Thursday, January 22, 2004

Read Jim Walsh Jim Walsh is one of the best writers in the Twin Cities, and he's doing great work every week for City Pages.  Check out last week's entry about losing touch and reconnecting after it's too late. 3:47:44 PM    Say what?[]

Cold Chillin' Well, it's 1 now.  As in, 1 degree.  Count it.  This morning, it was around -14, with wind chills of -35.  I've been in colder weather, but I doubt I could really tell the difference. The thing about that kind of cold, especially when combined with wind, is that it has the capacity to impact mechanical things in strange ways.  For example, you wouldn't think that stinging cold would make a difference to something like your car radio, or your windshield wipers.  But it does.  The wipers s l o w l y track across the windshield while a groaning sound comes from the little motor just under the hood.  I don't know whether the cold is impacting some kind of motor lubrication or what, but they just don't want to work. It's so cold, in fact, that it has hampered construction of the Winter Carnival Ice Palace because the ice was too brittle.  Too cold for ice! Check out the Ice Palace here.  It's pretty cool, and we'll probably check it out if the temperature ever gets above 0. 3:28:45 PM    Say what?[]

Take A Load Off Doctors removed a 176 pound tumor from a woman in Romania.  Her weight after the tumor was removed?  Eighty-eight pounds. 3:19:38 PM    Say what?[]

...But Did Bush Actually Commit To Doing Anything? I went back and checked the part of the transcript of the SOTU where Bush discusses marriage.  You tell me: Did he actually commit to doing anything, or did he just make a factual statement?  (Which, in itself is an accomplishment for this Administration...)  Here is the section on marriage, in its entirety, with the mention of the Constitution highlighted in italics: A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states. Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight. Hmm.  I guess I think that falls somewhat short of promising to do anything resembling a push for a Constitutional amendment.  He's saying, "If judges keep handing down these decisions, the only alternative would be to change the Constitution."  Duh, right?  Everybody already knew that.  Doesn't it seem odd that in a speech where he made several specific promises, that he would not just come out and say, "I will push for a Constitutional amendment to clarify marriage as a union between a man and a woman?" This is clearly doublespeak.  He says we should defend the sanctity of marriage, which is what his base wants to hear, but he stops short of proposing the remedy that he, just the sentence prior, acknowleged as the solution. Bait and switch coming, folks.  This is big-time lip service.  I would be surprised if groups like the FRC don't push this issue, because this is the same routine they've heard. My biggest fear is that the Dems will let him dangle this and then pull it back off the table.  Attack him with this!  Attack the base!  Americans do NOT support this, by a reasonably wide margin.  And deep down, Bush and Cheney don't support it, either.  That's why they were so silent after Bowers v. Hardwick and the Massachusetts decision.  This is a political gift for the Dems, and the social conservatives will help them sell it.  Force them to choose between a marginalized support base, and what the majority of Americans believe. 11:39:43 AM    Say what?[]

