The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    A Pragmatic Approach To Elections

    By ocean-kat on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 4:59pm |

    When forming opinions about the flow of campaign events and deciding how to cast my vote there are three standards I look at.

    A democrat must win.

    I want liberal values and ideas to be debated and I want the party to move to the left.

    I want the candidate to hold as many liberal views on the issues as is possible to win.

    Given how crazy the republicans have become even Webb, who I dislike, would be better than any republican candidate. If I have to I'll take the republican lite democrat over the republican.  There was a time when a north east liberal republican might have been better than a southern conservative democrat but those days are long gone. Even Webb would likely choose better Supreme Court nominees than Bush or Rubio and much better than Trump, Carson, Cruz et. al.

    Fortunately we don't have to vote for Webb. We have two smart, knowledgeable, and articulate candidates that are much more liberal than him and both are imo more likely to win in the general than Webb.

    Even though I support Hillary nothing could have made me happier than Sanders entering the race and mounting a credible challenge to Hillary. People are being given an opportunity to hear liberal policy ideas they don't often get exposed to. The debate has moved toward liberal ideas and Hillary has decided to embrace that move to the left.

    I'm not very tied into minor wins and loses on the campaign trail. It doesn't really concern me who won the debate, as long as it's close. Actually I wish Sanders had done better in the debate polls. Even though I support Hillary I want Sanders to be a credible challenger so his liberal ideas are taken seriously in the press and by Hillary. Yes I want Hillary to win but I hope Sanders wins a few states.

    Even though I mostly like Sanders better on the issues (point 3) and his entrance into the race has moved the debate to discussions of liberal policy (point 2) I'm worried that he's just not good enough at national politics to win in the general election (point 1)

     

    Comments

    I would not say he didn't do well.  He had the 2 best lines in the debate.  That is going to be remembered and it will keep popping up in print.  He is an acquired taste that grows on you because he does not fit into the mold of refine polished politician that has been running for the last few decades. He gives you something to think about.  He talks like the guy on the street and the guy on the street understands him.  He stirred up the most interest and led the pack in googles, tweets, and face book hits. That means he got peoples attention and peeked their curiosity.  

    It was a good debate because of the issues.  Hillary didn't screw up and looked polished so she held her lead.  Sanders let many people see him for the first time and they took time to find out more about him. Both of them reached their goals while the GOP lost in this debate.    

     


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 10/16/2015 - 10:05pm

    I think Sanders did great in the debate. I was very happy he did, but I'm talking about the post debate polls. The point I was trying to make is that most people who support a candidate want their candidate to win and win big. I don't necessarily feel that way. So far all the polls using accepted methodology show Hillary won the debate by 20 to even 33 points. Most Hillary supporters would be ecstatic. If Sanders won by that margin most Sanders supporters would be ecstatic. I'm a Hillary supporter but I think it would be better for the democratic party, and liberal values and policy if the spread had been closer. I'd even have been ok if debate polling showed Hillary lost, if it was by a small margin. My second point from the blog, I want liberal values and ideas to be debated and I want the party to move to the left. In the end I want Hillary to win but I don't just want Hillary to win. I want Sanders to be a power to be reckoned with so the debate is pushed to the left and liberal ideas are debated so people who don't follow politics as deeply as we do are exposed to those ideas.

    It's not just about winning for me.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 10/17/2015 - 1:33am

    Well put, ocean. My sincere hope is that throughout the primary we can all remember that presenting liberal, progressive ideas to the general audience is the goal, and choosing the best candidate to defeat the Republican candidate is the necessity. The last thing our party needs is to become fragmented by those who need to tear someone down in order to advance their candidate - we've been there, and it doesn't work. Realistically we won't "all just get along" - and we shouldn't! - but we need to be united in purpose.


    by barefooted on Sat, 10/17/2015 - 2:11am

    Yeah, winning with stupid lines like "this is not Denmark, this is the US of fuckin' A" is no glorious feeling. So the spend spend spend socialists of Denmark spend much less than the supposed market-savvy free market shop-around for the best deal Americans on health care - ain't that ironic and contradictory. But we have better care, right? Europeans can get months of maternity leave - Americans get 2 weeks if lucky. How pro-life, celebrate the miracle of birth, get the photos and vaccines, and get back to work. We're simply dupes, most prosperous country on earth and we handle critical life events like backwoods rednecks .

