Fuck it, Richardson for President.
since i don't think clinton will have any difficulty keeping them there, the question could be: who is lower-information: average primary voters, or bush?
If the leaker were some high-level functionery (ie, could be a really smart Rep apparatchik), I'd think this was a pretty smart political play. It calls Dems "pussies that will pull out" while looking caring.
5 sounds right to me. The odds of any major candidate (R or D) listening to Bush on this issue seem slight. The odds of him sincerely caring enough about the substantive merits of the issue to make the gesture seem even slighter. Feels like a political stunt.
6: except that his description of their stated views on Iraq is exactly accurate. Sure it's a political stunt, but damned if he isn't right for the first time in his life.
It doesn't really imbed the 'pussies' frame well, and makes the GOP looks like they are nervous. 5 doesn't ring for me.
6: I dunno. I think Clinton would keep a ton of troops in. But, it's not like anybody's really committing to anything.
Also, I recently moved to Durham. So, if anybody has recomendations for good, strip-mall-cheap Indian or Thai food, I'd love to hear it. A friend took me to that great place across the street from SouthSquare, but it's a bit above my grad-student pay grade.
I think Clinton would keep a ton of troops in, too, but not because she lent any weight whatsoever to Bush's advice to do so.
Huh, so the SF Examiner does have readers, after all.
Hoover tried to influence FDR, for what it's worth.
There are entire Indian strip malls in Cary. You should have moved there.
the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides
AHA! So that's where Wes Clark came up with his 'four thousand sorties' over Iran bullshit. So here we are, and they're still buying all that bad intelligence.
Hillary seems to me to be campaigning for the neo-con 'vote' anyways, so that probably all works out for her anyways.
max
['Fools, fools and more fools.']
the president has been sending advice, mostly through aides, aimed at preventing an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq in the event of a Democratic victory
Has no one explained to Mr. Bush that in the event of a Democratic victory it's none of his goddamn business?
13: But then I'd live in Cary.
Really, I had no idea that was the case. I grew up in central NC, which means I have a certain inbred prejudice against Cary, but it's been a long time since I really knew the area.
Hoover tried to influence FDR
And FDR, to his immense credit, would have none of it.
5 and 3 get it right.
There was a piece in Salon the other day blasting Feinstein for basically being more in thrall to the ruling elite than to any idea of liberalism. It seems quite reasonable to me to hypothesize that the same is true of Hillary Clinton.
You say "Power elite," I say "trusted statesmanship."
18: They all kind of are. I don't think you can get to the point where you're a serious contender without making a deal with the Ruling Class of some sort or another. It would smart less if there was some sort of televised hazing and an induction ceremony, though.
20: There's got to be degrees of thralldom, though.
Said Cheney, "I think we'll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be."
This is interesting.
Realpolitik sort of demands it, yet. Damn. I can't believe I'm thinking, or saying, this.
That is all.
OT: My former HS class mate Rex Gros/sman was just let go by the Bears. I wonder if he'll be at the 10-year reunion?
23: Benched, right? He wasn't cut, was he?
There was a piece in Salon the other day blasting Feinstein for basically being more in thrall to the ruling elite than to any idea of liberalism.
God she's horrible. Someone please give her a flying elbow.
I must have been misinformed. Always cross-check your sources, people!
The odds of any major candidate (R or D) listening to Bush on this issue seem slight.
This part, though, is plausible:
'If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.'
Not that there is actually new information only visible from the President's desk that makes withdrawal genuinely less tenable; just that the negative consequences become a whole lot scarier.
This particular leak was probably mostly intended to weaken the Dems in hopes that a Republican can sneak in.
I already doubted whether Hillary, especially, planned to change long-term strategy much, and none of the Dem front runners have said they will not leave a "residual force".
Bush explicitly stated (heard it on Olbermann) that he is laying groundwork for his successors, giving them powers he thinks they'll want to use, and taking steps to make it easy for them to continue his policies and hard for them to change them. The Wurlitzer is already gearing up to blame the Democrats for whatever happens, and it's been very explicit and openly said in the media that this is the Republican plan ("kick the can"). But the Democrats are paralyzed or complicit.
This is the "facts on the ground" strategy -- "we don't respond to reality, we make it". Democrats never think ahead, or try to form public opinion, or try to change the rules of the game. They always just think short term: "Never mind what might be or what might have been. Starting from where we are right now, what's the next step?"
