Comments Posted By Dale
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 33 Comments
OBAMA WELL DESERVES PEACE PRIZE - AFTER COMMITTEE LOWERS THE BAR
Of course bear in mind that the nominations had to be in by Feb. 1, 2009. Musta been a great 2 weeks!
Heh - was updating the post as you were leaving the comment. Great minds...
ed.
Comment Posted By Dale On 9.10.2009 @ 06:01
I’ve only recently been reading your blog and I’ve never posted here before but I have some, admittedly unasked for, advice that I would like to share.
Take some time off. A week, or a month, and not only don’t write anything but as much as possible don’t even follow the news. Then after you’ve taken some time off ask yourself if you still want to do this.
Continuing to do something that is contently bringing you down makes no sense.
I wish you well, Dale…
Comment Posted By Dale On 23.09.2009 @ 15:40
GLENN BECK AND THE RADICAL RIGHT
I listened to Beck for a while years ago, and decided he was too much of a whack job to listen to. I watched his TV show a couple times and it seems tamer. But there is no reason to ignore his seemier side. I am more aligned with Jeff Goldstein than your more moderate postings, but keep calling them as you see them and I'll keep reading them.
Comment Posted By Dale On 8.04.2009 @ 11:03
THE INCREDIBLY STUPID THOUGHTS OF DEEPAK CHOPRA
Great. Peaceful people stand up and vow not to change. How's that going to impact on the warlike ones?
Comment Posted By Dale On 1.12.2008 @ 14:09
As an evangelical, I caution you: you can de-emphasize them, but do not insult them. And I think theat they (we, I guess) should be de-emphasized. For example, reframe the debate on abortion. Leave Roe out of it and concentrate on more practical aspects of it which are winners: partial birth abortion, abortion as birth control, as examples. Primarily, use these as areas where the Dems are vulnerable to the charge of serving individual constituancies at the expense of other constituancies.
However, if you start the conversation, and I know I am responding to Chuck not to Rick or Pat, if you begin by extracting evangelicals, you are merely repeating the same mistakes made previously, although in a different way. The last two election cycles, the Republican party had a message of what we are not, rather than what we are. We are not Bush, we are not inexperienced, we are not mean, we are not going to take as much in taxes.
We must define it as what we are: we will keep you safe through forward looking military expenditures, we will keep the government out of your business, we will select judges who don't make stuff up, we will protect the borders. In short, the new infrastructure is useful as a means to define the debate rather than being defensive against dems reframing our positions to mischaracterize them. The decision now is one of focus. What are the issues we wish to rally around? I agree that school prayer, creation vs. evolution, and abortion are silly topics to use as base issues. Abortion is virtually decided, and the other issues undercut religious (including irreligious) freedom.
Pandering to religious kooks like me is pointless. We should be treated as the Dems treat black voters: a loyal constituancy that can be taken for granted. But kicking us out is as stupid as the Dems intentionally insulting blacks. And the Christians may be the key to turning conservative blacks toward a more open-minded voting pattern. But as long as Obama is in office, they will be effectively out-of-play.
Comment Posted By Dale On 27.11.2008 @ 07:59
OBAMA'S SENATE SEAT UP FOR GRABS
Snowball, perhaps?
Excellent dissection of the situation, Rick. I was unaware that the Jackson candidacy was so fraught with controversy. Of course, the wild card is Blago. What a governor would choose to do as he is being fitted for an orange jumpsuit is difficult to predict. My expectation: he will do whatever the PE wants and hope for a later pardon.
Comment Posted By Dale On 25.11.2008 @ 06:49
I'm surprized at you, Rick. You forgot the one thing Obama adds to our new socialist utopia: Chicago machine-style politics. It is classically socialist in how connections and fealty to the leaders increases your access to the better things. Your reliability and familial relationships determine your level within the establishment. You are kept in line through loyalty to the party.
True, it's more communist than socialist, but since we'll head there eventually, it's a good start.
Comment Posted By Dale On 15.11.2008 @ 08:19
TWITS IN MCCAIN CAMP MISFIRE IN PALIN ATTACKS
Oh, and one more problem: The docrinaire right-wingers can't stand the populists they depend on for power, e.g., Palin.
Comment Posted By Dale On 7.11.2008 @ 07:16
I think that there was a track toward conservative ascendency that Palin tapped into initially. Between the hard-line left and right is a populist middle. They can be motivated in two ways: what's in it for my country (the conservative way), or what's in it for me (the traditional liberal way.)
Obama was incredibly effective in tapping into popular angst fed by the ratings-oriented media. Bad news sells, so they play up negatives to sell. He convinced voters that "the rich" were corrupting the seats of power, and he would fight for them.
McCain was attempting to sell that he was best for the country, but his message changed constantly, he misunderstood the nature of his prior media support, and I think he overestimated the potential Bradley effect.
If Palin is inclined to do the work to improve her image, and she may well not be, she could do so. But until the R's find a candidate who can tap into populist sentiment, they will be on the outside looking in.
Comment Posted By Dale On 7.11.2008 @ 07:01
The question, IMO, is, which of Obama's associates is he more inclined to promote? The Ayers types, or the Rezco types?
The selection of Emanuel makes it clear to me, the Chicago Machine has come home to DC. The other clues are: his willingness to throw associates under the bus when they get in the way; his ability to lie in direct contradiction with evident conviction; his facility in telling whoever is his audience whatever they want to hear.
He will be far more interested in consolidation of power. He will carry the hard-left brand as far as he has to, to keep their support. But the coziness with Wall St. bankers and trial lawyers will be far more important to him. As usual, support from women, minorities, and unions will just be assumed; probably rightly so.
Comment Posted By Dale On 7.11.2008 @ 09:10
