ads without products

Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

“As democracy is perfected”

leave a comment »

Another great one from William Gibson‘s blog.

How seldom, in our study of literature, do we come across evidence of a genuine prescience.

"…the larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, the first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide…the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre… The presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people… On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a moron."
–H.L. Mencken, writing in The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Me again: How many of us have had the chilling feeling of late that things aren’t so much falling apart as perfecting themselves?

Written by adswithoutproducts

December 1, 2004 at 10:26 pm

Posted in Politics

Paternospam

leave a comment »

Why exactly is it that one’s right leaning parents and relatives feel so free to send along emails laden with "convincing" arguments about the elitism of the left, Bush’s leadership qualities, and why gays are the root source of Our National Discomfortude?

I used to think I was alone in this, but Maureen Dowd’s column this weekend made me think otherwise.

I don’t send Dad clippings from the Nation or bon mots of Atrios. Why does he feel obligated to forward on to me Pete Du Pont’s latest from the Wall Street Journal?

(I’d link to it, but it’s the WSJ so I can’t. And why would I want to anyway?)

(BTW – always nice to see the likes of Pete Du Pont, who’s a virtuoso at the leap between the private sector and govt, rattling on about the "northeastern liberal elite"…

Heir to a chemical fortune, former governor of Vermont = just folks.

Written by adswithoutproducts

November 30, 2004 at 11:42 pm

Posted in Politics

Zizek on the Election

leave a comment »

Finally got around to reading Zizek’s In These Times piece from the morning after…  There are some gems in there:

First, his redefinition of "democracy" as not su much a formalization of the "power of, by, and for the people" but rather a system centered first and foremost on "formal legalism – the unconditional adherence to a set of formal rules that guarantee society’s antagonisms are fully absorbed into the political arena." Here is the passage in full:

My next reflection concerns the basic paradox of democracy as revealed in The History of the VKP(b)—the
Stalinist bible. Stalin (who ghost-wrote the book) describes the vote
at a party congress in the late ’20s: “With a large majority, the
delegates unanimously approved the resolution proposed by the Central
Committee.” If the vote was unanimous, where then did the minority
disappear? Far from betraying some perverse “totalitarian” twist, this
paradox is built into the very structure of democracy. Democracy is
based on a short-circuit between the majority and the “All.” In it, the
winner takes all and the majority counts as All, obtaining all the
power, even if this majority is merely a couple hundred votes among
millions.

“Democracy” is not merely the “power of, by and for the people.” It
is not enough to claim that in a democracy the majority’s will and
interests (the two do not automatically coincide) determine state
decisions. Today, democracy is above all about formal legalism—the
unconditional adherence to a set of formal rules that guarantee
society’s antagonisms are fully absorbed into the political arena.
“Democracy” means that whatever electoral manipulation takes place all
politicians will unconditionally respect the results. In this sense,
the 2000 U.S. presidential election was effectively “democratic”: In
spite of obvious electoral manipulations and the patent meaninglessness
of the fact that several hundred votes in Florida decided who would be
president of the entire nation, the Democratic candidate accepted his
defeat. In the weeks of uncertainty after the election, Bill Clinton
made an appropriate acerbic comment: “The American people have spoken;
we just don’t know what they said.” This comment should be taken more
seriously than it was meant. To this day, we still don’t know what they
said—perhaps because there was no “message” behind the result at all.

And then there is a brilliant application of Jeanne Kirkpatrick’s infamous distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian" regimes in her Commentary essay of 1979 to the war in Iraq:

However, the main advantage involves international politics. If Kerry
had won, it would have forced liberals to face the consequences of the
Iraq war, allowing the Bush camp to blame Democrats for the results of
their own catastrophic decisions. In her famous 1979 Commentary
essay, “Dictators and Double Standards,” Jeanne Kirkpatrick elaborated
on the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes
in order to justify the U.S. policy of collaborating with Rightist
dictators, while actively subverting Communist regimes. Authoritarian
dictators are pragmatic rulers concerned with power and wealth and
indifferent towards ideological issues, even if they pay lip service to
some big cause. In contrast, totalitarian leaders are selfless,
ideology driven fanatics who put everything at stake for their ideals.
So while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally
and predictably to material and military threats, totalitarian leaders
are more dangerous and must be directly confronted. The irony is that
this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the U.S.
occupation of Iraq. Saddam was a corrupt authoritarian dictator
striving for power and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations (which
led him to collaborate with the United States throughout the ’80s). But
in removing him, the U.S. intervention has led to the creation of a
“fundamentalist” opposition that precludes any pragmatic compromises.

