Comments Posted By John
Displaying 71 To 80 Of 120 Comments
MY TOP TEN MOVIE LINES OF ALL TIME
Because I can't stand Goober and Mae and those five screaming monkeys!
(Burl Ives in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof)
Comment Posted By John On 17.08.2007 @ 17:26
MY EXCELLENT ADVENTURE AT YEARLYKOS
It's interesting that the Democrats won the presidency in 1992 in part thanks to the far left muting itself -- or having its more vocal precincts muted by a lack of political coverage -- which allowed Bill Clinton to run as a moderate, after the party had tried and failed to win in 1984 and '88 running with a straight-up defense of liberalism.
The Kos factor goes directly against that strategerie and more towards the Walter Mondale campaign of 1984, new buzzwords and phrases nonwithstanding. While Markos seems to be catching on, i.e. his purging of some of the more damaging on-site posts, it's hard to see this group being all that willing to keep their mouths shut during next year's campaign, especially since they truly believe they're the Wave of the Future. That doesn't mean their inability to stop typing means the GOP is going to win, but it does mean someone like Hillary would be wise to keep their distance from the group, unless they want to find themselves defending some of the more Amanda Marcottian-like statements that are bound to come out of the left side of the blogosphere between now and November of 2008.
Comment Posted By John On 6.08.2007 @ 15:58
A SHORT NOTE ON LIVING HISTORY
I really did enjoy the exercise. Good work and a clever idea.
And you took the side on slavery compromise that probably would have been common and did, in fact, prevail by the majority. So this is an historic fact.
However, I'd note that misguided complaints about your hypothetical position bring up what I think is an interesting point.
Conservatives at the time America has faced its major decision points held what are now widely regarded by TODAY's Conservatives (and general public) as being the wrong view. Very few (some, but let's agree a minority) would argue that America should turn back the clock on the issues I cite below.
Examples where contemporary conservatives, in the whole (we can find individual exceptions of course), held what we now (almost) universally consider the wrong if not downright reprehensible view:
1. slavery
2. race discrimination
3. women and voting rights
4. social security (in its original form as a minimum anti-poverty program)
5. government mandates in issues of public health, water, air quality
6. public funding of infrastructure (think 'rural electrification')
7. minimum wage
8. desegregationWill this list in 50 years of things that almost all consider obvious in retrospect include some minimum universal health coverage and allowing marriage between any two partners?
Which makes me wonder - if the prevailing conservative view at the time is so consistently proven wrong later, perhaps it says something about the difference between conservatism='hanging on to status quo' vs. conservatism='a coherent political philosophy' that can be applied sequentially to each issue.
Comment Posted By John On 5.07.2007 @ 17:06
BLOOMBERG BOLTS GOP - PREPARES FOR VANITY PRESIDENTIAL RUN
Mr Bloomberg may be worth around 13 billion, but he is also mayor of one of America's largest cities, some call it the real capital, and he's done a heckuva job. And he's done it without getting blood all over the carpet like the sainted Rudy. The fact is Bloomberg would be an outstanding candidate for the presidency.
Comment Posted By John On 20.06.2007 @ 08:22
A CONVERSATION WITH MY DEAD FATHER
My father passed away suddenly back in 1994. I was 18 and at work (waiting tables) on a sunday when it happened. I had been at odds with my dad for several weeks and had even been rude to him, refusing a hug the last time I saw him. I can't even been to describe the pain I felt when I got the call and came home to see him being carried out by emergency workers. The pain and guilt was nearly unbearable for me. I was 18 and had 2 younger brothers and a sister. I will always remember going into the viewing room a few hrs before other guests/family and seeing him. I pulled a chair up to his casket, put my hand on his and wept.I had never been around a dead person before and was afraid but my guilt ran over me like a truck. I placed my hand on his and apologized. It didn't make me feel better. That was 13 yrs ago. I think of him every day but function just fine, but every now and then the feeling hits me as if he died yesterday. My wife of three years is prego with our first child. If it's a boy I will name him after my father. There is much more I would like to say but I'm sure these posts have limits on space.
