Comments on: All the nice boys love a cowboy http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Fri, 25 May 2012 06:34:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Anthony http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12240 Anthony Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:39:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12240 Ahem - would you care to tell someone in the 1st ID that the conquest of Iraq was merely "brandishing for-display-purpose-only turkeys"? Whether you agree or not that removing Saddam has reduced the threat to the US, it's hard to argue that removing the Taliban has not, and there does seem to be a causal link between Libya's and the Saudi's sudden cooperativeness and US actions abroad since 9/11. Jason - I don't know if you can call Bush 41's trying to sound like Reagan in 1988 and trying to sound "compassionate" in 1992 a "move significantly to the right"; and nominating Bob Dole, the "tax collector for the welfare state", isn't a significant rightward move, either. Mark Schmitt, "The Decembrist", says that <a href="http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2003/12/what_if_bush_is.html">Bush 43 is a Nixonian Liberal</a>. That doesn't sound "significantly to the right" of Ronald Reagan. Ahem – would you care to tell someone in the 1st ID that the conquest of Iraq was merely “brandishing for-display-purpose-only turkeys”? Whether you agree or not that removing Saddam has reduced the threat to the US, it’s hard to argue that removing the Taliban has not, and there does seem to be a causal link between Libya’s and the Saudi’s sudden cooperativeness and US actions abroad since 9/11. Jason – I don’t know if you can call Bush 41’s trying to sound like Reagan in 1988 and trying to sound “compassionate” in 1992 a “move significantly to the right”; and nominating Bob Dole, the “tax collector for the welfare state”, isn’t a significant rightward move, either. Mark Schmitt, “The Decembrist”, says that Bush 43 is a Nixonian Liberal. That doesn’t sound “significantly to the right” of Ronald Reagan.

]]> By: Jason McCullough http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12277 Jason McCullough Sat, 03 Jan 2004 03:58:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12277 You know, if the GOP lost 5% of the white vote between 1988 and 2000, while moving significantly to the right, something tells me they're not going to get those votes back by moving even farther to the right..... You know, if the GOP lost 5% of the white vote between 1988 and 2000, while moving significantly to the right, something tells me they’re not going to get those votes back by moving even farther to the right…..

]]> By: ahem http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12276 ahem Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:39:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12276 <i>Dubya has said “I intend to protect the US from attacks by our enemies.” And has backed that up by unmistakable actions.</i> I think you mean 'has backed that up by brandishing for-display-purpose-only turkeys.' Or perhaps the deeper truth that he's leading an assault on the US by elements who are making themselves enemies of most ordinary Americans. Dubya has said “I intend to protect the US from attacks by our enemies.” And has backed that up by unmistakable actions. I think you mean ‘has backed that up by brandishing for-display-purpose-only turkeys.’ Or perhaps the deeper truth that he’s leading an assault on the US by elements who are making themselves enemies of most ordinary Americans.

]]> By: Wince and Nod http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12275 Wince and Nod Fri, 02 Jan 2004 18:16:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12275 zizka, Speaking as a conservative/libertarian blend (like Best Choice grape juice, 100% Natural, but more accurately labled) George Bush either is a moderate, or he plays one in the White House. The middle of the electorate has tolerated Reagan's fiscal policy (like Bush's), Nixon's environmental policy (like Bush's), the Drug War's civil liberties policies (like Bush's) and both Nixon's and Reagan's military excesses (like Bush's) well enough to give landslides to Nixon and Reagan. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that both Ford and Gore were defeated because the middle of the electorate really hates Presidential scandals. Go ahead and feel free to saw the limb off. Clinton was moderate too, not the rabid liberal some on my side of the fence see. Dean is only slightly less moderate than Clinton. Bush does have plenty of conservative supporters, though, and Dean has plenty of liberal supporters, but neither is all that far from the center. I changed from liberal/libertarian (voted for Gore) to conservative/libertarian (will vote for Bush), myself. The change in perspective was illuminating. Yours, Wince zizka, Speaking as a conservative/libertarian blend (like Best Choice grape juice, 100% Natural, but more accurately labled) George Bush either is a moderate, or he plays one in the White House. The middle of the electorate has tolerated Reagan’s fiscal policy (like Bush’s), Nixon’s environmental policy (like Bush’s), the Drug War’s civil liberties policies (like Bush’s) and both Nixon’s and Reagan’s military excesses (like Bush’s) well enough to give landslides to Nixon and Reagan. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that both Ford and Gore were defeated because the middle of the electorate really hates Presidential scandals. Go ahead and feel free to saw the limb off. Clinton was moderate too, not the rabid liberal some on my side of the fence see. Dean is only slightly less moderate than Clinton. Bush does have plenty of conservative supporters, though, and Dean has plenty of liberal supporters, but neither is all that far from the center. I changed from liberal/libertarian (voted for Gore) to conservative/libertarian (will vote for Bush), myself. The change in perspective was illuminating. Yours, Wince