Written by adswithoutproducts

November 22, 2004 at 1:14 am

Posted in Politics

Rich Back in Form

with one comment

Frank Rich appears to be back in form as of today – was getting a little worried about him for a few weeks. Seems to me that his job is – and he’s the only one doing it (well) – is to sketch out the eerie parallelisms that exist between the (il)logic of American entertainment and the (il)logic of American politics.

Today: Just as "family values" driven, FCC enacted mass panic attack about our decadent media seems to be turning the corner from sex (Janet’s boob, DHW miscegenation, etc) to violence (Saving Private Ryan was booted off 66 affiliates on Veterans’ Day), the news media is practicing its own form of fear-driven self-censorship, "protecting" the American public from the gruesome images currently damned up in Iraq, sluicing only onto European networks, Al Jazeera, and the like.

What makes the "Ryan" case both chilling and a harbinger of what’s to
come is that it isn’t about Janet Jackson and sex but about the
presentation of war at a time when we are fighting one. That some of
the companies whose stations refused to broadcast "Saving Private Ryan"
also own major American newspapers in cities as various as Providence
and Atlanta leaves you wondering what other kind of self-censorship
will be practiced next. If these media outlets are afraid to show a
graphic Hollywood treatment of a 60-year-old war starring the beloved
Tom Hanks because the feds might fine them, toy with their licenses or
deny them permission to expand their empires, might they defensively
soften their news divisions’ efforts to present the graphic truth of an
ongoing war? The pressure groups that are exercised by Bono and "Saving
Private Ryan" are often the same ones who are campaigning to derail any
news organization that’s not towing the administration line in lockstep
with Fox.

Even without being threatened, American news media at first sanitized
the current war, whether through carelessness or jingoism, proving too
credulous about everything from weapons of mass destruction to "Saving
Private Lynch" to "Mission Accomplished." During the early weeks of the
invasion, carnage of any kind was kept off TV screens, as if war could
be cost-free. Once the press did get its act together and exercised
skepticism, it came under siege. News organizations that report facts
challenging the administration’s version of events risk being called
traitors. As with "Saving Private Ryan," the aim of the news censors is
to bleach out any ugliness or violence. But because the war in Iraq,
unlike World War II, is increasingly unpopular and doesn’t have an
assured triumphant ending, it must also be scrubbed of any bad news
that might undermine its support among the administration’s base. Thus
the censors argue that Abu Ghraib, and now a marine’s shooting of a
wounded Iraqi prisoner in a Falluja mosque, are vastly "overplayed" by
the so-called elite media.

I think there really is something to Rich’s claim – this rising tide of bad-faith disgust at the nipple, the nudity, then the blood and guts, screaming at the tv set as you tivo the stupid moment over and over again – "I can’t believe she – they – did that! My kids are watching!" meets and matches something else, an ever more shrill insistance that we’re different from them, that the deaths we bring are just and/or "collateral," and thus the representation of them is a crime against the cause itself. As if the images themselves form a fifth column, slipping into each American home like the virus we’ve been warned is on its way.

Written by adswithoutproducts

November 21, 2004 at 12:51 am

Posted in Politics

Reassuring

leave a comment »

From Ron Rosenbaum’s piece, "Why Did Kerry Fold? Ohio Recount Stirs Distressing Nuttiness," in this week’s New York Observer:

On Mr. Olbermann’s MSNBC show, he asked Newsweek’s
Jonathan Alter why reporters haven’t been looking into the reality on
the ground in Ohio. Mr. Alter said, in effect, that he thought
reporters preferred the outcome to be decisive that morning so they
wouldn’t have to cancel their post-election vacation plans. Another
great moment in journalism! (Mr. Alter added that he thought when they
came back from vacation, "you’ll see" reporters looking more closely
into the situation.)