Splintering On The Right? I have taken it as a given that the "right" in U.S. politics has managed to put aside their differences in order to ensure GOP power, while the "left" has continued to fragment over issues of purity of liberal intentions, disaffection with what they perceive as a one-party system, and the like.  This framework shapes much of the political discourse I have read over the past couple of years. But is that necessarily true?  I wrote yesterday about my confusion regarding why Bush would aggressively (or at least, hint that he would aggressively) pursue a Constitutional Ammendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  My confusion stemmed from the fact that most recent polls show that there is not widespread support for such an ammendment, and that such an appeal presumably was only to people who would be voting for Bush no matter what, the hard-core conservative right. But that may not necessarily be so.  First, check out this message written by the head of the Family Research Council.  The main section which illustrates the point: Finally, Ponnuru sniffs at the idea that social conservatives might stay home in the 2004 election if the GOP and President Bush are perceived as going wobbly on the defense of marriage and other pro-family issues. Ponnuru charges social-conservative leaders with "threatening more than they can deliver." Let me be clear: FRC never threatened anybody. We did, however, warn the White House that the GOP drift on marriage and such aspects of the gay agenda such as domestic partner benefits, hate crimes, and such, could cause some social-conservative voters to stay home. While Ponnuru might find this idea fantastic, Karl Rove still laments that four million evangelicals failed to vote in 2000. Since church attendance was the single best indicator of voting behavior, the stay-at-home evangelicals cost Mr. Bush the popular vote and very nearly the election. If these evangelical voters were not highly motivated by eight years of the smarmy Clinton presidency, and were not eager to "run to the polls" and put the whole sorry Clinton era behind them, then it is dangerous to dismiss the possibility they might stay home again on Election Day 2004 if their core issue is treated in a cavalier fashion. Ponnuru is doubtless right that on a whole array of issues social conservatives love and support President Bush. But they are no less committed to the sanctity of marriage and family. For millions of voters, the sanctity of marriage and family are issues that transcend politics. The GOP goes wobbly on these issues at its considerable peril. Now, this could be a real threat, or it could just be leverage, but people of ideals (regardless of whether you or I might believe in those ideals) tend to do things without a consideration of pragmatism.  That's the point of idealism, after all.  And so, Bush might now be finding himself in a situation where he must stake out a position that is known to be unpopular with most Americans, and yet he must do it because to not do it would be to lose his core support and decide the election clearly.  Aww. I still say this is an early campaign position, and they will try to tout it just long enough to get the base back, but then mute it in time for the general election.  Again, the Dems should not let this issue die.  Trust those polls. It's also worth noting that Bush has another huge issue with the right splintering, and that is with fiscal conservatives.  Check out this article from the Washington Times.  Again, the best quote: "The whole purpose of having a Republican president is to lead the Republican Congress," said Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy, whose co-chairman is former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "The Constitution gives the president the power to veto legislation, and if Congress won't act in a fiscally responsible way, the president has to step in — but he hasn't done that.  If the president doesn't take a stand on this, there's a real chance the Republicans' voter base will not be enthusiastic about turning out in November, no matter who the Democrats nominate," Mr. Beckner said.     Mr. Weyrich warned that if the Senate passes the omnibus bill and the president fails to veto it, "in all probability the party's conservative-activist core voters aren't going to work to help win the election for Bush and the Republicans, and they may well not even vote." Again, awww.  But I think this gets at the core of the Bush Administration, and will ultimately be their downfall.  These people have no principles.  They aren't Republicans, in the traditional sense.  They spend like crazy.  They don't really care to get involved in this gay rights business, but they have to now because of a political motivation.  They have no base, really, and they're being pushed and pulled in too many different directions to try and repeat the miracle of 2000.  But now, they've exposed themselves to the fiscal conservatives, a large base, as caring more about the tax breaks than about fiscal discipline.  They've exposed themselves on the social issues as not really being as hard-core as the base would like. They might be able to reign in the social-conservative base, but they'll never get the fiscal-conservative base.  And the only way to get the social conservatives is to further alienate the moderates.  Awww. Finally, check this out.  It's an article from Thomas Sowell, imploring social and fiscal conservatives to not get too caught up in their ideologies and reject voting, because that would give the liberals power.  I thought only the left had to have this discussion, but apparently not.  11:19:55 AM    Say what?[]

Primal Meltdown? I'm getting hit, as I'm sure everyone is, with referrals for variations of "Howard Dean's Scream".  The best one is Howard Dean Primal Meltdown.  Great image, but isn't that a bit much?  A scream is hardly a Primal Meltdown.  Everybody knows that in order to qualify as a Primal Meltdown, there must at a minimum be some pounding of bare chests, kicking or punching.  Even better if the Primal Meltdown involves someone getting on all fours, pawing the ground and snorting like a raging bull.  No, what Dean did was really just a freaky thing; it wouldn't even qualify for Freakout status.  Now, had he started whipping that microphone around in a 10 foot circle over his head like Roger Daltrey while screaming, "I'm Howard Dean!  I'm fucking Howard Dean!", that would be different. 10:40:40 AM    Say what?[]

Edwards As Presenter Talking Points Memo had some interesting things to say today about John Edwards, and his ability to work a room.  In short, I was blown away by what TPM had to say about the man, who I have yet to see speak in any large setting.  Better than Clinton?  That's formidable praise, indeed.  That specific praise comes from James Carville, who would know a thing or two about it, but Josh Marshall seemed equally impressed in listening to Edwards. And yet, as Marshall reflected on the speech about an hour or so later, he was left wondering what, exactly, he was so excited about.  Apparently, much of Edwards' message just didn't have staying power. Look, given a choice, I'll take an empty speaker over content every time, if the goal is to win people over and win an election.  It's a lot easier for a talented speaker to come around on the content and message than it is for a corpse with content to liven up. Pay particular attention to Marshall's thoughts about how the Bush Administration would wage a campaign against Edwards. 10:14:06 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2004 DH. Last update: 2/2/2004; 11:30:01 AM.