The media elite, most of the foreign policy elite, and a lot of key Democrats at every level are with Bush.
What I meant to say was: public opinion is not important. Public opinion only makes any difference at all every four years. Whoever is elected President will be able to continue some version of Bush's foreign policy, because Congress is irrelevant by now. And there's no particular reason to believe that any of the Democratic frontrunners do not want to do so.
When Democrats think in terms of vote-counting, they're missing what's happening. We've gone from normal politics to revolutionary politics (in the Kuhnian sense.)
Democrats never think ahead, or try to form public opinion, or try to change the rules of the game.
Never say "never," John, it pisses me off. Not to mention the fact that there was just 50-million comment thread on this issue.
Whoever is elected President will be able to continue some version of Bush's foreign policy, because Congress is irrelevant by now. And there's no particular reason to believe that any of the Democratic frontrunners do not want to do so.
Did any ever explain in that other thread how this is different from averring that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties?
I'll make an offer, though: the idea would be that it's closer to true now than it was then?
Don't get your point, parsimon. Are you just waving the Nader bloody shirt? Because if the Democrats had listened to Nader 20 years ago we'd be in a lot better shape now (e.g., regarding media control).
As far as I can tell, the reality-makers have won the game. When whichever Democrat it is takes over in 2009, they will a.) be playing on a field designed by Bush b.) be immediately blamed for the problems Bush caused and c.) be halfway committed to the continuation of the Bush policy.
If that is not to happen, steps have to be taken now. Are they being taken? No. Bush is thinking about 2009 (even though he's not even running.) The Dem are just vote-counting for 2008. they're barely looking past the primaries.
I'm suspicious about stories like the one in the post, and this recent one from the AP: "Bush Says Clinton Will Be Dem Nominee".
This may be an obvious point, but I suspect that Rove* & Co. have identified Hillary as the one they'd like most to go up against (compared with Edwards or Obama), and that these leaks serve that end.
* Yeah, I think he's still in the game, but what the hell do I know?
I'm not sure what waving the [insert name] bloody shirt means. I sense that with respect to Nader, I was waving, yes. I liked the guy back, well, before ... you know.
Otherwise, sure. The Dems don't know how to handle the situation we collectively have on our hands.
"If you end up sitting where I sit, things could change dramatically.' "
I not trust Bush, his leakers, or the reporters. This looks like a threat to me.
I have long contended that Bush, at the very least, has been using the threat of an attack on Iran as a means to intimidate, well, everyone.
Bush understands, I think, the consequences of an attack on Iran better than most presume, and any politician putting a great distance between themselves and the Bush foreign policy could be made terribly isolated by aggressive Bush actions or Iranian or Syrian premptions or behaviors.
As I have said before, if the Iranians, with whatever cause, manage to kill 5000 Americans no Dove, or anyone who has been too strong in criticizing Bush, would have a chance. Edwards is toast. HRC, understanding the importance of kissing up Mad Boy-Prince, has a chance of being elected, and a chance of preventing the war.
certain inbred prejudice against Cary, but it's been a long time since I really knew the area
The prejudice against Cary is totally justifiable, but if you haven't been here in a long time, Cary is fucking huge compared to what was when we were a kid. Over 120,000 people living in it makes it the 7th largest city in the state now. Which is just weirder than weird. It's still crammed full of recently arrived nouveau-riche assholes, though.
The two Tandoor places have good, cheap lunch buffets, and Durbar 84 is good too, though a little more for the buffet. None of the Thai places are particularly cheap, but Mt. Fuji (Brightleaf Square), Thai Palace (University Drive), and Thai Lanna (Hwy 55) are all really good.
compared to what was when we were a kid
Indiscretion error? Apo and ptm are the same person?
"a kid" s/b "kids"
I'm reasonably sure we aren't the same person.
Because, obviously, Tweety and I are.
OT: Amazon's new mp3 store: surprisingly good, with lots of cheap(er than iTunes) stuff to lure you in.
ot: what the hell kind of a name is kiazan moneypenny?
let me try again: kiazan moneypenny.
This Kiazan Moneypenny sounds more deserving of a ridiculous name than the other ridiculously named person involved in an Iraq contractor scandal, Bunnatine Greenhouse.
