hey, for real? The one on Ivar? We’ve been crossing paths “for a month of Sundays”, as they say.

Do you look just like that little picture, complete with fedora, even? I’ll look for ya…

Oct 11, 2004 - 6:48 pm 60. thibaud:

Syl – re the Teresa/Gates comparison:

Gates would never look down his nose at someone with no money. He’s lived the American dream and knows what it is. I still think of Gates as a peer

I too have no problem with Maria Teresa as a person. She’s probably a helluva lot of fun to be around, and would likely make for a good dinner party guest, or fellow PTA member. She seems to have been a good mother to her kids, the kind of fun, liberal mom who’s especially good with adolescents.

But the thought of Maria Teresa as a prominent public official or First Lady is appalling. She’s basically a nouvelle riche, and like all nouveaux riches, cannot understand that, without her dead husband’s money, she would not be taken seriously by anyone.

The poise, the ability to make measured, discreet, careful judgments on public issues that we associate with someone like a Clare Booth Luce, a Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy or a Laura Bush, comes only from being born into a discreet and moneyed environment and/or a basic sense of dignity and class, and neither of these applies to Heinz Kerry. Lessons in demeanor and class appear to have been missing from Heinz Kerry’s upbringing.

Then there’s her feminist heroine delusion. Unlike people who either earned their money or were born to it, she seems to actually believe that when one marries into big money, one also acquires a privileged status as a national figure, a champion of all Right-Thinking people whose opinions ipso facto command the nation’s respect.

In her own mind, the head of the Heinz Foundation rates as a feminist icon on a par with Betty Friedan and Carly Fiorina.

Of course, it doesn’t work that way. Hewlett-Packard’s CEO and the original feminists earned their reputations the only way possible: through decades of hard work, done against great obstacles and in obscurity. These women know from hard experience the value of doing your homework, polishing your statements, not going off half-cocked and not cussing or sneering at your critics. Do otherwise, and you can kiss your career as an up-and-coming corporate leader or feminist writer goodbye.

Heinz Kerry shows up twenty years later as a rich man’s widow, marries a(nother) senator, and pretends to be a decorated veteran of the Feminist Struggle? Nope.

Ignore the fancy accent, the multiple languages. This woman’s as clueless and deluded as any other gold-digger. Your average Becky Sharp or Anna Nicole may be lots-o-fun, but best IMO to keep her away from the White House.

Oct 12, 2004 - 8:51 am 61. jj:

Thibaud,

That is the most outrageous classist drivel that I’ve read in ages. You’re saying that people new to money can never be as reliable, sensible, useful, whatever, as people who are born to money? I’d take Harry Truman over Nelson Rockefeller any day. To the extent that George Bush is a good leader, it is due to good judgement and common sense rather than the fact that he was born rich. Maybe Yale had something to do with it, but poor people go to Yale, even fatherless children from Arkansas.

… No, wait. It was satire wasn’t it. Joke’s on me.

Oct 12, 2004 - 9:53 am 62. thibaud:

jj,

I probably didn’t make it clear enough, but in any case you missed my point. Neither Kerry nor Teresa is “self-made.” They both show the telltale signs of the gold-digger.

The comparison’s not so much between new and old money as between, on the one hand, people who either earned or inherited their money and those who, like JFK and his second sugar mommy, Maria Teresa, married into money.

The former tend to have a decent regard for others’ opinions and a more or less realistic view of the real extent of their own merits. The latter tend to have absurdly inflated notions of their own worth, and treat others accordingly.

Truman was largely a self-made, also partly a (Kansas City Democratic Party) Machine-made man.

Other self-made presidents in the modern era include Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, and Eisenhower. Despite some of these men’s egregious lapses in judgment, it’s fair to say that none of them or their wives exhibit the same level of “Do you know who I am??” narcissism that JFK and Maria Teresa routinely exhibit.

One last point: the only “class” or aristocracy that I acknowledge is “class” as used by the average joe, signifying superior character. Or as EM Forster put it, (if I remember right) the “aristocracy of the talented, the plucky, the brave and decent” people. Has zip to do with the amount of money you have, but a great deal to do with your own understanding of your own merit.

Oct 13, 2004 - 8:37 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: