Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Yes, lean left so that she can be slaughtered in '08.Silly liberals.
Isn't Markos like 0 for 13 with candidates he has supported? Please, Hillary, follow his advice.
Oops, I followed the Tim Blair links and found it is 0 for 16. Even better.
I think this type of criticism can actually help Hillary in her attempts to potray herself as a centrist to the electorate.
Did you even read the article? He's not advising her to lean left. (One of the candidates he favors as an alternative, Mark Warner, is a Southern Moderate in the DLC tradition, and of course Howard Dean is a pro-gun, budget-balancing moderate.) He's saying that she should stop moving right. Her flip-flops on the Iraq war, her sucking up to the business community; these are things that move the political center of gravity to the right and create the idea that the Democrats don't stand for anything (if a Democrat isn't pro-union and against unnecessary wars, what's the point of being a Democrat?).As for the 0-for-16 thing, zombie myths never die.
Okay, 2 for 16. I do wish to be correct, but hardly a difference worth noting.And, while it is true that the Democrats do not stand for anything, I think it is obvious that anyone an inch right of Dean is considered far right to Markos.I am curious how you define an "unnecessary" war, though. Or better yet, a necessary one. I assume it doesn't have anything to do with which party is in control when the war starts.
Kos said something like "We didn't support Dean because he was the most liberal..."They supported him because he's a ranter. If there's ONE thing that's true about this "netroots" of the Democratic party, it's that they love ranting and ranters above all else. It's also almost desperate the way he keeps harping on the "netroots netroots netroots" ... I found myself mentally going: "STOP SAYING NETROOTS!" It's like he has really fallen in love with the idea of this activist underground movement, and wants to convince everyone that it's the key to success, despite all evidence to the contrary.M.A. I wouldn't cite that article if I were you. It's not really helping you out.
Ann, it really behooves you to not to play the Glenn Reynolds game of linking to sites with such a non-opinion statement that later you can claim not to have held an opinion. If you have an opinion, state it clearly. Otherwise all you do, like George Bush, is signal to your follower in coded language, and then we can all see what your followers are really thinking that you mean, just as we saw in last week's appalling torture for prisoners and Moussaoui post. In the meantime, Ben Chandler, Stephanie Herseth would like to differ you with all. Paraphrasing: And of course so would Ann's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, as well as Russ Feingold, Ned Lamont, Barack Obama, Mark Warner, John Kerry, and even HRC herself who in fact does have a "netroots" consultant that apparently she listen to more.As Kos says in the linked to post above, and using language all you "I didn't leave the dems, they left me" should like, Backing the underdog means you will lose more often than not. Backing outside-the-establishment candidates mean we have to build momentum over time. Good thing for the modern conservative movement that they didn't pack it in after Barry Goldwater got crushed. They knew they were in it for the long haul, unlike the bitter, obsolete crew over at New Republic, cursing that newfangled people-powered media that has stripped them of whatever ill-gotten influence they used to wield.So the Daily Kos is just about to go on it's fourth birthday, and all you guys are counting it out.How many wins in how many years will it take for it to earn your respect?One would think all you former democratic they left me political blog addicts would think highly of Kos' efforts.They have accomplished much much more than all the wanking here has, which has done precisely nothing.So at the least, the score is Kos and the netroots: 2, Althouse and her groupies: 0.
The thing to understand about the netroots' record in backing candidates is that they back longshots. The blogs direct money to candidates who do not have much support from the national party, or don't have much funding from other sources, or are in tough districts. When you back those kind of candidates, you usually lose. The point of doing it is that a) Sometimes you get lucky and win (Herseth, Chandler), and b) By directing money to the second-tier candidates you force the Republicans to spend more money on those races, which is less money they have for the top-tier races. Funding a second-tier candidate who loses, because of this, can actually help a top-tier candidate win at the same time.I'm not saying Kos is perfect. He can be pompous and self-important, and his attempt to gloss over the fact that Dean lost (and didn't come close to winning) is certainly mockable. But he's no rabid lefty, no more than Howard Dean (remember, on policy issues, Dean was mostly to the right of John Kerry -- for example, Dean supported the first Iraq war, whereas Kerry didn't).
"Mmmmm, being an Ann Althouse groupie." (Said in best Homer Simpson "mmm, donuts" voice.)
"last week's appalling torture for prisoners"What they hell does that refer to? The post where I repeatedly opposed commenters who hoped for Moussaoui to be abused by his fellow prisoners?"Did you read the article?"Yes."Ann, it really behooves you to not to play the Glenn Reynolds game..."Why? And what does "behooves" even mean? How will I know when I'm behooved? Is it like being bejeweled? Will I have hooves? Perhaps I'll be behooved and behorned. Look out.