Presumably the state department secretary with a license to kill.
ot: what the hell kind of a name is kiazan moneypenny?
A lunatic James Bond kind of name?
40: so, by the way, my source claims the Pride guys are having so much trouble because (a) gotta get off the juice and (b) cut weight? Huh? Either way, we gotta get Forrest Griffin commenting here.
Kiazan Moneypenny is obviously Keyser Sose's long-suffering secretary.
State is slipping: Kiazan Moneypenney is even more obviously made up than Nedra Pickler.
"In an emailed statement, Cheney spokesperson Kcid Yenehc suggested that further information would not be forthcoming, in violation of our successful Freedom of Information Act petition."
"Defence Attaché Guy Incognito maintains that the 30' representation of Secretariat was offered in good faith. Mr. Incognito attributes the seventeen mercenaries later found inside to a 'routine manufacturing error'"
I made a delicious veal stew tonight. Yummm!
It was a pleasant surprise, since I'm a lousy cook and botched the recipe as usual. But veal is so soft and tender that it doesn't matter, it's great.
Is veal one of the immoral foods? I forgot.
Could someone point me in the direction where i could learn what the difference is between mcmanus and emerson?
It is subtle, yoyo, but to the connoiseeur as obvious as the difference between Mad Dog 20/20 and Wild Irish Rose.
54: you're just so fucking good, Sifu. You even picked the right liquors.
Although the fun of those guys is that they have a little bit of the fine Bordeaux in them somewhere.
Is veal one of the immoral foods?
Depends on how it's raised.
Could someone point me in the direction where i could learn what the difference is between mcmanus and emerson?
Blood alcohol level, for starters.
i don't know what those are. when i drink cheap i reach for the 30-rack of pbr. i guess they'll remain ineffable.
when i drink cheap i reach for the 30-rack of pbr
That sounds kinda gross. I'd rather be sober than pound down a case of Pabst.
as long as you aren't eating, you can kind of ignore the taste.
as long as you aren't eating, you can kind of ignore the taste.
This is from Brillat-Savarin, n'est-ce pas?
as long as you aren't eating, you can kind of ignore the taste.
PBR's new slogan. I predict a massive ad campaign, with yoyo as the new face of Pabst (Blue Ribbon).
Would you have sex with your own clone?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfDY8XIPuio
I had a recent party conversation with some girl:
Girl: I'm love Coors Light. What do you drink?
Me: When it comes to beer, I tend to drink hoppy beers: IPAs, that sort of thing. If it's cheap, it's PBR.
Girl: PBR?! Ew!!!
Um. For science, I submit this data.
She probably wouldn't like IPAs either.
OK, defenders of Paul Graham. Is his latest work spot on, wildly inaccurate, or not even wrong?
Choice passage: There's a market for writing that sounds impressive and can't be disproven. There will always be both supply and demand. So if one group abandons this territory, there will always be others ready to occupy it.
I know there was a thread Teo. The link is the point...am I too late on that too? It takes the discussion to a whole other level.
I didn't watch the video. Someone else will have to judge.
Oh, sorry. The premise is that philosophy as we know it is largely useless, and apparently this was all shown by Wittgenstein.
Just for that, I'm going to troll other threads with that video. This thread is dead, man.
A preliminary result, that all metaphysics between Aristotle and 1783 had been a waste of time, is due to I. Kant.
It seems weird to me that the Bush Administration would even acknowledge the possibility of a Democrat winning in '08. Am I just hopelessly naive at interpreting this shit?
Publicly, at least, Bush has declined to even consider the possibility that a Democrat might win.
i used to prefer coors if choosing from americna beers until i realized it supported craziness
At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's standard of proof, not the mathematician's or the experimentalist's.
For it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits: it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician demonstrative proofs. (1094b24–27)
Given what he ends up wanting philosophy to do, it's kind of hard to see how the Greek philosophers were naïve and lacking in some useful concepts, the way (whatever way that is) Greek mathematicians were. Plenty of (reputable!) people still think that Aristotle has plenty of psychological and ethical insight.
It's acknowledging the obvious to admit a Democrat might win. If you're playing for your legacy, claiming that all your radical moves have worked their way irreversibly into the bipartisan DNA of the system is one way to do it.
It's acknowledging the obvious to admit a Democrat might win.
Which is exactly why it seems so odd to see Bush doing it.
