July 27, 2004
Cavorting with the Clueless; An Homage to Michael Moore
I was flipping through the channels last night and stopped to watch the latest edition of America's Funniest Home Videos. I wasn't even aware that the show still existed! I thought it died along with Bob Saget's career, but apparently it lives on in syndication. AFHV that is, not Bob's career.
Sorry about that, Bob.
As I watched, I noticed that it wasn't as funny as it used to be; where before, there used to be plenty of funny shots of guys getting hit in the jewels by their kids, or of 350 pound men destroying vinyl swimming pools by doing a cannon ball off the 4x4 in the driveway, now there were just a bunch of raving lunatics spouting gibberish and foaming at the mouth.
That's not funny; it's just sad. Why humiliate those unfortunate folks by airing their deficiencies on national television. Isn't it cruel to laugh at another human being's shortcomings? I was vaguely repulsed and was about to change the channel to Monster Garage and check out the latest creation from Jesse and the boys when I checked the listings again and realized I was watching the Democratic National Convention, and then it all made sense.
Let's check out the highlights of the Kerry Campaign so far, shall we?
We have the presumptive first lady telling a reporter to "Shove it" after giving a speech about the lack of civility in politics. How about a little less preaching and a little more practicing, babe.
We've seen the press sit on stories that could damage Kerry, while playing up those that damage Bush.
- Joe Wilson has been revealed as a liar, and Bush's SOTU speech vindicated. But you'd never know it if you get all your news from CBS, who has chosen not to run the story, despite the over 40 pieces they ran detailing the Wilson story when it first broke, not to mention the hour long infomercial for his book.
- Sandy Berger mishandles (steals)classified documents, and possibly alters them. Compare the Berger coverage with the Plame coverage and tell me there's no bias in the media.
We've seen Ted Rall use the "N" word about Condaleeza Rice, in most cases a death sentence in any public position, with absolutely no outcry from the usual PC crowd, including the NAACP. I guess Condi isn't black enough for the NAACP.
And let's not forget about those wonderful convention speeches from last night, starting with the big dog himself:
- Bill Clinton:
Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people a positive campaign, arguing not who’s good and who’s bad, but what is the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve.
Cool, the speech will not be a negative attack on Bush, but a positive statement of what Democrats will do differently. This is a first for the Kerry campaign.
They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America.
Sigh. Well, that didn't last long. OK, maybe it was a reflex attack, and now that he's got it out of his system, he'll get on with telling us what Democrats will do.
When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.
OK, another attack, but hey, this is a convention right? Even though the DNC said to tone down the attacks, a few are going to slip through the cracks, right? Any minute now, Bill will end the attacks and tell us what the Kerry will do differently
They protected my tax cuts while:
· Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2 million children behind
· Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training
· 100,000 working families out of child care assistance
· 300,000 poor children out of after school programs
· Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans
· Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air and the preservation of our forests.
Boy, am I a sucker! Falling for another Clinton lie! This speech is nothing but an argument about "who's bad and who's good." But maybe, just maybe, now that he's finished attacking Bush, he'll tell us what John Kerry will do differently.
John Kerry and John Edwards, have good ideas:
· To make this economy work again for middle-class Americans;
· To restore fiscal responsibility;
· To save Social Security; to make healthcare more affordable and college more available;
· To free us from dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in clean energy;
· To rally the world to win the war on terror and to make more friends and fewer terrorists.
Alright! Now we're getting somewhere. Obviously these are all great goals, and just as obviously, these are the same goals the Bush campaign is running on. Now Bill can tell us how Kerry/Edwards plan to achieve them, and how they differ from Bush.
Wait a minute, why the standing ovation? Why's Bill leaving the podium? The speech isn't over yet; it can't be! He never said anything about what Kerry was actually going to do! All he said was 'elect a Democrat instead of a Republican.'
What a ripoff!
- Next Jimmy Carter:
In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common-sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.
A picture is worth a thousand words, Jimmy.
This is human rights at home? It's a few blocks from where you were giving your speech! Why didn't you say something about it? Surely you don't condone locking up dissidents in razor wire cages, guarded by anonymous fellows in full riot gear and holding some pretty nasty looking weapons. That's not human rights, is it? Jimmy? You still there?
When our national security requires military action, John Kerry has already proven in Vietnam that he will not hesitate to act.
Here's what John Kerry had to say about his fellow soldiers 'acts' in Vietnam:
They told their stories. At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
And his own 'acts'
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed..."
Do these acts go along with Mr. Carter's concerns for human rights? Is this what he had in mind when he said John Kerry wouldn't hesitate to act? Jimmy? Are you with me? Maybe I should be talking to Amy. She's the brains of the family.
- And last but not least, Al Gore:
I didn't come here tonight to talk about the past...
Excellent, a progressive who's actually looking forward.
After all, I don't want you to think I lie awake at night counting and recounting sheep. I prefer to focus on the future because I know from my own experience that America is a land of opportunity, where every little boy and girl has a chance to grow up and win the popular vote.