"Dean was mostly to the right of John Kerry..."And simultaneously mostly to the left of John Kerry, presumably. How can you tell where anybody is with reference to John Kerry?
(Thanks for the softball.)
Yes that's the article. You had to twice take to task some of the best and the brightest around this backwoods.I didn't say *you* were for calling for torture for prisoners; I was saying since that post had a very non-committal opinion from you, we saw what your best commenters projected onto it.As a constitutional law professor and observer of culture, I would think you are right to be appalled by the tastes of your best and brightest, and consider what that means about how and what you post.behooved: past tense of hebban.Time to make bfast for the kids: bagels and lox, cream cheese, tomatoes, onions, and of course, they demand capers. Darned kids, they no longer let me get away with shortchanging them on the lox.
They have accomplished much much more than all the wanking here has, which has done precisely nothing.What a jerk.Slippery is a punster!
Kos' stated purpose is to affect political outcomes.Well, the stated purpose is more to affect political strategies. For example, in the last two years Kos and MyDD.com have had a big influence on changing the conventional wisdom about Democratic party strategy: they advised that instead of focusing exclusively on "swing states," the party should try to challenge more seats, more areas, and build the party in places where it didn't have a large presence before. All this has become conventional wisdom, and it's a pretty significant change for bloggers to help effect.And simultaneously mostly to the left of John Kerry, presumably. How can you tell where anybody is with reference to John Kerry?Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk. Of course Kerry was pretty consistent except on the damn Iraq war (a pretty big "except," granted) and Bush, unlike Kerry, has been a big flip-flopper, so I don't quite think the humor is rooted in truth and stuff. Still, it's one of the great features of modern conservatives that they always accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves are doing: flip-flopping Bush calls Kerry a flip-flopper; deranged, hateful talk-hosts call liberals deranged and hateful; conservative Christians make war on non-believers and claim that non-believers are making war on them; etc.
"I didn't say *you* were for calling for torture for prisoners; I was saying since that post had a very non-committal opinion from you, we saw what your best commenters projected onto it.As a constitutional law professor and observer of culture, I would think you are right to be appalled by the tastes of your best and brightest, and consider what that means about how and what you post."I start conversations. I don't dictate opinions. You're trying to tell me I have an obligation to telegraph what people should believe at the outset of a conversation. I couldn't disagree more.
What was that I said about "loves ranting" again...?Ann, I think there are a lot of people out there on the internets who are quite envious of you... they SO WISH they had a cool blog with sycophants and toadies like us!
Recent lefty efforts to pin the tag "flipflopper" on Bush are really weird. You're just reminding us of Kerry. And do you really want to say no one should ever change a position? Come on, get some nuance.
It's not recent; the post about Bush's flip-flops is from 2004. Bush, unlike Kerry, has constantly changed his positions out of political expediency; he is a flip-flopper by the reasonable definition of the term. Again, we're talking about projection here: Bush followers projected onto Kerry all the flaws that Bush had.
Kerry was a terrible, terrible candidate, and he's threatening to do it all over again. Why Democrats tolerate him now, after his abysmal campaign -- I don't know. Yeah, I know you don't like Bush. But that's just not the point here. Democrats need a good candidate!
Kerry was a bad candidate, but unlike Bush he's a good man, and unlike Bush he has actually done some good things. I don't want him to be the candidate in 2008, but I tolerate him for the same reason I tolerate any good man: because good men deserve respect. The right -- which vilified and continues to vilify this good man -- obviously doesn't share that piece of basic morality, not surprising given the right's lack of moral values.
I start conversations. I don't dictate opinions. You're trying to tell me I have an obligation to telegraph what people should believe at the outset of a conversation. I couldn't disagree more.That's fine. Aren't you shocked to find out how many of your groupies filled in the blanks with torture?In today's 24x7 media filled world, complete with hate radio and hate bloggers ready to latch on and amplify ever mistage no matter inconsequential, Kerry was a terrible candidate.Bush was a good candidate.Too bad more than 2/3rds of the country think that Bush is a terribly incompetent and corrupt president.How can you tell where anybody is with reference to John Kerry?... And do you really want to say no one should ever change a position? Come on, get some nuance. Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.Head asplodes.Bush is a flip-flopper, get some Osama (wanted dead or alive, truth told, I don't actually think about him all that much). (WMDs -> democracy) (No DHS, DHS)...
Possibly one of the parties should consider nominating someone who is both a good candidate AND would make a good president. Or maybe that's mutually exclusive these days.
"Democrats need a good candidate!"That is true, and I suspect that candidate will be Hillary, who is being completely underestimated by doctrinaire types on both the Left and the Right. She can count on having the support of several important factions in the Democratic Party (not the "netroots", but people who can muster real money and voters) and can cleave off moderate independents by having a mixture of socially liberal and hawkish views as her main policy points. John Podhoretz, a guy whose political views I don't agree with but whose skills as a realistic political analyst are pretty good (from what I've seen) has said as much, and Republicans underestimate her at their peril.Plus, she's a good retail politician. This may surprise people, but it's true. I met her recently at a fundraiser, and she worked the room well and made everyone she talked to seem like the center of attention. That's a talent a lot of politicians lack, and on that score, she reminds me of one other politician I've met with that talent: George W. Bush.
Well, I still think that HRC is odds-on favourite to be our next president. She's been careful not to tack left...
Questions for M.A.:1. You suggest that Kos and Howard Dean aren't rabid lefties. Who would you say ARE rabid lefties? How is what they want politically different from what Dean and Kos want?2. "Kerry was a bad candidate, but unlike Bush he's a good man." What is evil about Bush? How is Kerry inherently good?3. "[Kerry] unlike Bush he has actually done some good things." Name three of these things. 4. How does the right "lack of moral values"?Your offhand assertions are pretty sweeping, there, M.A.
God, what a great post Sippican Cottage. I mean, I want to kiss you. I don't even care what you look like.It is really frustrating to me that the Republicans can't make the federal government smaller, can't do something sensible with immigration (Democrat Mickey Kaus is the most sensible voice on immigration, which is sad), and fight the Jihadists with the military instaed of through the UN. But what the @#$%& am I going to do? Vote for a silly lefty?
Just Curious:Who would vote for Hillary for Pres? I'll most likely vote for whoever is the Dem. nominee.But what about other people on the list - would you consider voting for her? Or would you most likely vote for the R. nominee or a 3rd party candidate? Sipp & SM - would either of you vote for Hillary?
Geoduck: For those of us in the middle, it depends on what the issues are, who the Republicans put up, and what everybody says during the campaigns. The Hillary imprinted on our minds now will be replaced by the Hillary in the debates in the fall of 2008. We have never seen HRC in that context. She will have great policy advisors, and, perhaps, great delivery. She's likely to keep her wits about her, because: 1. she's smart, and 2. she wants more than anything to win.
I would vote for Joe Lieberman or, maybe, depending on foreign policy, Phil Bredesen. There is a California representative I would vote for (whose name I can't remember but who would never run). I would vote for the cadaver of Scoop Jackson. I would certainly consider voting for any Democrat.I would rather face a cage match with a hungry cheetah than vote for Hillary! She stands for nothing but herself. (Having said that, I am confident that a terrorist strike on her watch would result in some serious icy bitch behavior directed at the culprits, because she strikes me as ruthless and would want to protect her legacy). But in terms of being some bold foreign policy visionary, she doesn't have the stuff and will never develop it.My ideal candidate would be a ferocious Jacksonian warrior willing to build an impenetrable (for illegal immigrants) wall between the U.S. and Mexico but who sees the stupidity in trying to deport the people here already and who otherwise supports free trade and who wants to shrink the federal government and return real political and economic power and power of social issues to the states and who wants to put a bunch of Scalia clones on the Supreme Court. A long sentence, but that's my ideal candidate.
On Hillary:1) Sounds like she does well with retail politics. That will help her in Iowa.2) She's not a very warm person or very rhetorically dynamic. Conventional political wisdom says that's a problem in presidential candidates. 3) Personally I'm tired of the Presidency bouncing back and forth between two families.
Gooey Duck -- I agree about the families. I would support a constitutional amendment that made siblings, parents, spouses, ex-spouses, and perhaps even cousins and aunts and uncles of presidents inelgibile for the presidency for 12 years after the termination of the relative from the presidency.
Otherwise all you do, like George Bush, is signal to your follower in coded language, and then we can all see what your followers are really thinking that you mean, just as we saw in last week's appalling torture for prisoners and Moussaoui post.Excuse me. I read Ann's post originally before there were comments and saw nothing to protest in it. Thus, I did not comment--which I certainly would have if that's what I'd gotten from it.When I came back later and saw what some commenters were saying, I think I was pretty damn clear about what I thought of it. And I was not alone. Go back and re-read it.What struck me about that comment thread, in addition to that which I condemned, was how absent some of the more regular--and best and brightest--comments were, in fact, missing. You can believe that or not, but it was an issue that I explicitly brought up in a different forum or two. Along with the fact that there was bound to be someone who was going to twist what happened to appear otherwise.Son of a gun, it would be you, Quxxo.
Geoduck2: I'm not so sure Hillary is going to play as well in Iowa as I keep hearing, but who knows? Time will tell.
Kerry was not a good candidate. He was a well-financed, more-or-less default compromise (as opposed to the effective type of compromise).As to being a good man, well, there's a range there. He certainly isn't remarkably or impressively so. Surely you can think of an example or two of men who are more or less of his political profile who are more remarkably good, as well?If so, why not spend time pushing forth those candidates rather than encouraging someone like Kerry?
"God, what a great post Sippican Cottage. I mean, I want to kiss you. I don't even care what you look like."I agree. And he's cute too!
I'm not so sure Hillary is going to play as well in Iowa as I keep hearing, but who knows? Time will tell.Reader Iam,I hope she doesn't do well. I would much be more interested in someone like Mark Warner.People keep saying she's good at retail politics, but I guess we won't know until they we get the invasion of the pols. (It's like the invasion of the body snatchers, only they will take over the phone lines and the junk mail.)
SM: I'm assuming you're engaging in hyperbole about the families and banning even ex's and cousins in order to emphasize your dislike of certain recent and notable dynastic tendencies in this country.For my part, I'm so digusted with how, in particular, 2nd term presidencies work out that I'm beginning to find the idea of a single 6-year term for presidents attractive. (If someone wants to run again, let 'em sit out at least one term in between.) But then, I also find attractive the idea of getting rid of two-year congressional terms (because of the perpetual politicking and fever-pitch fundrasing involved) and instead going for four years with some sort of consecutive term limits.Yeah, I know the arguments against all that; I'm not even saying they're wrong, in theory at least.But, sheesh, it sure isn't working too well the way it, and it's not just about one man or one party. (Name ONE second-term of a presidency, for example, that hasn't ended up in all sorts of doo-doo, at least in my lifetime [b. 1961]).
And, had those presidents who DIDN'T serve second terms gone onto do so, which one do you think would have dodged that bullet?Johnson, had he decided to "accept the nomination of his party"?Carter, with the hostages still in captivity, among other issues?Bush 43 (oh, I'm sure there'd have been something)?
(It's like the invasion of the body snatchers, only they will take over the phone lines and the junk mail.)Lord, Geoduck, ain't that the truth. And since BOTH my husband and I (both habitual voters) are registered "no party" here, everyone on both sides come at both of us. (Since we have different last names, we don't even get CONSOLIDATED pitches, by golly. And to add insult to injury, we have multiple phone lines.)Oh, the horror, the horror.Re the vh: Ann, it's happening again!!!!iowdejc
And since BOTH my husband and I (both habitual voters) are registered "no party" here, everyone on both sides come at both of us. (Since we have different last names, we don't even get CONSOLIDATED pitches, by golly. And to add insult to injury, we have multiple phone lines.)Oh, I'm sorry. It got to the point where we wouldn't answer poll questions anymore, and the junk mail pretty much all went right into the garbage. It's a little crazy.
reader_iam said..."For my part, I'm so digusted with how, in particular, 2nd term presidencies work out that I'm beginning to find the idea of a single 6-year term for presidents attractive."Does that mean you'd be willing to consider my proposed 28th Amendment? §4 would deal with the concerns you raise.Ann said..."Kerry was a terrible, terrible candidate, and he's threatening to do it all over again. Why Democrats tolerate him now, after his abysmal campaign -- I don't know."Sshhhhhhhhh! If you keep reminding everyone just how useless Kerry was, they might not nominate him again! I mean, if Kerry even runs for the nomination again, that's like Christmas come early.Is it really the case that every time Ann comments on something Kos-related, we have to have a commando squad of Kossacks leaping in to offer yawnsome "rebuttal" (or their version thereof)? If you ignore them and refuse to engage with them, they go away, you know.
geoduck2 said..."Who would vote for Hillary for Pres?"The answer to that question turns to a very great extent on who the Republican nominee is and what kind of campaign they can achieve, don't you think?
Memo to Hillaryre: strategy for winning the White House1. insult stay-at home moms.2. stress that it takes village (and esp. a government) to raise a child.3. attack home schoolers and vouchers as part of a vast right wing conspiracy.4. promote an animistic view of firearms.5.celebrate violent rap music as transgressive, diverse and creative.6. insult stay-at-home moms who bake cookies.
Post a Comment