Written by adswithoutproducts

November 19, 2004 at 4:04 pm

Posted in Politics

Socialized Medicine Here We Come…

leave a comment »

…but not without some serious bloodletting in the meantime.

From the Washington Post, in a piece on the coming overhaul of our tax system:

The changes are meant to be revenue-neutral. To pay for them, the
administration is considering eliminating the deduction of state and
local taxes on federal income tax returns and scrapping the business
tax deduction for employer-provided health insurance, the advisers
said.

Written by adswithoutproducts

November 19, 2004 at 12:31 am

Posted in Politics

Why it’d be fruitless for our side to bring Jesus into it

leave a comment »

…because it’s not really about Jesus. Never has been, never will be.

Brilliant post today on William Gibson’s (yes, that William Gibson) brilliant blog:

Re Creationism, I must point out an unfortunate
subtext that’s no longer quite so obvious. Having grown up in the
previous iteration of the rural American south, I know that what
*really* smarted about Darwin, down there, was the logical implication
that blacks and whites are descended from a common ancestor. Butt-ugly,
but there it is. That was the first objection to evolutionary theory
that I ever heard, and it was a very common one, in fact the most
common. That it was counter to Genesis seemed merely convenient, in the
face of an anthropoid grand-uncle in the woodpile.

Like the man says: Look at those cavemen go.

Jesus is a language people use to talk about things that are difficult to say out loud. Things we certainly don’t want to find ourselves saying…

One other thing: how much of the mo behind the newest FCC – broadcast scandal comes of the fact that we’ve got a white woman here (as nude as any actress in a shampoo comercial) throwing herself at a big black football star. At this craziness simply a reprise of the Superbowl breast-incident, which involved a white male and a black female… Darwinism at its worst…

Written by adswithoutproducts

November 17, 2004 at 7:52 pm

Posted in Politics

Conradian

with one comment

The most f’d-up paragraphs of them all from Ron Suskind’s terrific piece on Bush and Faith from the NY Times magazine today.

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn’t like about Bush’s former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House’s displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Perhaps a bit too blunt, too plainly-spoken for Conrad even – but it’s there. The “fascination of the abomination,” this is….

Written by adswithoutproducts

October 17, 2004 at 12:47 am

Posted in Politics

Mini-October Surprise

leave a comment »

Funny timing. Funny content.
FBI releases information Thursday that a computer had been found in Iraq containing “intelligence” that seemed to point towards plans for an Iraqi terrorist attacks on US schools. See this article.
It just so happens that the schools specifically mentioned in this so-called “intelligence” were nearly all located in swing-states: Florida, Michigan, Oregon, and New Jersey. Figure they threw in California and Georgia just for l’effet du reel.
Then today we learn that:

The disk was made by an unidentified Iraqi man who was doing research and had no connections to al-Qaida or the Iraqi insurgents battling U.S. forces, according to the FBI. The man did have links to the Baath party that ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein, but that’s true of many former government officials and community leaders.
Material on the disk appeared to be downloaded randomly from a publicly accessible Education Department Web site and included such things as manuals on workplace safety, crisis-management studies and building-security diagrams.
It also contained an Education Department report on school-crisis planning that was published in May 2003.
“It’s not about schools, it’s about policy,” said FBI Agent William Evanina, spokesman for the FBI field office in Newark, N.J. “There’s no terrorism threat to these schools.”

Hmm… Looks like a mini October surprise a la Rove, doesn’t it. Just a wee one for now. But there’s way more to come, apparently.
Brilliantly double-knotted little move the master:
1) Keeps terror on the minds of the security moms.
2) Reminds one of (and gets the local news mentioning) Beslan.
3) Keeps the Iraq / Terror link up and running.
4) Exemplifies what seems to be one of the principle aspects of the Rove MO, especially given the retraction today: the News gives far more time to sensational claims than their retraction. 10 Minutes of panic, 10 seconds of reason two nights later, if that… But the adrenaline has already been let loose.

