Comments on: Wibbly Wobbly

By: yabonn

yabonn — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 21:45:49 +0000

In all zell’s looniness, i pretty much like the duel idea. Think about the new intellectual universes that facing real violence would open to our turgid, milifetish rightwingers! Think about the effects on civility in politics! “Take that back, or take a sword!” You know, it really works. The last political duel in france was in the ‘70 iirc (first blood, but yet). The assembly was perceptibly quieter for a while afterwards. Great idea i tell you.

By: jif

jif — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 19:58:04 +0000

Well, strutting and postering seems to be par for the course on all policy in the current admin. And Zowie! it’s practically 1999 out there!

By: rea

rea — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:26:50 +0000

So, I take it, Justin, that you think the Dow really did go to 36,000 and all us “girly men” just didn’t notice? Is strutting, posturing macho really the key to effective economic policy?

By: Justin @ RSR

Justin @ RSR — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 18:04:49 +0000

K- The point of my previous post was to identify who these “economic girlie men” are. Krugman and Galbaith are decidedly pessimistic about the current economy. I think you made my point about Glassman and others. His previous prognostication of Dow 36,000 is obviously not “girlie” on it’s face, Krugman’s doom and gloom is (according to Arnold).

By: PG

PG — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:48:39 +0000

Actually, I think people who are undecided at this point are undecided because their issues are split. With the war in Iraq, both candidates are for it, so that’s no help. If this hypothetical undecided is anti-choice (Bush) but also anti-Federal Marriage Amendment (Kerry), social issues may be a wash. On the economy and education, she likes vouchers (Bush) but doesn’t like having a higher middle class tax burden (Kerry). Undecideds aren’t stupid, but the image of the party can become important to them, and they’re less likely to approve of spittle-flecked rage.

By: jdw

jdw — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:42:25 +0000

How about point 6 – undecided voters are now out of play for the GOP, just like after Buchanan’s speach in ‘92. I don’t think so. To be an undecided voter after four years of Bush means that you are a profoundly, heroically stupid person. I mean, Republicans have an excuse—they’re motivated by hatred and bloodlust. Some very intelligent people have been motivated by hatred and bloodlust to do great things. (Which is another thing—it’s not like it’s hard to think of popular political movements led by rabid maniacs shrieking for blood. Why do liberals assume that it won’t play in Peoria? I think this is a very clever move by Republicans, who have caught the Dems flatfooted yet again.) Anyway, anyone who’s still undecided is probably undecided because whatever thought is in their head is the last thing that they heard. If they were watching last night, they probably thought “Hmm, he makes some good points. And I didn’t know John Kerry hated America.”

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:26:45 +0000

Hey Justin – I’m prepared to give the political reasons you wrote about href=”http://www.rightsideredux.com/archives/2004_09_01_archive.html#109413542292278229” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.rightsideredux.com/archives/2004_09_01_archive.html#109413542292278229 a bit of consideration. But I have a question: How seriously should I take your analysis given that in your previous post href=”http://www.rightsideredux.com/archives/2004_09_01_archive.html#109404962446328828” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.rightsideredux.com/archives/2004_09_01_archive.html#109404962446328828 you label Paul Krugman, John Galbraith and others “economic girly men” while citing as your authorities the likes of Donald “Stalker” Luskin and Jim “Dow 36,000” Glassman?

By: geeno

geeno — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:19:22 +0000

Huh!? How about point 6 – undecided voters are now out of play for the GOP, just like after Buchanan’s speach in ‘92. Justin, I have to tell you that I was wondering at several points last night whether Zell Miller was a trojan horse that the Democrats sent to destroy the Republicans.

By: Justin @ RSR

Justin @ RSR — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:06:08 +0000

Here are 5 points why Zell’s speech will win Bush the election: see here

By: Peter Murphy

Peter Murphy — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:47:33 +0000

The episode gave Daily Kos a kick FARKwise. Yes, Senator Miller does LOOK like Senator Palpatine.

By: billyfrombelfast

billyfrombelfast — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:15:25 +0000

Yeah, that speech was the most disgusting spittle-flecked spectacle I’ve seen in a while. It was sick. And then his insane appearance with Chris Matthews. I’m at a loss.

By: lazyman

lazyman — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:04:45 +0000

matt, don’t forget that the Patriot missile of the Gulf War I era was revealed to have been far less effective than it seemed at the time (10% success rate). Moreover, the Patriot c. “Gulf War II-The Vengeance For What Those Different People Did” was responsible for shooting down one friendly (British Tornado) and had another battery shot at by a friendly (US F-16) upon which it had locked. (see : 60 Minutes report from earlier this year.) Opposing weapons systems that (a) don’t work right in one case and (b) place friendlies in further danger after they are updated is probably a position that’s supported by most people, except those who really do hate the troops ;) I also don’t see where he came down hard on Bush’s SecDef who canned a high-profile weapons system. The fearmongering and mindless rah-rah boosterism of weapons systems is bad enough, but the lack of commitment to truth and standards of evidence is appalling in its own right.

By: Phedre

Phedre — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:55:53 +0000

Last night’s convention was a hatefilled bitterfest and Zell was the King’s Wazir whipping the mob to frenzy. What were they swilling? Then Zell went on to Chris Mathews and I felt a slippage and reality skewed and everything became fauxreal.

By: raj

raj — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:00:19 +0000

Don’t forget, Miller is the senator from a welfare state. That is Georgia gets more money from the US gov’t than it pays in taxes. Miller is nothing more than a number of the welfare queens that people like him try to denigrate.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:47:27 +0000

I liked that he claimed that Kerry would be bad in the war on terror becuase he’d not supported boondoggle like the B-1 or the partriot missle, or the F-14 (when? when we thought it might be needed, or now, when it has no mission?) Note, of course, that none of these has any role at all in the “war on terror” and that the B-1, especially, was never an effective wepon. (I’m quoting from Bainbridge’s account here, so I may have it wrong.)