Category: Old Dish

I didn’t think a huge amount of his speech as a work of rhetoric. Because his “two-America” riff had been chopped up for time constraints, it never quite caught fire the way it did in the primaries. But as politics, it was powerful. Edwards couldn’t afford to be too good, in case he overshadow the big guy. And the speech had the important effect of showing Edwards to be someone who actually cares about ordinary people, an area where, to put it kindly, John Forbes Kerry is not terribly accomplished. Elizabeth Edwards is also a major asset: smart, self-made, empathetic. (I’m particularly impressed by how both of them have maintained what appears to be such a good marriage. You cannot help but respect anyone who keeps a marriage together after losing a child. It’s one of the hardest things on earth.) It doesn’t hurt that Elizabeth is a little on the heavy side either. Hey, someone has to look like America. But the speech itelf was remarkable for one single reason – and it’s the same reason I’ve been banging on about since this infomercial began on Monday. Edwards gave an immensely tough, hawkish pro-war speech. They really are pulling a Kennedy in 1960. One passage stood out, resplendent:

We will lead strong alliances. We will safeguard and secure our weapons of mass destruction. We will strengthen our homeland security, protect our ports, protect our chemical plants, and support our firefighters, police officers, EMTs. We will always… We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe.
And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

(By way of comparison, here’s what yours truly, a pro-war neocon, proposed Kerry should say last Sunday night:

To the murderers of al Qaeda, let me say this. Do not even begin to interpret a Democratic victory as some sign that we will acquiesce to your murderous intent and nihilist politics. In the war against Jihadism, there is no Democrat or Republican. There is simply American. We will unite to defeat you and to secure our country.)

But there was more. Edwards committed his party to victory in Iraq:

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq’s neighbors, like Syria and Iran, don’t stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq’s economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people. We can do it for our own soldiers. And we will get this done right.
A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it a stable Iraq, a real chance for freedom and peace in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel.

Howard Dean may spin that as a way to bring troops home. But Edwards also pledged more troops and more defense spending as a whole. I fail to see how Joe Lieberman could quibble with much that was in Edwards’ address.

BUSH VERSUS UNITY: Edwards was also smart to bring together two important themes of this convention: unity and war. Here’s the critical passage:

The truth is, the truth is that what John and I want, what all of us want if for our children and our grandchildren to be the first generations that grown up in an America that’s no longer divided by race. We must build one America. We must be one America, strong and united for another very important reason: because we are at war.

It seems to me that a major and legitimate criticism of president Bush is that a successful war-president does not split his own nation into two. But Bush’s hard-knuckled politics, his inability to reconcile with the Democrats, or with recalcitrant allies, or to reach out to those who disagree with him, have led to a deepening divide. Some of this is not his fault. Some of it was fostered by the left. But the Democrats have at least had the good sense to see this as a weakness and to promote themselves in a positive fashion as a unifying force. And it remains true that no president who truly took the responsibility of wartime seriously would be approving semi-legal gerry-mandering in Texas, or brutal campaigning in the mid-terms, or a constituional amendment to marginalize an entire minority. But Bush and Rove made that choice; and now they face the consequences.

Domestically, I also thought Edwards was able to offer traditional Democratic support for the less fortunate without engaging in sour leftist resentment. I’m always moved by white Southern men of a certain generation who can also speak so effectively about civil rights. Not all of them have come around so passionately. And he balanced his big=spending with an honest description of how he’ll pat for it:

And everybody listening here and at home is thinking one thing right now: OK, how are you going to pay for it? Right?
Well, let me tell you how we’re going to pay for it. And I want to be very clear about this. We are going to keep and protect the tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans — 98 percent. We’re going to roll back — we’re going to roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And we’re going to close corporate loopholes.

I’d rather cut spending. But I’m not a Democrat. And the Democrats can now claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility that the GOP, under Bush and Hastert and Frist, has abandoned. It will be hard for Bush to defend the tax cuts for the very rich in a debate, especially one framed this way by the Democrats.

THE GOP DILEMMA: How can Bush respond to this increasingly effective message? His only real choice is to say what the Republican machine has been saying: don’t believe them. They’re liars and liberals who will sell out the war and our military as soon as they get the chance. Or, as some readers often inform me, a vote for Kerry will be a vote for annihilation at the hands of terrorists. Or they will keep going back to Kerry’s record. None of this is out of bounds, but I don’t think it’s very effective. The trouble is that this line of attack comes across as so negative, as rooted in fear rather than hope. What Edwards accomplished last night was to make the Dems seem like the optimists in this race – those unafraid of the dangers of the world, happy warriors, if you will. And Ronald Reagan proved that optimism wins in American politics. What Bush has to do, I think, is not take the bait and go even more negative. He must point to progress in Iraq and Afghanistan and remind people who made that possible. If things deteriorate, of course, then Bush really is up a creek. And the dour Cheney up against sunny Edwards won’t help. But again, Edwards played a strong and canny card last night. This campaign, whatever else it is, is intelligent and determined. I’ve long believed that the result of this election will not be close. Either Bush will be re-elected decisively or he will lose decisively. The odds on the latter just shortened again.