37: Thanks.
38: Nah. I hate using apostrophes.
I actually feel pretty bad about Emerson becoming somehow associated with me.
83: don't worry, McManus. I'm sure he doesn't mind. You even made a joke the other day!
Here's what's mysterious to me:
1. Allowing for all caveats about the future being unknowable, no one can deny that there is an awfully good chance that HRC will win the Dem nomination, and that the Dem nominee will be the next President
2. The idea of a President H.R. Clinton is anathema to any right-thinking Republican
3. Most Republican members of Congress have signed on to the idea of unbridled executive power as party doctrine. Even the few who have made occasional noises of protests (Specter, Grassley, Warner) have never registered their opposition when it counted.
4. It's fairly unlikely that Congressional Republicans will be able to hobble HRC with oversight hearings the way they did her husband, at least not until the 2010 elections, if ever.
Recent history shows that Republicans are not ashamed to pivot on a dime, even on matters previously declared to non-negotiable bedrock constitutional principles, so I guess they figure there's plenty of time to rediscover the virtues of checks & balances.
And yet...they must realize that they're going to have trouble clawing back some of the power they have ceded to the executive, especially once the federal appeals courts have endorsed them.
I just can't glimpse the motivation here.
Pride guys are having so much trouble because (a) gotta get off the juice and (b) cut weight
The first I believe, but the second doesn't make much sense. Everybody below heavyweight has to cut weight except Dan Henderson, who looks like he actually fights near his natural weight. I've also wondered whether a lot of them are still getting used to being backed against a cage (rather than getting restarted in the middle of a roped ring) or defending elbow strikes. Whatever the reason, it's pretty weird.
85- I think Marcus hit it with the legacy point. If the next president were to pull out troops immediately, there goes Bush's legacy of turning the Iraq into a democracy of some sort. And so if HRC seems inevitable, then she's the one he needs to be influenced. So when Rove or Cheney (I can't remember who) says it will be real close but a Republican will win, that translates to 'there's no way that a Republican will win'.
Bush would never pull out troops out of Iraq because an American president can never start a war, then lose it. He's hangs on a shred of hope that after his presidency, the US will win the war, putting his legacy in place.
she's the one he needs to be influenced.
she's the one he needs to influence.
75, 76, 79: Digby might be right, but my first thought was that Bush is a true believer about his crusade, even though Cheney and pretty much everyone else in the Republican leadership aren't. If so, then this story is a continuation of the stupidity we're all familiar with, rather than a nefarious plot.
I know it's more of that Democrat defeatism talking, but I'm suddenly certain that we're gonna lose '08.
Who's we? The Democratic party is probably going to win -- we who want to get out of Iraq may lose anyway.
Everybody below heavyweight has to cut weight except Dan Henderson
I should have said: they're not used to cutting weight, since most Pride fights didn't have weight classes. From what I hear, it's one of those things that really obliterates your stamina until you're practiced at it.
85 -- I can't agree at all that Republicans in Congress will just allow HRC to exercise enhanced executive power. They'll find a million excuses to distinguish their silence in the face of a Bush policy, or even support of it. And the courts aren't really validating Bush all that much.
And to add to 94, let's say you have half the Dem caucus opposing some enhanced Exec exercise by HRC, and nearly all the Rep caucus -- and you get into veto override territory.
Yes, but the point is that the Republican Congress has allowed a substantial amount of creep in what they've let the president do without even consulting them, and there's every reason to think HRC would use those powers as well.
well, i'm not sure "well my husband did this and so did dubya" sounds like a good excuse to anyone
86: Cutting weight is emphasized much less in Pride. I think it has to do with the number of classical wrestlers in the UFC, who are very experienced in this regard. Cro Cop and Shogun looked much smaller than their opponents and should probably move down a class.
Also, don't forget the various rule changes (especially elbows on the ground).
But it does look like they are less intense, suggesting getting off the steroids. I mean, Shogun gassed in the round.
They'll find a million excuses to distinguish their silence in the face of a Bush policy, or even support of it
Yeah, but they won't control any committees or the legislative agenda, so they won't have a lot of leverage.
the courts aren't really validating Bush all that much.
Do carbon-based life forms predominate in the universe you live in?
97: I'm not expert, but to me, that sounds more or less like the definition of the legal concept of "precedent."