Written by adswithoutproducts

October 9, 2004 at 10:57 pm

Posted in Politics

The World Moves Against Hunger, But…

leave a comment »

Reuters reports that more that more than 100 countries signed on to a plan to combat world hunger – $50 billion in aid, and innovative ideas like “global tax on financial transactions, a tax on the sale of heavy arms, an international borrowing facility and a scheme for marketing credit cards whose users would donate a small percentage of their charges to the cause.” But…

But the leader of the U.S. delegation, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, coolly dismissed it.
“Economic growth is the long-term solution to hunger and poverty,” she told the meeting.
“The report should give more attention to practical steps to sustained growth. There is too much emphasis on schemes such as global taxes to raise external resources. Global taxes are inherently undemocratic. Implementation is impossible.”

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds…

Written by adswithoutproducts

September 21, 2004 at 12:11 am

Posted in Politics

Warp Speed Debunking

leave a comment »

Interesting timeline of the debunking of the Bush guard docs in this week’s New York Observer. A piece by Robert Sam Anson. (Read it while it lasts on the site…)
Anyway, here’s the relevant section, “filched,” as Anson says, “from ABC’s “The Note” and the Los Angeles Times”:

At 8 p.m. last Wednesday, 60 Minutes broadcast Mr. Rather’s report, which centered on ex–Texas House Speaker and Democratic power Ben Barnes describing how he’d greased Mr. Bush’s way into the Guard (putting the lie to the longstanding claim that Dubya had made it on his own hook), and now felt bad on account. Mr. Barnes’ assistance wasn’t exactly a scoop, though that’s how Mr. Rather advertised it; in 1999, he’d told essentially the same story to the Dallas Morning News. All that was new was being on camera. Sandwiched between his recollections and White House communications director Dan Bartlett kicking them as “dirty politics,” the documents appeared, accompanied by Mr. Rather saying they’d been verified by “a handwriting analyst and document expert.” To bolster credence, there was an interview with a Texas Air Guard officer and friend of Killian’s, Robert Strong, who said the papers were “compatible” with the fella he remembered Jerry Killian being.
Not the most ringing testimony. Nor was the word of a single, unidentified, off-camera “expert” exactly open-and-shut proof. But Mr. Barnes was emphatic and—better yet—truthful. And Ben Barnes, Dan Rather said, was what the story was all about.
That’s not how it worked out.
Mr. Rather’s report hadn’t been over 10 minutes when a post appeared on the right-wing Web site FreeRepublic.com from “TankerKC,” saying the documents were “not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF … can we get a copy of those memos?”
Three hours and a little later, fat met fire with another FreeRepublic posting, this one from a blogger named “Buckhead.” He (or she—Buckhead won’t reveal his identity outside cyberspace) wrote:
Every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts. The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90’s. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn’t used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80’s used monospaced fonts. I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old …. This should be pursued aggressively.
Here the plot starts a-thickening.
First (leaving aside how suspiciously well Buckhead puts sentences together for a righty blogger), there’s the extraordinary, yeah, boggling, knowledge of typewriting arcana. More remarkable still are the circumstances under which discernment occurred. Namely, viewing the document on a TV screen from a presumed distance of six to a dozen feet. Folks who make their living at this sort of thing rely on magnifying glasses, if not microscopes. And they don’t venture opinions unless the document’s in their puss.
Then there’s the warp speed with which Buckhead discerned monkey business. The last big document mess was the trove that conned Seymour Hersh into believing Jack Kennedy signed a contract with Marilyn Monroe agreeing to pay a hundred grand in consideration of her shutting up about their adventures between the sheets, as well as his pillow talk of owing the 1960 election to the good offices of Chicago mob boss Sam (Momo) Giancana. Their exposure (in which your correspondent had a walk-on) took weeks. And those documents were nutso on their face.

Written by adswithoutproducts

September 17, 2004 at 12:35 am

Posted in Politics

Big Surprise…

leave a comment »

According to today’s Financial Times (full article not on-line):

World opinion, however, is unlikely to sway American voters. A third poll of 798 Americans also released yesterday showed that 74 per cent of undecided American voters would be unaffected by global attitudes about the presidential race.

Who knew?
Also, war close to obsolete in European minds:

The two sides disagreed on the use of force – only 41 per cent of Europeans said that war could achieve just ends, compared with 82 per cent of Americans.

