Pleased with our ex-candidates
Fri Apr 15, 2005 at 01:41:27 PM PDT
You know, several of our '04 primary candidates have proven to be real class acts, and dedicated fighters.
What's wrong with conservatism
Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 10:06:36 AM PDT
Conservatism encourages discipline, obedience to authority, and facing the consequences of our actions. In the words of Lakoff, conservatism is "
strict father morality". And in all fairness, nobody really feels that discipline, obedience, or facing conquences are actually
bad things, in and of themselves.
But even though we accept some convervative values, we fight tooth-and-nail against the conservatives themselves. Why? This question has been rolling around in my mind lately. But this morning, I found an answer in the writings of C.S. Lewis. He argued that if you took an individual virtue, and made it your sole god, you turned it into a great evil. And the conservatives have done just this: they have taken an important virtue and enthroned it as the whole of morality.
And like any exercise in idolatry, the consequences are disasterous.
Watch out: Bush may shine at convention, debates
Wed Aug 11, 2004 at 10:48:09 AM PDT
Don't let Bush's recent bad public speaking fool you--Bush may be intellectually lazy, but he's perfectly capable of speaking quite well. In July,
The Atlantic described how Bush defeated Ann Richards, one the best Democratic debaters of recent memory:
This Bush was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated sentences and brought them to the right grammatical conclusions. He mishandled a word or two ("million" when he clearly meant "billion"; "stole" when he meant "sold"), but fewer than most people would in an hour's debate. More striking, he did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones. "To lay out my juvenile-justice plan in a minute and a half is a hard task, but I will try to do so," he said fluidly and with a smile midway through the debate, before beginning to list his principles.
And Bush has long been a master of deliberately manipulating debate expectations:
Why Instant Runoff Voting is Broken
Sun Aug 08, 2004 at 08:53:56 AM PDT
The Green Party has been pushing "Instant Runoff Voting" (IRV) for years. In theory, Instant Runoff Voting allows third parties to run candidates without spoiling elections. In practice, IRV is just as broken as the current system, and several much better methods exist.
I'm sold
Thu Jul 29, 2004 at 09:40:35 PM PDT
About a year ago, I had a good hard look at the primary candidates. Kerry has an excellent resume, but seemed a sad shadow of his former self, lost in nuance and surrounded by political hacks. I told my Kerry-supporting friends that I just couldn't back the guy because he had every possible political asset and absolutely no fire. I wanted the Democrats to stand up and act like an opposition party.
Tonight, John Kerry kept me spellbound for 45 minutes. He's on fire. He's pounding the administration left and right, sounding presidential the entire time. And he's hitting excellent notes--a humble faith in God, the old ideals of volunteer military service, a bright hope for the future.
On Board
Tue Jul 06, 2004 at 09:18:39 AM PDT
After yesterday's depression over Gephardt, I'm just delighted by the Edwards veep pick. I may disagree with Edwards on a lot of issues, but he behaved honorably during the primaries--and his "two Americas" speech is the best-phrased argument for economic populism in a long time.
And Kerry looks better, too. He choose a decent guy for veep, made a wise strategic choice, and played the announcement well. I still have concerns about Kerry, but this tips the scales well in his favor.
Why Kerry/Gephardt is a bad choicen (but better than Bush)
Mon Jul 05, 2004 at 11:40:19 AM PDT
All these rumors about a Gephardt VP bid are really setting my teeth on edge. I'm no fan of Kerry--he somehow manages to be simultaneously too leftist and too pro-Bush for my taste--but Gephardt would make the ticket truly stink.
Arms and influence: Levels of Strategy
Wed Jun 16, 2004 at 03:56:48 PM PDT
Tom Grant has posted an
interesting series of articles on strategy:
Nearly every book about the Vietnam War written in the last twenty years includes the following exchange between Harry Summers, an Army colonel, and one of his counterparts in the North Vietnamese Army. "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield," Summers said. The North Vietnamese colonel tartly replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
Guns and Butter?
Thu Dec 18, 2003 at 05:08:32 PM PDT
I was recently reading Michael Lind's
Up From Conservatism, a flawed-but-insightful book on 20th-century politics and the rise of the right.
Lind claims that, essentially, the Democratic Party once had three major components.