    I'm all for a committee about Benghazi that studies how stupid it was to overthrow Qaddafi and leave North Africa in Al Qaeda-loving anarchy and then to kinda support so-called "moderate" rebels in Syria to create a vacuum for ISIS and a million refugees in Europe. Yeah, if this were Denmark we'd be feeling the results of our own stupid regime change policies. Instead we talk about email servers.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 10/17/2015 - 3:58am

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Denmark

    by barefooted on Sat, 10/17/2015 - 4:59am

    So up to 57% plus a 25% Vat - rather high, but then that presumably includes their lower health care costs,while ours are company benefits or out of pocket

    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 10/17/2015 - 10:52am

    James Zogby casts doubt Democrats will offer any more mature approach to the Mideast. So far agree - think we're also infested with the same memes - the Surge, "as they stand up we'll stand down" failed Petraeus strategy, "moderate rebels", "just a little bombing's all it takes", no-flight zone as cure-all (a la Libya?), and all these other cherubic optimisms in the face of continued Mideast failure and inability to truly recognize it as related to our own counter-productive actions. People somehow even disassociate Syrian & Libyan refugees pouring into Europe as the result of our bombing, supply of arms and support for destabilizing the region.

    [I do take issue with his assertion that Hillary's AUMF vote tied to inspections 6 months before war was a full-throated support for all Bush's failures in Iraq, but it's hard to put that canard to rest, and she's not making it easier with glossing over the failures in Syria & Libya including those under her influence]


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/18/2015 - 4:02am

    If she didn't know that passage of the resolution would make war inevitable, she should have.


    by Aaron Carine on Sun, 10/18/2015 - 1:59pm

    Jesu Christ, dude, she was a fucking junior senator, she voted the same way as most of even the Democratic established senators PLUS the entire fucking UN security council a month later, and the inspections happened and the invasion still took place 6 goddamn months later. John fucking Kerry voted for, Joe fucking Biden voted for, John fucking poverty advocate Edward voted for, Barack Obama would have even voted for if he'd been a real Senator. If Bush weren't a dickhead, it wouldn't have been inevitable. Even Colin Powell lied through his ass, much less Dick Cheney and all those other cunts. why the fuck is she the only one carrying this abortion? Cause she's a chick? Cause she's a Clinton? The Iraq invasion had 90+ % support - yeah Hillary the bitch made us do that? Grow the fuck up. The Republicans had the majority and acted like a "mandate" to drive us to war. Period. Even now Republicans are hyperventilating because Trump said Bush didn't keep us safe even though obviously 9/11 and several other terrorist attacks happened under Bush. These people are incompetent malicious fuckwads yet you're laying blame on someone who wasn't even in the administration much less privy to protective information.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 10/18/2015 - 6:54pm

    Well, I was disappointed by her vote at the time and she was my representative and her choice influenced my vote for presidency afterwards but yours is an awesome rant.

    I take your point.


    by moat on Sun, 10/18/2015 - 10:00pm

    It doesn't excuse Hillary that a lot of other people voted for the resolution--they are guilty too. By October, it was pretty clear that Bush didn't want inspections; he wanted war. Everybody who voted yes should have known that they were voting for war.


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 9:01am

    Exactly and unarguably correct, Hillary owns her vote for whatever reason she made it just like we will own ours for whatever reasons we make it. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 10:35am

    Oh bother

    1) if Hillary voted no, it changed nothing, though she would be less likely to influence the inspections process

    2) glad you're such an assured mindreader, but others thought say Colin Powell and Tony Blair and other perceived adults would hold back a completely bogus war if inspections were sucfessful

    3) What was your response to the uncertainty of Hussein biochemical and missile programs in Oct 2002 post-9/11, programs that Hans Blix was sure he had until Jan 2003? Just accept the risk? Or did you agree with state senator Obama that Hussein posed 0 threat to his neighbors?