Dammit, I missed him.

FISKING TERESA: She’s now clearly a liability. Here’s why.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “As few as five people in black robes can look at a particular issue and determine for the rest of us, insinuate for the rest of us that they are speaking as the majority will. They are not.” – Rep. John Hostettler, the Republican who authored the bill that would strip federal courts of the right to consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. But, of course, it could also be said about the five Supreme Court Justices who made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The Republicans love courts when they reach the right decision; they just despise them when they don’t.

RAINES WATCH: An interesting correction on the Washington Post editorial page yesterday:

The July 27 op-ed column by Howell Raines misspelled the last name of David Kusnet and incorrectly said he was a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter. Kusnet worked for President Bill Clinton.

Carter. Clinton. They were both Democrats, right?

Jon Chait confirms how unhip it is to go to Boston and reports on the DNC from his armchair.

The Onion asks some ordinary Americans.

A reader makes an obvious point:

In the entry about the Simpsons character that will be coming out of the closet, you forgot Principal Skinner, who appears to be the obvious (and best) choice. Principal Skinner is a well respected professional male in his mid 40s. He is single (and has never had a serious relationship that we know of), and lives at home with his mother. Like many closeted homosexuals who struggle with their sexual orientation before coming out, Principal Skinner was caught hooking up with Ms. Edna Krabappel, a divorced and desperate co-worker (anyone else’s gaydar would have instantly picked up on Skinner’s secret). Moreover, he proposed marriage to Selma, Marge’s sister, who is obviously a lesbian. His attraction to women is clearly a facade, designed to be an elaborate lie to both fool the community and perhaps even continue to deny his true sexuality.
Moreover, Principal Skinner is obsessed with his image. He sits for endless sessions where his mother sketches his silhouette, and then he tacks the images all around his house. Additionally, he is a very neat and tidy person, always looking presentable and well-kempt, attributes that straight men of his age and situation do not usually personify.
In sum, Andrew, it has becomes obvious that you ignored the most clear-cut choice when predicting which character will come out of the closet. Moreover, given his persuasion as a white, middle-aged, educated man, homosexual man, I would ask that you recommend Principal Skinner for honorary membership in the Log Cabin Republicans.

Sounds a lot like David Souter to me.

Could it be Chief Wiggum? The evidence is out there, a reader informs me:

From the Beer Baron episode:

Banner (Robert Stack-like incoming police chief): Well, what are you waiting for? Somebody to kiss you goodbye?
Wiggum (wistfully): Well… no, no, no… I guess not…

From the episode where Ned’s wife dies:

(Homer prepares a video promoting Ned Flanders’ availability:)
Homer: But don’t take my word for it. Listen to this testimonial.
Wiggum: [on tape] Oh I would date Ned in a second if I was a woman or gay. He looks like a cuddler, that Ned. I, I like that. I like to be held, I like to be pampered.

From the Marge on the lam episode:

Wiggum: Aw, just get one of those inflatable women. But make sure it’s a woman, though, because one time I … heh.

And wiggum, of course, is a trendy homo: he’s a bear! Some Simpsons enthusiast has even put together all the gay references in the series. You can find it here. For the record, it’s probably Patty Bouvier.

“Don’t apologize for your response to the Monday night program of speakers at the DNC. You got the big story, while most others did not. Kerry has adopted the tone and content of the pro-war liberals, and has gotten to the center first. It’s the real news of the convention, and was neither altogether predictable, nor inevitable. And he is able to impose that discipline on the Democratic party. The Republicans deride the seriousness of Kerry’s choice, preferring to call it a “makeover.” The Democrats prefer not to think about it very seriously since many don’t actually agree with the choice. Only someone like yourself, who is ideologically independent, actually saw with clarity what happened. Your companions on the right make fun of you for being naive. Tell them to shove it.” More feedback on the Letters Page.

THANKS: A sincere and deep word of thanks to all of you who have contributed so far in this pledge week. By being so positive about the Democrats this week, I haven’t exactly picked the smartest moment to ask for support. But, hey, I figure if you like this blog, it cannot be because you agree with me all the time. I’ve yet to find a single reader who does. So thanks for your open minds and generosity. It has helped keep this completely independent website running for over four years now – an achievement for the new medium in itself. If you haven’t donated yet, and would like to, the details are here.