Written by adswithoutproducts

September 9, 2004 at 11:51 pm

Posted in Politics

Nader

leave a comment »

Josh Marshall cites a poll that (somewhat ambiguously) confirms what I’ve been suspecting for awhile now. Everytime they show the polls on tv with Nader included, Nader’s picking up 5 percent (more or less the same number he was hitting in 2000, when I and beaucoups of other progressives voted for him). Given the fact that none of the folks that I knew would vote for Nader now – it’s almost laughable to even think about it – I’ve been wondering if a large number of the people chiming in for him in these polls don’t actually lean Republican.
The folks who voted Reform, Perot, who are pissed about outsourcing, about Walmart stealing their family business, corporate welfare, and the like… Interesting. Maybe it should be us instead of the Shady Right Wing Groups sending Ralphie the money…

New ICR poll, conducted September 1st-5th …
With Nader, among ‘likely voters’: Bush:46, Kerry: 46, Nader: 4.
Without Nader, among ‘likely voters’: Bush 48, Kerry 47.
Without Nader, among ‘registered voters’: Bush 46, Kerry 47.

Written by adswithoutproducts

September 8, 2004 at 11:46 pm

Posted in Politics

“U.S. Out of Iraq,” Me Out on a Limb

with 2 comments

Ok, I’m really no expert on what’s going on in Iraq. Not at all. In fact, I have to admit that as of the late the eyes get a little fuzzy, a little dry feeling when I hit the “war on terror” section of the Times each morning – sometimes I end up reading just the first paragraphs, sometimes not even that.
But there is something a little troubling about the whole “out of Iraq” sentiment, at the march on Sunday and elsewhere.
Believe me, I was very much against the war from the firstmost. UN involvement or no. The question that I just could never get around was “Why now?” And when folks do things that don’t have at first a very clear reason, you can generally be sure there’s a reason buried down deep there somewhere (or, in this case, many reasons buried in plain sight) that’s not so pretty. Anyway, I was against the war. Day one till now.
But I’m not really sure that “getting out of Iraq” at this point is exactly the right course at this point either. Ethically, I mean, above all. I’m pretty sure we have a responsibility to do right by the place now that we’ve bombed the bejesus out of it. And by “right,” I even think I mean what the Bushites say they mean: democracy, freedom, all the rest.
It’s a more nuanced opinion than the Bushites could get their heads around, but I do think it’s very tenable to have been against the war in the beginning and hope for a successful conclusion, even a “victory” of sorts now. (Of course, my “victory” is not theirs. Mine, for instance, wouldn’t have anything to do with their crooked henchmen like Chalabi, I’d like the oil to be nationalized to pay for some nice social programs and infrastructure a la Chavez in Venezuela, and a whole lot of other differences. Actually everything…)
And, on some level, when you get beyond the bullshit that Kerry’s been forced to spout about the war so as not to seem like a pansy or a Europhile or whatever, I have a feeling this is what he’d actually be about too in Iraq. When the Halliburton and Carlyle tentacles are pulled out of the pot, things might seem very different over there in terms of our interests in the region.
So – first of all, I’d hope that we could do better than what Krugman’s advocating in the Times today:

So what’s the answer? Here’s one thought: much of U.S. policy in Iraq – delaying elections, trying to come up with a formula that blocks simple majority rule, trying to install first Mr. Chalabi, then Mr. Allawi, as strongman – can be seen as a persistent effort to avoid giving Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani his natural dominant role. But recent events in Najaf have demonstrated both the cleric’s awesome influence and the limits of American power. Isn’t it time to realize that we could do a lot worse than Mr. Sistani, and give him pretty much whatever he wants?