    4) were you as critical of Pro-AUMF candidates Kerry, Edwards and Biden? I don't recall it being a big issue in 2004, and when people talk about Biden running, I dont hear his AUMF record come up. Based on Obama's record in office, do you think he would have voted yes on AUMF as a US Senator?


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 11:08am

    The inspections were successful, and the bogus war came anyway. I think Hussein posed zero threat to his neighbors. His military was in ruins, and I think he knew that another attack on a neighboring country would mean another American onslaught.

    If Hillary alone had voted no, it wouldn't have changed anything. But I blame everyone who voted yes, including Kerry. "Other people did it too" is not an excuse. I don't know what Obama would have done.

    I would have accepted the risk of a chemical weapons attack rather than the certainty of an American invasion and a mess of dead Iraqis. If I can be immodest for a moment, in 2003 I predicted that there would be a long guerilla war--although I wasn't posting here back then. I don't think you had to be a mind reader to judge that Bush wanted war. His father also disregarded all the alternatives to war; he wanted a glorious victory. The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. Also, other presidents, Republicans and Democrats, had been infatuated with military violence, either directly or through proxy.

     
     


    by Aaron Carine on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:55pm

    The #1 UN weapons inspector thought Hussein had weapons, including long-range missiles to deliver them, until Jan 2003.

    You say "certainty" of a US invasion, but can you really say that in *October 2002* you saw invasion as 100% assured with the AUMF, that with the UK against the war, with the Russians pushing for a different resolution, with the UN having a vote and overseeing the inspections, with even presumably sane people in the pre-tea bag GOP that nothing was going to stop the drive to war 6 months later?

    My guess was that the whole effort was predicated on Hussein not being cooperative, in which case, I rightly didn't give a shit - post-9/11 I didn't expect us to sit around just waiting for the temperature/risk to steadily rise. I don't think most people expected we'd stare down a successful inspection & still ram an invasion through, and that none of our checks and balances would halt that self-destructive maliciousness.

    " "Other people did it too" is not an excuse."  - no, but you haven't given a reason why your prediction had to be perfect. That many of our smartest people chose this same way wasn't just lock-step eager fanaticism - it was a lot of people evaluating the situation and thinking that was the best or least-worst path at the moment given all the options. Did we have any indication of the disastrous first 2 weeks and looting and complete lack of planning? That was pretty unprecedented - maybe you had a crystal ball. Maybe you knew Bremer'd send all the Ba'ath officers onto the street and start a civil war, but I didn't see that in the October AUMF 7 months earlier - maybe you got a different pre-release than I did.

    And I don't get your logic re: Bush Sr. - he specifically chose not to do a ground war into Iraq, and let the war end instead of chasing the Iraqis back to Baghdad. So you truly have that one muffed. Perhaps you think it's fine to just let Iraq take Kuwait as well - I'm losing your logic unless it's just all pacifism, stay out of war and deal with the consequences. War by definition is someone screwing up or intentionally bypassing diplomacy - but it happens all the time, much as people try to avoid it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 2:13am

    No matter how many excuses you (or she) come up with and now matter how many f and s-bombs you throw out, Clinton's vote in support of the Bush-Cheney war was inexcusable.


    by HSG on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:05pm

    Well, no Hal, I gave an example of the excuses - e.g. some people have to take foreign threats seriously, and some people don't have the luxury of sitting in a cafe taking the idealistic position when there are assholes occupying all the various sides of the fence.  Considering the number of international diplomats who took the exact same position, it's just weirdly typically oblivious of you to say the  vote is "inexcusable". You might as well just say "I'm right, you're wrong, pthhhhtt". It might be judged a mistake if some effort is made to describe what specifically was the mistake. I knew Bush was a moron who wanted to avenge Daddy at the time, but there was more to the situation than just that. If you ignore context, you can prove pretty much anything.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:27pm

    hahahaha, pthhhhth!  Where is Dick Day when you need him? Excellent comment, worthy of the daily award.