]]> By: ray http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12274 ray Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:45:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12274 "Frankly I think a huge error is being made by everyone in trying to read too much into the polls 10 months before the election." But in 1979, 1991, and 1999 there was not any really important things (ideas or policies) in the public eye. In 2004, there is. And there is a clear choice to be made between the two parties. Dubya has said "I intend to protect the US from attacks by our enemies." And has backed that up by unmistakable actions. Dean, has said that he'll depend on getting permission from France. Ten months is not going to erase this issue, or change either candidate's stance. “Frankly I think a huge error is being made by everyone in trying to read too much into the polls 10 months before the election.” But in 1979, 1991, and 1999 there was not any really important things (ideas or policies) in the public eye. In 2004, there is. And there is a clear choice to be made between the two parties. Dubya has said “I intend to protect the US from attacks by our enemies.” And has backed that up by unmistakable actions. Dean, has said that he’ll depend on getting permission from France. Ten months is not going to erase this issue, or change either candidate’s stance.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12273 dsquared Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:08:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12273 Look, I don't think anyone should be holding out any hopes that the Democrats will win, because they won't. I'm just making the point that it's not all about the Carly Simon syndrome of white males. Please, nobody get your hopes up about the Democrats; they're fucked. Look, I don’t think anyone should be holding out any hopes that the Democrats will win, because they won’t. I’m just making the point that it’s not all about the Carly Simon syndrome of white males. Please, nobody get your hopes up about the Democrats; they’re fucked.

]]> By: Zizka http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12272 Zizka Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:59:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12272 Chris S. is right, but there's another factor -- the Bush campaign machine is rolling in cash, frighteningly efficient, and has no scruples at all, and the commercial media (except for Paul Krugman) are nerveless and cowed at best. So it's up to the Democratic Party (usually a weak sister at crunch time) and the grass roots. Conceivably there might be a few Republican and media defections, but those of us who are already angry about Election 2000 might end up being much more angry in late November. This sounds pessimistic and defeatist, but on the other hand, if the Democrat does win it will be a highly significant victory and will change the political landscape. The combination of fiscal, civil liberties, environmental, and military excesses by the Bush administration SHOULD mean that he will get no moderate support at all, but that assumes that moderates have an actual point of view and aren't just wind-sock bandwagoners. Perhaps the key for the Democrats lies in convincing the cynical and apolitical that the election does make a difference, but in my experience I usually find them to be terribly invested in their cynicism and apathy. Real bulldogs of indifference. Chris S. is right, but there’s another factor—the Bush campaign machine is rolling in cash, frighteningly efficient, and has no scruples at all, and the commercial media (except for Paul Krugman) are nerveless and cowed at best. So it’s up to the Democratic Party (usually a weak sister at crunch time) and the grass roots. Conceivably there might be a few Republican and media defections, but those of us who are already angry about Election 2000 might end up being much more angry in late November. This sounds pessimistic and defeatist, but on the other hand, if the Democrat does win it will be a highly significant victory and will change the political landscape. The combination of fiscal, civil liberties, environmental, and military excesses by the Bush administration SHOULD mean that he will get no moderate support at all, but that assumes that moderates have an actual point of view and aren’t just wind-sock bandwagoners. Perhaps the key for the Democrats lies in convincing the cynical and apolitical that the election does make a difference, but in my experience I usually find them to be terribly invested in their cynicism and apathy. Real bulldogs of indifference.