Someone is due to come out on the Simpsons this season, according to its producers. Who will it be? It cannot be Waylon Smithers: he’s already out. Patty, Marge’s sister? Carl, Homer’s workplace buddy? Jimbo, Bart’s school bully? My own favorite: Groundskeeper Willie. No straight man has that good a body at his age. Dark horse: Ned Flanders. He’s a born-again with a very well-manicured mustache. Hmmm. Any other suggestions?

THE CRAWFORD WIVES: A below-the-belt but relatively amusing NARAL ad.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Europeans mock American religiosity. But American religion, for all its attendant idiocies and cruelties, has never prevented Americans from acting pragmatically. Secular Western European intellectuals, however, have their own version of religion. It is a social-democratic religion that deifies international organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and, above all, the U.N. Not NATO, which is about waging war, and which has for that reason been the target of much European criticism in recent years; no, the NGOs are about waging peace, love, brotherhood, and solidarity, and, as such, are, for the elites of Western Europe, beyond criticism, for they embody Western Europe’s most cherished idea of itself and of the way the world works, or should work. The elites’ enthusiasm for these institutions, whether or not they are genuinely effective or even admirable, is a matter of maintaining a certain self-image and illusion of the world that is intimately tied up with their identity as social democrats; America’s unforgivable offense, as Kagan notes, is that it challenges that image and that illusion; and the degree to which the reality of America is distorted in the Western European media is a measure of the desperate need among Western European elites to preserve that self-image and illusion.” – from Bruce Bawer’s excellent review-essay, “Hating America.”

GOP GAY-BAITING: Check out the top right-hand picture of Edwards and Kerry on this Republican site, challenging the Democratic convention. They make it look as if Edwards and Kerry are about to lip-lock. This has been a mild tactic so far, but it’s getting blatant. And it’s another indication that gay-baiting is now a central plank of the GOP.

I’ve been reading the blogs from the actual convention and I have to sya they’re telling me nothing new or interesting. Here’s a particularly desperate missive from Reason’s usually excellent blog, trying to find something to write about:

One Exceedingly Trivial Thing You Probably Didn’t Know About Larry King. He doesn’t walk, he sashays — left hand on hip, pinkie and ring-finger sticking out at dramatic angles, as he swivel-shoulders down the hallway with his jacket collar half flipped up. Looks like a 70-year-old former Teddy Boy who is very comfortable with his feminine side.

Sooo glad I know that. In Boston, hacks outnumber delegates by four to one. Mickey is reduced to quoting cab drivers. Jonah is writing about his hotel. What a complete waste of time and money. Look, I think these conventions should be televised for two hours a night on the networks. Both political parties should have a chance to present themselves and their candidates as effectively as possible. But the notion that being there has any real journalistic merit is preposterous. Next time, the bloggers should save the money and switch to C-Span.

GAYS FOR BUSH: Finally, an argument that made me turn my head:

It amazes me that you have become so disturbed by the Republican rhetorical attacks that you are throwing away strategy in favor of useless emotional retribution. Every recent extremist Republican maneuver against gays has served only to assist the gay rights agenda. Whether it be the anti-gay anti-sodomy state laws that were overturned or the rejection of a vote on the FMA. The conservatives are aiding the gay cause by creating a legal paper trail of defeats for their side.
Additionally, having radical anti-gay conservatives polarizes Americans in favor of gay rights. Not to sound too much like the Shining Path, but creating a vastly unfair current situation can be a faster method of eventually reaching the goal of fairness than patching up the inequity with half solutions (civil unions.) Separate but equal had a very long life span in race relations; we don’t want the same to happen with gay rights. Supporting democrats who support the ‘separate but equal’ standard is a step back in achieving equality.

I think this reader has a point. Gays have two options: a party that despises their civil rights and a party that takes gay votes for granted. There are risks on both sides. But when you have people like Rick Santorum leading the crusade against gay dignity, gays win. When someone like Bush appears to be coming from the 1950s in his attitudes toward gays, gays win. The danger is that these people actually get things passed – stripping gays of civil rights, of the right to form private contracts, of the right to serve their country, penalizing people with HIV in immigration law, and so on. But their extremism is so palpable that they often fail and their prejudice is so obvious that they turn moderates off. Clinton, on the other hand, made anti-gay discrimination acceptable – by signing DOMA (while he was committing adultery!), by doubling the rate of gay discharges from the military, by making HIV-positive immigrants illegal, and so on. I have similar worries about Kerry. But I’m not sure a gay person can risk the damage the Republicans would do to gay lives, security and civil rights. Bush clearly wants to deny gay couples any legal protection for their relationships, and will never stray from the dictates of James Dobson and Rick Santorum on the issue. It would take an awful amount of cynicism to reward that.