Ha ha. Move on to the future, Al.
I want to thank you as Democrats for the honor of being your nominee for president four years ago. And I want to thank the American people for the privilege of serving as vice-president.
The future, internet boy. Talk about what's ahead.
And let's make sure that this time every vote is counted.
Sigh. Alright, Get it out of your system.
Let's make sure not only that the Supreme Court does not pick the next President, but also that this President is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court.
Can we please return to 2004 and the current election?
To those of you who felt disappointed or angry with the outcome in 2000, I want you to remember all of those feelings. But then I want you to do with them what I have done: focus them fully and completely on putting John Kerry and John Edwards in the White House.
Apparently not
And that's the Kerry convention in a nutshell folks. No new ideas, no plan for tomorrow, nothing that really makes them stand out. That's why the speeches were so empty last night. When the DNC put out the word to tone down the negative campaigning, the dems had nothing else to offer.
It's sad.
Posted by Rich at July 27, 2004 12:30 PM | TrackBackBy far, the best intro for a blog post i've seen in a while.
BTW, bob sagat is a writer now, i hear.
Posted by: SayUncle on July 27, 2004 1:40 PMI wonder if he needs a publisher?
Posted by: rich on July 27, 2004 3:11 PMWe've seen Ted Rall use the "N" word about Condaleeza Rice, in most cases a death sentence in any public position, with absolutely no outcry from the usual PC crowd, including the NAACP. I guess Condi isn't black enough for the NAACP.
What does Ted Rall have to do with the Kerry campaign?
And that's the Kerry convention in a nutshell folks. No new ideas, no plan for tomorrow, nothing that really makes them stand out. That's why the speeches were so empty last night. When the DNC put out the word to tone down the negative campaigning, the dems had nothing else to offer.It's sad.
No, what's sad is that you're bothering to critique populist rhetoric as a lack of substance. You mean that politicians were speaking in vague generalities and criticisms of their opponents at the election convention?! Shocked, I am SHOCKED!
The Kerry/Edwards campaign does have a platform. You can read all about it here.
As an aspiring policy wonk, I am as dismayed as you that they weren't going over budget line-items and statistics, but, shocker: they don't do that at conventions. They wave, smile, fly banners, drop balloons, kiss babies and parade around to catchy pop rock songs that (try to) make them look hip.
I trust you will hold the Republican convention to such rigid standards if, god forbid, they don't speak in anything but generalities, right? Right?
Give me a break.
Posted by: Chris Wage on July 27, 2004 9:03 PMWhat does Ted Rall have to do with the Kerry campaign?
The cartoon was about what would happen after Kerry wins the election.
You mean that politicians were speaking in vague generalities and criticisms of their opponents at the election convention?! Shocked, I am SHOCKED!
Shouldn't we expect more from our politicians? Shouldn't we expect them to tell us what they stand for, what they plan to accomplish, and how they plan on doing it? Or do you believe that vague platitudes and empty promises represent the best we can hope for in our leaders?
Additionally, John Kerry is claiming that President Bush has screwed up everything, and has to be replaced because of his incompetence. The burden therefor is on Kerry to prove his charges, and that he's the better man. Spending 4 days and countless hours repeating "Bush is bad" isn't enough.
As an aspiring policy wonk, I am as dismayed as you that they weren't going over budget line-items and statistics, but, shocker: they don't do that at conventions.
The real shocker, and the damnable tragedy, is they don't ever do it. I've read John Kerry's plan, and it's cotton candy of the finest sort. Distilled to its essence, he's going to do everything for everybody, and nobody except the evil rich bastards will have to pay for it. That's worse than populist tripe; it's an obscene lie, and it turns my stomach, whether it comes from a liberal or a conservative. We the people never get to see the nuts and bolts because 90% of the time (I hope it's only 90%) the congress critters never read the bills they vote for! If they don't know the details, how in the hell can we?
I trust you will hold the Republican convention to such rigid standards if, god forbid, they don't speak in anything but generalities, right? Right?
Damn straight I will! I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm a conservative libertarian, not a Republican. I voted for Bush not because he was the best candidate, but because he was the better alternative. More than likely, I will vote the same way this year, not because I'm impressed with President Bush, but because the alternatives are much worse.
Posted by: rich on July 28, 2004 12:03 AMThe real shocker, and the damnable tragedy, is they don't ever do it. I've read John Kerry's plan, and it's cotton candy of the finest sort. Distilled to its essence, he's going to do everything for everybody, and nobody except the evil rich bastards will have to pay for it. That's worse than populist tripe; it's an obscene lie, and it turns my stomach, whether it comes from a liberal or a conservative. We the people never get to see the nuts and bolts because 90% of the time (I hope it's only 90%) the congress critters never read the bills they vote for! If they don't know the details, how in the hell can we?
It would surely be naive to expect any great revolution in the status quo from any mainstream candidate. But there's real potential for change.
