He tells the truth about what Bush and Cheney believe. Asked in Iowa last night whether he believed that waterboarding was torture, he replied:
It depends on who does it.
If the Khmer Rouge does it, it’s torture. If the United States does it, it’s not. This man cannot be allowed to be president of the United States. He believes that the United States is above morals and the president of the United States is above the law. He is a tyrant to the depths of his being.
An interesting analysis, worth reading in full. The bottom line:
Obama and his Democratic rivals have their work cut out for them in trying to defeat Clinton for the Democratic nomination. The fact that Clinton leads not only among Democrats nationwide but also among every key Democratic subgroup makes targeting one’s campaign efforts a challenge. Obama’s relatively strong appeal to black and young Democrats is somewhat of a double-edged sword, because those groups are usually among the least likely to turn out to vote. But Obama’s ability to inspire people may help him capitalize on his strengths among these groups. His relatively weak support among older Democrats (and older Americans) is somewhat of a liability, because this is one of the groups most likely to vote.
Should Obama survive the Democratic primaries, he may be fairly well positioned to win the presidency, given his relatively high favorable ratings and a political environment that currently advantages the Democratic Party.
Yeah, Mr President, you’re right about that. Including Guantanamo Bay. Another blogger is more generous:
Did he introduce any great new measure that will lead directly to the fall of the regime? No, not really. But he explained what needs to happen for that fall to happen. The free world needs to rally around the opposition in Cuba. Did he say anything new? Not really. Everything he said has been said on this blog and others and in other venues at some point or another. But periodically you need a reaffirmation, a charge to the old batteries.
…
You’ll remember that in 1987, with only slightly more time left in office than President Bush has now, that Reagan’s speech was not considered to be earth-shattering. Especially by his critics. The imminent end of the Soviet Union was not an event that many were forecasting. But today, that speech stands as one of Reagan’s finest moments. When he reiterated to the world what they already knew but were unwilling to recognize. That freedom must triumph over tyranny and that the United States would always stand on the side of freedom.
You don’t need Amazon’s cool, nerdy word-stats features to know that. They’re unreadable. Amazon shows you how, and Steven Johnson explains:
The two stats that I found totally fascinating were "Average Words Per Sentence" and "% Complex Words," the latter defined as words with three or more syllables — words like "ameliorate", "protoplasm" or "motherf***er."
Drum-roll:
Check out Foucault and Jameson. They are literally on another planet. The top spot goes to Jameson’s "Postmodernism" book which I read like scripture my first year of grad school: 53 words per sentence! Interestingly, most of the variation shows up in sentence length not in word complexity — you often hear people complain about the impenetrable jargon of critical theory, but it looks here like the sentence length is as least as much of a culprit.
The amount of brain cells wasted reading impenetrable bullshit artists like Jameson! Here are the results for Virtually Normal. Uh-oh. Per word, my anthology on same-sex marriage is a better bargain.
On the support-the-troops question:
I have no use for the support of people who uncritically assume that, since we’re at war, it’s their duty to support it in order to help the troops. History is replete with examples of troops getting the shaft during wartime, and the only way to protect them against that is through critical thought. You can oppose the war without opposing the troops; people do that every day. I would much prefer the support of people who have examined the war, found it wanting, and seek to bring me home than those who will continue mindlessly beating the war drum regardless of the circumstances on the ground. (Please note that my own position on the war remains one of principled uncertainty.)
The sooner people realize that critical thinking is an asset rather than a liability, the better off we will all be.
Critical thinking? Tell that to Reynolds/Malkin/Limbaugh. Critical thinking is for MSM traitors.
The latest twist in campaign finance reform lunacy. The Ankle-Biter vents here.
Domestically, John Hawkins says it’s a third term for Bush:
Would Huckabee be a strong, socially conservative candidate for the GOP in 2008 with an excellent chance of beating Hillary? Yes, he would. In the last 9 elections — at a minimum — the more likable candidate has won and Huckabee beats Hillary hands down in that category. Also, the fact that he’s a governor, not a Washington insider, would also be a huge advantage. If you ask me who is more electable in a general election, Huckabee, Romney, or Rudy, I’d take Huckabee over either of them by a good margin. Given that the war on terror and the Supreme Court will be hanging in the balance, electability is no small thing.
However, the downside of Huckabee is that he’s essentially George Bush with charisma when it comes to domestic issues. He is not a small government guy or a fiscal conservative, he doesn’t seem to be a movement conservative, and he’s not someone who can be trusted to be tough on illegal immigration.
On foreign policy, we’re talking Bush in 1999.
Well, in this case, that might be optimistic. More proof that the Japanese are among the weirdest people on the planet: a series of animated shorts for some baby-dolls. You can view the rest here. If I were you, I wouldn’t click on the one whose head looks like brown soft-serve ice-cream. That’s not the analogy they had in mind. This one is just creepy – babies body-building until their lats pop.
RedState defends its decision to bar future posters from supporting Ron Paul:
Erickson thinks that they’re a human political cocktail of Code Pink activists and Neo Nazis, and he doesn’t expect them to vote for anyone other than Paul.
All thinks that a lot of them are those who buy into Paul’s message of limited government and fiscal responsibility.
I don’t think I qualify as a Neo-Nazi or a Code Pink activist. Full Wired story here. But here’s a simple message to Ron Paul supporters. You’re welcome here. The Dish believes in expanding the range of debate among conservatives, not crushing it. And any cursory look at the degenerate state of American conservatism would not lead you to think your problem is too much diversity of opinion.
Niche-blogging at its best: a blog devoted to isolating and examining every time a candidate says s/he’s "the only one" to do or have done something. Most of the quotes are bullshit, of course. But this is politics.
The Dish 