Comment Posted By John On 29.07.2007 @ 22:42
OBAMA ENTERS NATIONAL HEALTH CARE BIDDING WAR
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. It is always great pleasure to read your posts.
Comment Posted By John On 30.05.2007 @ 23:44
ELITIST SNOB DISSES THE AMERICAN VOTER
Your post shows that you didn't read the book...or at least, learned what the book was about by reading various sources.
Read more about who caplan is and then repost.
Comment Posted By John On 28.05.2007 @ 23:22
Nice job summing up reality - I shudder to think what would be the case today if Gore had been in office. At least we are taking out terrorists 'there" and not in my backyard....
Comment Posted By John On 27.05.2007 @ 14:08
OBAMANIA! IS HE THE LIBERAL REAGAN?
Affability, especially from a candidate seeking to become the nation's first African American president, is definitely an asset, but being able to present your case well only lasts for so long if there's nothing there to back it up. That's what happened in New York back in 1989, when David Dinkins defeated Rudy Giuliani to become the city's first African-American mayor.
Dinkins wasn't as polished before the cameras as Obama is, but he had an affable personality that calmed many voters who might have been wary of voting for a more aggressive black candidate (the election came two years after Al Sharpton burst onto the scene with the Tawana Brawley incident). But when it came to actual governance, there wasn't enough substance there (or, in the end the will) to make the changes that the city needed, and he ended up losing narrowly to Giuliani in his re-election bid.
Obama does seem to be a little quicker on the uptake than Dinkins was to recognize problems, but he also faces a hostile primary race against Hillary and Edwards that is more likely to expose any lack of substance before he has a chance to get the nomination (though it's hard to picture John Edwards beating out any candidate with a pulse based on him being the candidate of substance).
Comment Posted By John On 26.05.2007 @ 11:45
FIRING IMUS FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS
Poster #1 is right about Imus getting himself really in trouble by lacking any hard-core group for political support - Rick stated the case for getting rid of him from a social conservative viewpoint; political conservatives were angered by his support of Kerry in 2004 and his continued attacks on Bush and his administration, while those on the far left have never, ever forgiven him for either his attacks on the Clinton administration during the 1990s or his attacks on Al Gore during the 2000 election.
To a site like Media Matters, there was barely a difference between Imus, Rush or Hannity, at the same time people on the right at places like the Media Research Center didn't see much difference between what Imus and his (manily liberal) guests were saying, and what was being spouted over at Air America. If Imus just had strong enemies on the right, well, there are lots of folks who've survived those types of protests and kept their media/entertainment jobs; but he had never mended his bridges from the Clinton years with the folks on the left, and within the special interest groups on the left that glut media organizations like CBS and NBC, that was fatal, since it meant inside pressure on both his guests and his bosses to can him.
But ironically, it's those same guests, and Imus' higher-profile causes such as his children's ranch and other cancer-related charities, that killed him this time. Howard Stern can say stuff just as bad, but Stern doesn't have to try and raise corporate funds for his pet causes, because he is his only pet cause. So Stern could (can) remain defiant when controversies come up, while the corporate sponsors and the folks who enabled him to attract those corporations as donors via MSNBC were the ones who forced him to go cowboy-hat-in-hand to apologize on Al Sharpton's radio show.
The old Imus, for good or bad, would have brushed off Sharpton and allowed his bosses to defend him because of his ad billing revenues. But the old Imus wouldn't have been on TV; wouldn't have had big national sponsors backing his causes, but who dread any controversy; and wouldn't have had high-profile politicians and media pundits, who for the most part aren't going to take a chance that the wake of the sinking SS Imus was going to take them down with him, if they continued to show their support.
Comment Posted By John On 13.04.2007 @ 06:29