    I agree with your position here and don't mean to weaken it by a lesser example. But even if we assumed Bush was a screw-up, who in the world at that time could have imagined a 10 minute meeting with Bremer, plus a work out in the gym, and boot-guy waltzes off to deconstruct Iraq without any formal plan from Dub. 

    In any case, Biden is about to enter the race so we should brush up on that plagiarism scandal.  

     


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:41pm

    Good artists copy, great artists steal? oh, sorry, that's running the counter direction. I'm horrified, just horrified that a politician could put someone else's words in his/her own mouth except those from a speechwriter, a sugar daddy or major PAC pulling his/her strings or a litany of obligatory policy positions required by each party's voters to be seen as "authentic". Joe, how could you get caught? You've unleashed a thousand op-eds (looking all vaguely similar) - feel the shame.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:55pm

    Worry about the next war the Republicans will start not the last. Hillary has the best chance to beat them, that's why they have spent 3 years attacking her.  


    by NCD on Sun, 10/18/2015 - 10:48pm

    Nope.  Just as they spent years before 2008 bashing her because they thought she'd be the candidate, they have now been tearing her down because they think she'll be the candidate not necessarily because they think she'll be the best candidate.


    by HSG on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:05pm

    Which Republican do you think can beat Hillary Clinton?


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 2:34pm

    TPM notes an Alabama GOP congressman is already talking about her impeachment.

    I love Bernie but a white haired old socialist would be destroyed by hundreds of millions of before the vote GOP connected swiftboating TeeVee ads.


    by NCD on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 3:10pm

    Applying for conscientious objector status might be a start. How can such a person be a Commander in Chief.


    by Oxy Mora on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 7:54pm

    The GOP would attack Sanders as an anti-American tax and spend liberal who would submit America to Sharia law,  or worse, with his record CO etc. They would make it all very scary. He would probably do better than McGovern who won 1 state but much worse than Kerry, both war heroes but swiftboated by the usual right wing deep pocketed creeps.


    by NCD on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 1:12am

    You know Ocean this is pretty good.

    As a matter of fact, this is real gooooooooood.

    Thank you.

    I am sorry I am late.

    I really cannot bitch about anything here.

    Good blog.


    by Richard Day on Mon, 10/19/2015 - 6:32pm

    Thanks richard. I don't blog much since I don't think I'm very good at it. I think I'm better at debating in the comment section. So it's nice to know someone appreciates my small effort at blogging.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 1:01am

    Your effort isn't small at all. Sometimes a good debate needs a start.

    You're a wonderfully bombastic commentator who draws attention - use it and post more often!


    by barefooted on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 1:58am

    Confidence

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 2:20am

    Where's yours? Your style isn't much different than ocean's.


    by barefooted on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 2:28am

    Peracles is not being mean here.

    And by the way, I thank you for giving our friend some praise.

    Without you and my other friends, I would not blog at all.

    You are a gem Missy but so is Peracles.

    We have good people here and Ocean is also a gem.

    Thank you.


    by Richard Day on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 2:34am

    I didn't think Peracles was being mean. I was actually trying to softly push them both to blog more often because they have so much to say!


    by barefooted on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 3:11am

    I was thinking about this.

    Both have 'Attacked me'.hahahahaha

    And I enjoyed it, for the most part.

    And you are correct.

    Both should blog more.

    We need to get our numbers up.

    And Ocean has done that today!


    by Richard Day on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 3:18am

    Ocean size

     

     

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 4:45am

    I don't blog much since I don't think I'm very good at it.

    Bullshit. You're an excellent blogger. (Oxy told me to say that.)

    Seriously though, you are and you should blog more. So should Oxy.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 8:28pm

    Well thanks everyone. But enough. Really. You're destroying my grumpy confrontational rep. Next thing you know people will start expecting me to be nice too.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 10/20/2015 - 10:55pm

    Oxy is lonely and wants us all to "say so".

    Just .sayin'


    by LisB on Wed, 10/21/2015 - 12:32am

    What? No, Lis. No.


    by barefooted on Wed, 10/21/2015 - 1:36am