Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think I agree with Stephen, Giovanni and Don. Palin seems to have weaknesses as a VP, but this doesn't sound very post partisan or conjure much in the way of hopes and dreams.
I am up to page 15 of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Zen Living, and this is not very eightfold path.
-
where did you buy your up dog?
What up dog?
-
I wouldn't have said what Trotter did, neither the gang rape or the multiple personality remarks added anything worthwhile. I could be wrong, but I sense that Trotter both respects I/S and disapproves of the well understood excesses of Winston Peters' politics.
I'm just saying that Trotter shouldn't be reduced to his mistakes - his writing is generally interesting - to dismiss him by placing emphasis on his most easily criticised remarks makes for misleading and shallow discussion.
For what it's worth, I always enjoy your work Danielle.
-
I hasten to add that noone at PA frequently uses sexual and scatalogical references in their writing that could be construed as ignorant or offensive.
-
Trotter said:
It has been made uglier, however, by the way in which this particular dog-fight is being stage-managed. Taking advantage of your opponent’s gaffes, and seizing your chance to drive a wedge into fragile intra-party alliances, is one thing. A carefully orchestrated campaign of character assassination - the political equivalent of a gang-rape - in which members of the news media have become as deeply implicated in the planning, timing and execution of each assault as the polticians themselves, is something else altogether.
And:
I was sitting in the departure lounge at Auckland International Airport, waiting to board Air NZ’s inaugural flight to Beijing, and I was chatting away with one of New Zealand’s leading journalists. We were talking about the accusations swirling around Winston and Owen Glenn, and this journalist leans in a little closer to me and says, sotto voce, “There’s a big pot of money out there to get Peters this time - big money.”
-
Craig and James - you are conservative - what do you think the Republicans should do on economic policy?
The NY Times article I linked to suggests that Obama's tax plan will actually provide bigger tax cuts for more Americans than McCain's, and will pay for it by raising taxes on the very wealthy (who have had disproportionately large increases in income over the last 30 years).
After the huge deficits created by the tax cuts and defence spending of Reagan and Bush II, and the budgetary and economic successes of Clinton, surely its hard to paint to paint the Republicans as the party of fiscal virtue.
The idea that its "pork" -
There was an interesting feature piece on Obama's economic perspective in the NY Times. Obama will have the Democratic policy establishment at his disposal, which will help to mitigate some of the valid concerns about his experience.
I'm looking forward to hearing Al Gore and Bill Clinton speak. It took me a while, but I really came to like those guys.
-
It was, repeatedly, and pushed aside but as those two commentaries, and a few others over the past few days have said, you can can sweep it under the carpet but it won't go away. Race is a huge issue in this election. [...] They have resonance.
I agree. One can only respect and admire the Democrats for taking the high road, but sadly it might not lead to the White House. Biden will help 'balance' the ticket, the debates should strengthen Obama, and although I think the decision to attack Bill Clinton sacrificed general election position for victory in the primaries, it will help to get Gore and the others on stage during the Convention.
The Republicans know: keep it dumb, play to peoples' prejudices and fears and thump the very simple messages over and over regardless of their veracity.
I broadly agree, but its past time for the Democrats to respond with a coherent strategy.
-
Senator Biden voted for the invasion and the war. Obama now has lost the high moral ground argument which I think appealed to so many.
I'm not sure that Obama has lost moral ground by selecting Biden as his running mate. More than half of the Democratic Senate voted in favour of the resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq. Obama, who was not a member of the Senate when the vote was taken, has said that he may have supported the resolution had he had access to the intelligence made available to the Democratic senators. He has also defended the pro-war votes of Senators Kerry and Edwards (evidence here). I make the argument this way to avoid a digression into how the Democratic members of Congress should have voted in light of the orthodoxies that prevailed at the time of the vote.
If there is a loss of moral high ground then I would argue that its impact will be limited to voters who are unlikely to defect to McCain, and arguably irrelevant from an electoral perspective. Just under half of all Democratic primary voters, being a group that might be taken as more liberal than others, favoured a candidate who voted in favour of the authorising resolution.
It is rather late in the day for those with Democratic leanings to to be raising concerns about the role that racism will play in the election. Given that the issue reduces to electability, the point should have been confronted during the primaries. While they contain a lot that is unfortunate and true, in my view articles such as the those in Slate and the Observer come too late to influence the result, but in time to hit on familiar prejudices about and within American society.
The remarkably small margins in 2000 and 2008 suggest that US voters were already closely split. The idea that 'America' is not ready for a black president is a foolish oversimplification - obviously fractional changes in voting patterns are capable of changing the outcome. It's been less than 50 years since the civil rights movement and the elimination of segregation - it required no great insight to foresee that race, in various guises, could play a decisive role. This was the risk that was taken. That said, Obama's imminent selection as the Democratic nominee, his continuing popularity, and the fact that he is still favoured to win attests to his considerable strength as a candidate and to the progress that has been achieved in American race relations.
Obama's strengths and race aside, there are at least two other factors in Obama's favour: there is a significant national swing away from the Republicans (including a weakening in the Republican's traditional lock on the religious vote), and the rest of Clinton's supporters might eventually be persuaded to come back into the fold.
-
If anyone feels like discussing teh US politics - I think Joe Biden is a good choice for VP. He performed really well in the Democratic debates and (big plus this) I saw him in person when I was in DC. I waved but he didn't recognise me.
Interestingly Real Clear Politics has McCain ahead on projected electoral votes for the first time that I can recall (274-264). A reversion to red/blue America was inevitable IMO, but still its not exactly good news.
Is Neil Morrison still around?