]]> By: Chris Stefan http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12271 Chris Stefan Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:11:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12271 Frankly I think a huge error is being made by everyone in trying to read too much into the polls 10 months before the election. Bush did not do well in the polls against Gore in December 1999, Clinton did not do well in the polls against Bush in December 1991, Reagan didn't do well in the polls against Carter in December 1979 and so on. Most people in this country have a pretty good idea of who George W Bush is, on the other hand the vast majority of people still have no idea who Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, or any of the other Democrats other than Dean are. If Bush vs. Dean is still polling the same in October or September 2004 then I'll conceed the naysayers have a point until then I say it's still way too early to tell. Ten months is a lifetime in politics. Ten months ago Dean was all but a footnote in the race for the Democratic nomination, today it is his to lose. Oh and for what it's worth in early primary and caucus states Dean does best of all groups of likely primary voters with white males. Frankly I think a huge error is being made by everyone in trying to read too much into the polls 10 months before the election. Bush did not do well in the polls against Gore in December 1999, Clinton did not do well in the polls against Bush in December 1991, Reagan didn’t do well in the polls against Carter in December 1979 and so on. Most people in this country have a pretty good idea of who George W Bush is, on the other hand the vast majority of people still have no idea who Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, or any of the other Democrats other than Dean are. If Bush vs. Dean is still polling the same in October or September 2004 then I’ll conceed the naysayers have a point until then I say it’s still way too early to tell. Ten months is a lifetime in politics. Ten months ago Dean was all but a footnote in the race for the Democratic nomination, today it is his to lose. Oh and for what it’s worth in early primary and caucus states Dean does best of all groups of likely primary voters with white males.

]]> By: Peter Cuthbertson http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12270 Peter Cuthbertson Fri, 02 Jan 2004 02:48:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12270 Den Beste may not be overstating the case by any means. Steve Sailer has <a href="http://www.vdare.com/sailer/gop_future.htm">made the case</a> in very great detail that the closeness of 2000 was far more about Bush winning just 54% of the white vote than about him winning just 21% of the ethnic minority vote: <blockquote> If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171. ... What if in upping his share of the white electorate from 54% to 57%, Dubya had alienated more minority voters, causing his share of the nonwhite vote to fall by 8 points from 21% to 13%? A disaster, right? Wrong. Bush still would have won 310 to 228. What if in winning those three additional white share points, Dubya had lost <i>every single nonwhite vote in the USA</i>? Incredibly, he <i>still</i> would have won. Bush would have tied 269-269 in the Electoral College and been elected President by the House of Representatives. </blockquote> A very interesting read. Den Beste may not be overstating the case by any means. Steve Sailer has made the case in very great detail that the closeness of 2000 was far more about Bush winning just 54% of the white vote than about him winning just 21% of the ethnic minority vote:
If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171. … What if in upping his share of the white electorate from 54% to 57%, Dubya had alienated more minority voters, causing his share of the nonwhite vote to fall by 8 points from 21% to 13%? A disaster, right? Wrong. Bush still would have won 310 to 228. What if in winning those three additional white share points, Dubya had lost every single nonwhite vote in the USA? Incredibly, he still would have won. Bush would have tied 269-269 in the Electoral College and been elected President by the House of Representatives.
A very interesting read.

