Category: Old Dish

Here’s an interesting little nugget from the RNC’s attack sheet on John Edwards. One of their points on which Edwards allegedly “doesn’t share the priorities of American families” is the following:

Edwards Said States Should Decide Civil Unions Status.
“Palmieri said Edwards believes states should decide whether to allow civil unions, a legal status conveying many of the same benefits as marriage, that was first recognized in Vermont during the tenure of Gov. Howard Dean, a 2004 presidential rival.” – Raleigh News and Observer.

So it’s now Republican policy that states should have no right to regulate the question of even civil unions? Maybe they should just be clear and put in their platform that any liberal states that want to pass laws that might displease the religious right should be denied the right to enact such laws. Why not a constitutional amendment to that effect? Oh, wait …

BLOGS AND CIVILITY: Why don’t I have a comments section? Dan Drezner explains.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: “[Michael Moore] says that the whole of American foreign policy is determined by the Saudi Arabian royal family. Now, the Bush administration has been to war with two of Saudi Arabia’s friends. The Taliban, who they helped to impose in Afghanistan, and the government of Saddam Hussein, which they regarded as their buffer state against the Shia. The actual history is exactly the opposite of what Moore’s paranoid suggestions are. He openly says that he believes that the other side of this war, the Islamic jihad, torturers, saboteurs, beheaders and fanatics and murderers are the equivalent to the American Minutemen. So welcome to his contribution to the 4th of July celebration. The man is openly on the other side in this war, and the film shows it in every frame.” – Hitch, on CNN, telling it like it is. Actually, I think Moore may be objectively on the side of the Jihadists. But subjectively, he simply loathes American market capitalism more than Islamist fundamentalism. This mindset is structural. It was the same in “Roger and Me.” And like all ideologies, it is resistant to any new data. So the threat of Jihadist terrorists using weapons of mass destruction is unimportant to Moore compared with outsourcing or the nefarious Bushes or evil corporate America. Those are his priorities. Nothing changed on September 11 for Moore. He has simply used that tragedy to pursue his ancient objectives. And they are a terrible, cynical distraction from the war on terror. In other words, Moore is guilty of the fundamental charge he has leveled against this president.

Some intransitive permutations of a transitive verb.

This is what the Republicans have prepared on Edwards. A sign of things to come.

I’m not the only one to notice John Derbyshire’s psycho-sexual obsessions.

“Let’s see if I have this right. Kerry needed to pick Edwards because he’s “uplifting” and Kerry is not. Edwards’ positions are problems, but he’s a decent man? How about what’s right for the country. No, Andrew, Kerry failed the first test of leadership by simply abdicating it. What Bush did in 2000 was select a man who would add to his ticket and credibility, but stay in the background while Bush took his shot at convincing us he should be president; whereas what Kerry has done is choose someone who will be front-and-center carrying his water for him.

And if, as Saletan says, Edwards is being chosen because he can do what Kerry can’t, sell himself, then how on earth is Kerry going to be able to sell his policy positions to a hostile Congress or, heaven forbid, US positions to friend and foe abroad? This pick screams that Kerry knows he’s toast. And once the public figures out that John Edwards makes great speeches but has nothing else, Kerry’s unique position as the man no one outside of the strictest partisans wants to elect, will be self-evident. The betting here has to be that this won’t get figured out until the second week of November. Pathetic and self-absorbed choice, completely ignoring what is best for the country (a sober, experienced and competent Gephardt), and placing this country’s national security a distant second in the list of priorities. Frankly, I think this makes the Bush/Cheney point about them being best qualified to fight this war quite well. It’s not so much that they don’t think anyone else is qualified, just that the Democrats aren’t. Today Kerry proved it.

It comes down to this: As good a story-teller as Edwards may be, is that reason enough to put him into a position where he’s one accident away from the Oval Office? In a way, Kerry has actually selected a clone of himself in that form is more important than function.

The Democrats delude themselves if they think this will help Kerry pick-up states in the South. Edwards can’t reelected in his own state. Kerry has never frightened me in the way Al Gore did. As much as I want to see Bush reelected, I thought I could live with Kerry – until now. This choice is not just bad strategically and tactically, but psychologically insightful. John Kerry does not believe he is good enough to win this race. What more needs to be said?” – more feedback on the Letters Page.

Chait nails it:

Not having listened to Kerry speak since the primaries, I was surprised how awful and meandering his speech was. Even worse, it was politically tone-deaf. When discussing America’s role in the world, he put the emphasis on restoring alliances rather than keeping America safe and strong. He’s inviting the Republicans to translate his remarks into, “He won’t go to war without permission from France.” He also had a riff about investing in education rather than spending the money on prisons. That sounded very much like a belief that prisons come at the expense of education. (In truth, criminals prey mainly on the poor. Keeping criminals off the streets allows poor kids the safety they need to have some chance at getting ahead.) Substance aside, I think Clinton showed pretty clearly that the right political message for Democrats is to be tough on crime. What made Kerry’s departure from the Clinton pattern all the more striking is that there was nothing about prisons in the prepared text. It was all ad-libbed. Talk about bad instincts.

Right now, the profound weakness of Kerry’s candidacy – the man himself – has been obscured. Edwards is a perfect way both to keep it that way and to sell the positive aspects of the idea of a Kerry presidency (rather than the tedious, uninspiring reality). Again: a very smart pick.

Saletan makes a very shrewd observation about what Edwards will actually do for Kerry. He’ll sell a man who cannot sell himself. Money quote:

So this was the dilemma: Edwards was the best salesman, but Kerry was the best product. If you had to choose one or the other, I thought it was more important to pick the salesman, since the consequences of losing the election were far more serious than the consequences of electing the less qualified Democrat. The logic made sense, but the premise was mistaken. Democrats didn’t have to choose. They could get the best product along with the best salesman, if Kerry had the wisdom to pick Edwards.

The primaries did, actually, do the Dems a service.

Now posted to the left. Yes, I clambered out of the hammock. One on the fate of Jack Ryan, one on John Kerry’s upward flight, and one on the conflict between federalism and civil rights. I also have a new piece in Time on the parallels between Mel Gibson and Michael Moore (but it’s subscriber only).

The Independent’s Robert Fisk does his bit for the Baathists by disclosing the identity of the judge who is presiding over Saddam’s trial. Now the guy fears for his life. Whatever it takes to prevent democracy in Iraq. Whatever it takes … (Hat tip: Black Triangle.)

Well, this is just what I had hoped for – and it’s easily the best choice available to Kerry, who now passes his first presidential judgment test. Edwards is uplifting, while Kerry is a downer; he can touch the Democrats’ heart, not just their minds and their wallets; he’s fresh and youthful in a way that will only contrast sharply with Cheney; he can speak – and we need more in politics who have his kind of rhetorical skill; he’s positive, which is important in a rancid political atmosphere. Substantively, I don’t like his background among the trial lawyers, nor his protectionism. But I’ve come to think of him as a decent man, who shied from the easy snarl in the primaries, and who believes in this country’s promise in ways that some on the left have lost touch with. He’s the anti-bitterness candidate. And his presence will change the dynamic. The trouble with Bush’s and Cheney’s fundamental position – you cannot trust anyone else to wage this war – is that it must inevitably conjure fear and danger. Americans also like broad grins and happy futures. Edwards will give them plenty.