Nope – I don’t think I’d settle for another Ayatollah. Fine, I guess if he were to be democratically elected, but I wouldn’t be the one to hand him power on a platter. Go from a pseudo-fascist dictatorship to a another Shia theocracy. No thanks.
Very, very reluctantly, I think I’d even redouble efforts before I’d do that. Redouble efforts at what, I’m not sure. But not that…
Secondly, since I at least think it’s possible to have a coherent viewpoint on Iraq that involves both a) a rejection of the administration’s initial logic and current strategy in the whole affair – all the way to an outright rejection of the legitimacy of the war as a whole and b) a sense that it must be followed through, at this point, to its proper conclusion… I wonder that Kerry couldn’t figure out a way to rephrase his war policy into something workable at this point. Some subtle and articulate statement to the following effect:

I was always against Saddam, but I am also disappointed and even offended that we were taken into this war under false pretenses. There may have been other sollutions possible, but the current administration took the path of war. This is the hand that we have been dealt, that we have dealt ourselves. At this point, there is no turning back. But unlike the current administration, a Kerry administration would finish the deal in Iraq in a manner that will win the peace. We will clear the air by cutting out the corporate interests that are muddling our attention on the topic; Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, the oil companies will have to fend for themselves. I believe that gestures of good faith on America’s part will be met with cooperation on the part of the Iraqi people. And the Iraqi people, contrary to the opinion of the current administration, are more than capable and more than willing to govern themselves in a true democracy. A Kerry administration will settle for no middle ground, will not slowly cede power to a new Ayatollah and hope that the American people and the world are not watching.

I am running out of gas, but something along these lines might help Kerry get out of the “flip flop” hole he’s, to a certain extent, dug for himself.
What I’m saying, in short, is that Kerry needs to get way more pointed, way more radical in his general “I’ll do the war better” line of argument. It might work. I think it might even be the most honest answer that he could give to these questions… not just another focus-grouped response.
And perhaps most importantly, it would throw the ball back into Bush’s court… Let him answer this charge, this plan, with his own…
My two cents, late at night and half informed.

Written by adswithoutproducts

August 31, 2004 at 1:06 am

Posted in Politics

Preemption: Blog Version

leave a comment »

A modest proposal:
The rumor is floating around that the “October Surprise” we’re all waiting for from the Bush & Co. is that Cheney will be dropped “at the advice of his doctors” and either McCain or Guiliani will be added to the ticket as VP.
From Dan Rather’s Convention Journal:

TALK AROUND THE GARDEN TODAY:
Not much of it, really. Only a few people besides workmen inside the hall. Among the few who were there, the most popular topic of conversation was whether President Bush might surprise and announce during the convention that Vice President Cheney would not be running with him this year.
This rumor has swirled around a bit from time to time throughout the year, the chatter being that Mr. Bush would prefer to run with Sen. John McCain – or maybe Rudy Giuliani – and will sooner or later find a way to do it.
No one can be found inside the Bush-Cheney campaign who does anything but scoff at this. That, of course, doesn’t keep people from musing about it and some were today, but none of them were anywhere near in a position to know anything.
They were just shooting the bull.

I have no idea if this would be a terrific idea or not.
But… in the interest of depriving the Repubs of yet another weapon in their infinite-seeming arsenal of campaign tricks, I’ve got an idea. Maybe it’s a dumb idea, but here goes:
Since we all know that if something like this were to happen, the “liberal media” would be all gravitas and condolences, wouldn’t so much whisper the idea that this was all planned out from the beginning, that the “doctor’s orders” is all a bunch of bs…
Why not let’s have the important left bloggers pick a day in the near term and all post the same message, something like this:

I am hereby predicting, despite the fact that I have absolutely no inside information on the topic, and furthermore I am not a medical doctor specializing in televisual and/or clairvoyant diagnosis, that Dick Cheney will drop out of the race sometime between now and election day because of the advice of his doctor and/or a physiological event of whatever severity.

Get enough of posts along these lines, and, well, who knows if it will do anything. But we can forward the archival posts along to the talking heads at CNN to try to preempt their shock at the tragic surprise announcement.
How the hell did all of us know this would happen, while Wolf Blitzer is treating it as an unfathomable surprise??? Catch my drift?
(I kinda wish Kerry and his people would start thinking along these lines… Start anticipating what’s going to come down the pike to flush him. Like when “senior Republicans” are bragging that “By the time the White House finishes with Kerry, no one will know what side of the (Vietnam) war he fought on” – you take that seriously and man the guns… )
Preemption, in other words…

Written by adswithoutproducts

August 30, 2004 at 1:50 am

Posted in Politics