Example: don't underestimate just how much money Bush is giving away in tax cuts, and just how much money that means for added revenue to the government when (if) Kerry rescinds those tax cuts (for the 3% of the population earning over $200,000/yr: roughly $631 bil over the next 10 years). That's a big chunk of change: enough to pay for his healthcare plan, at least.
I am open to the suggestion that a Kerry/Edwards administration will not in fact do anything to further my (or your) ideals, but it'd be nice if you offered a little more than cynicism in support of why you think that. Because they don't enumerate their plans at the convention doesn't mean they don't exist.
There's a lot of work to be done in undoing the damage that this Bush administration has done, and I believe the Kerry/Edwards ticket can do it.
Naturally you and I will probably disagree about that, and even what sort of change and damage has been done, and that's where fruitful debate can take place.
This sort of criticism of convention aggrandizing strikes me as a little pointless, like shooting fish in a barrel. Even the youngest kids know the stereotype of the vapid politician. The shame is that many never learn that despite this, the power these politicians hold and the choices they make have very real consequences, and that they should take interest -- even if it means simply choosing a lesser evil.
Posted by: Chris Wage on July 28, 2004 12:27 AMGiving away? Sorry, here's where we part company. Cutting taxes is not giving away money unless you assume that all money earned belongs first to the government, who then allows us to keep what they see fit.
That's not America.
Here, the guy who earns the money owns it. Taxes should be held to the lowest level possible, consistent with allowing the government to perform those duties mandated to it by the constitution.
As for my cynicism, maybe so. But you tell me that 631 billion will pay for 10 years of Kerry's medical plan and I have to wonder what your source is. I looked through every page of the Kerry plan, and out of the plethora of items mentioned, only two costs are assigned. 117 billion in tax credits for health insurance, and 25 billion in grants to the states for long term care of seniors. That's 142 billion right there. The site doesn't say whether those are 10 year costs or annual costs, so there's no easy way to make a comparison, but my guess is that these items suck up the entire amount from the tax hike.
I don't know the source of the following number either, but I heard that the costs of all of Kerry's plans will not only chew through the added revenues of the tax hike, but will add over 1 trillion to the debt over 4 years. But again, unless there's a source for firm numbers on the Kerry plan, anybody can say anything they want to. Dems can call it a free lunch on the backs of the rich bastards, and reps can cry bankruptcy.
And it isn't just the convention, or even the campaign. It's all the time. We don't ever know what our government is really up to because half the time (god, I hope it's only half the time) they don't know! Congresscritters rarely read the legislation they vote on, relying on summaries prepared by some intern or a low level bureacrat with an ax to grind. If they don't know the nuts and bolts, then how in the hell are we going to?
So yeah, I'm a little cynical about the whole process. And this isn't just a liberal thing. Today's republicans are just as bad. President Bush slid one over the plate with his prescription drug benefit that will cost about twice what he said it would.
And yes, I'll rip the republican platform just as hard come August.
Posted by: rich on July 28, 2004 1:07 AMBut almost a century later, black America's main problem is neither overt racism doesn't condemn African Americans to failure.
The running joke that is easy to do. I think he's a friend of Jesse's. He said, I figured out that belief went, when it came time to make a difference. Bosnia? Rwanda? East Timor? Read up on that has had a record that there is absolutely no bias whatsoever against them. The burgeoning of the latter: .I....A.and Wildstorm and a host of other superhero comic books were always so hyped up about great caviar-and-cheese fests like to hear those questions debated on that, they should not. Applause.
Posted by: Elena Markov on August 1, 2004 6:14 AM"This is human rights at home? It's a few blocks from where you were giving your speech! Why didn't you say something about it? Surely you don't condone locking up dissidents in razor wire cages, guarded by anonymous fellows in full riot gear and holding some pretty nasty looking weapons. That's not human rights, is it? Jimmy? You still there?"
That compound was created at the insistence of the FBI and the Secret Service; the ACLU (of which I'm a proud card-carrying member) fought like hell against it. Will you snark the same way at the similar hellhole the Republicans will display, only (probably) farther away from the actual delegates?
The statists have been creating these oxymoronic "free speech zones" around officeholders for years. It is disingenous to only grouse about them when they are at Democratic venues. (Or is it like corruption: you tacitly *expect* Republicans to be in favor of this kind of thing, but Democrats are to be held to higher standards?)
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
Dean delegate, Wis. 4th C.D.
Hi Mike,
I think the only free speech zone stretches from California to Maine and covers all points in between. Any reduction in that zone is anathema.
Just as an aside, can you show me any Republican free speech zones that featured armed guards and concertina wire?
However, my point was that Mr. Carter presumed to lecture us on how we must keep human rights as our central touchstone, implying that President Bush did not do so. That made his blatant hypocrisy a legitimate target, just as John Kery's blathering on about his Viet Nam career made it a legitimate issue.
Posted by: rich on August 3, 2004 5:56 PM