]]> By: Greg D http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12269 Greg D Fri, 02 Jan 2004 00:55:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12269 <i>A “36 point margin [ie a 68:32 split -dd] over Howard Dean” isn’t an “insurmountable obstacle”; it’s a two point swing away from the neutral point of the 2000 election and quite the sort of thing that could get lost in differential turnout rates.</i> Dream on. All other things being equal, Democrats going from 36% of the white male vote to 32% (white males = 40% of electorate) takes a 49% - 49% election to a 51% - 47% election, which is to say, a major ass whipping. Al Gore was the candidate of the incumbent party during a time of peace and propserity. He had a huge Federal machinery working for him, which is now working for the Republicans, so all other things won't be equal, they'll be tilted in the Republicans favor. This is going to be huge, and I'm going to gloat about it this year, a lot. A “36 point margin [ie a 68:32 split -dd] over Howard Dean” isn’t an “insurmountable obstacle”; it’s a two point swing away from the neutral point of the 2000 election and quite the sort of thing that could get lost in differential turnout rates. Dream on. All other things being equal, Democrats going from 36% of the white male vote to 32% (white males = 40% of electorate) takes a 49% – 49% election to a 51% – 47% election, which is to say, a major ass whipping. Al Gore was the candidate of the incumbent party during a time of peace and propserity. He had a huge Federal machinery working for him, which is now working for the Republicans, so all other things won’t be equal, they’ll be tilted in the Republicans favor. This is going to be huge, and I’m going to gloat about it this year, a lot.

]]> By: Ophelia Benson http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12268 Ophelia Benson Thu, 01 Jan 2004 21:43:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12268 Queer Eye is not either shallow! Well, yes it is, but it's shallow in such an amusing way. Camp shallow can be so - so - well, camp. Queer Eye is not either shallow! Well, yes it is, but it’s shallow in such an amusing way. Camp shallow can be so – so – well, camp.

]]> By: Negrophile http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12267 Negrophile Thu, 01 Jan 2004 02:43:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12267 After <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3168554.stm">black artists went 10-for-10 in the Billboard singles charts' Top 10</a> this year, I'd say we already have a "Black Eye for the White Guy" show -- one as surface-obsessed and shallow as "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." I think it's called MTV. After black artists went 10-for-10 in the Billboard singles charts’ Top 10 this year, I’d say we already have a “Black Eye for the White Guy” show—one as surface-obsessed and shallow as “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.” I think it’s called MTV.

]]> By: Jason McCullough http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12266 Jason McCullough Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:55:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12266 At least, you have to do that if you want to support the statement "more people preferred Bush even if they didn't vote," which I think is what you're implying. At least, you have to do that if you want to support the statement “more people preferred Bush even if they didn’t vote,” which I think is what you’re implying.

]]> By: Jason McCullough http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12265 Jason McCullough Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:54:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12265 "Jason, this do ya?" No, because then you have to cross-reference that with Bush's margin of victory in those counties, which I can't find. Then you have to speculate as to how those don't vote would have voted if they did. I suspect this goes different directions in different areas. “Jason, this do ya?” No, because then you have to cross-reference that with Bush’s margin of victory in those counties, which I can’t find. Then you have to speculate as to how those don’t vote would have voted if they did. I suspect this goes different directions in different areas.

]]> By: mike e http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/30/all-the-nice-boys-love-a-cowboy/comment-page-1/#comment-12264 mike e Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:59:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=824#comment-12264 Popular vote-based analyses, are, to be blunt, stupid. If the election actually worked that way campaigns and voting patterns would be different. Trivial example: as a MA voter, I realized a vote for Bush or Gore was irrelevent. The only interesting question was whether to vote for Nader in hopes of getting the Green party over the 5% threshold for state campaign funding in MA. Popular vote-based analyses, are, to be blunt, stupid. If the election actually worked that way campaigns and voting patterns would be different. Trivial example: as a MA voter, I realized a vote for Bush or Gore was irrelevent. The only interesting question was whether to vote for Nader in hopes of getting the Green party over the 5% threshold for state campaign funding in MA.

]]>