Skip

You Opportunity To Jump For Joy At the Defeat of a Dreadful, Icky, Arguably EVIL person.
August 20, 2002 8:26 PM   Subscribe


 
Oh. Did I forget vile?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:27 PM on August 20, 2002


I love everything and everybody.

That is all.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:30 PM on August 20, 2002


And we're supposed to be excited that the lizard otherwise known as John Linder won?
posted by alms at 8:34 PM on August 20, 2002


And, across the aisle, Cynthia McKinney trails 80% to 20%.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:35 PM on August 20, 2002


And we're supposed to be excited that the lizard otherwise known as John Linder won?

Well, you have a point...still, I'll take it.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:42 PM on August 20, 2002


At least it's good to know his Clinton bashing escapades had a fairly short half-life.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:43 PM on August 20, 2002


Paris, I thought you were dreadful, icky and arguably evil. Now I'm confused.
posted by goethean at 8:44 PM on August 20, 2002


just be thankful this isn't an i/p thread.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:53 PM on August 20, 2002


No, Paris is dreadful, evil and arguably icky. Let's not get our adjectives out of order.

To recap:

Barr = dreadful, icky, arguably evil
Paris = dreadful, evil, arguably icky
Crash = evil, icky, arguably dreadlocked

And donkeyschlong, it is an I/P thread.

Incumbents Punted.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:55 PM on August 20, 2002


Wow. I'm surprised. Happily surprised, but still surprised. I didn't realize the race was that close. Yeah, they're both lizards--during a recent debate I laughed like hell as each one of them tried to accuse the other of being a bigger pawn of the "homosexual movement"--but Barr's been working on his karma for years. Now I'd like to see him join Newt Gingrich and finish that long delayed remake of Ishtar.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:59 PM on August 20, 2002


So what does that make foldy?
posted by goethean at 8:59 PM on August 20, 2002


Great, and it looks like Cynthia McKinney just might lose as well.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:03 PM on August 20, 2002


Although, this doesn't mean Barr is just going to roll over, he will probably try to get a high profile appointment within the Bush administration, or maybe a run for Senator.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:08 PM on August 20, 2002


Yes, the logic of Republicans voting against the more liberal Democrat to allow the more moderate-and-therefore-likely-to-win Democrat a victory in the primary. Coming up next: Ralph Nader makes my head explode some more.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:13 PM on August 20, 2002


Thanks SeƱor Crash. Now go spend eternity kissing Yasser.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:15 PM on August 20, 2002


insomnyuk, I recommend that Barr run for Senate against a dead man, and lose, if he wants a high-level Bush appointment.
posted by macrone at 9:16 PM on August 20, 2002


"Now go spend eternity kissing Yasser."

Now that's an awful thing to say. Yasser's beard scratches and he rarely flosses.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:25 PM on August 20, 2002


I never liked Barr, but it's worth taking a moment to note that Congress has just lost one of its most vocal privacy advocates.

Btw, the accusation that McKinney used an ancient Republican trick to discourage Democrat (read: black) voters from going to the polls -- calling them on the phone with vague warnings of federal crimes if they voted "without proper documentation" -- is completely disgusting.
posted by mediareport at 9:33 PM on August 20, 2002


What's disgusting mediareport, the accusations that McKinney did it or that it happened? Someone put those calls out.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:51 PM on August 20, 2002


With little to distinguish themselves on issues or ideology, the race featured more of an emphasis on style.

Terrific.

Barr is indeed odious. But the new guy hardly seems any better. But, I'll take it on faith that he's not as completely awful as Barr.

What happened to the libertarian candidate? Did her ads have any effect?
posted by mrhappy at 9:52 PM on August 20, 2002


mrhappy: this was the primary election, the general election isn't until november
posted by reverendX at 10:01 PM on August 20, 2002


If Linder is arguably only slightly better as a candidate than Barr how is the cheering little more than personality bashing over substantive political debate? Grow up and support your candidate of choice effectively and leave the <voice="nelson"> ha! ha! </voice> on the playground.
posted by yonderboy at 10:27 PM on August 20, 2002


XQUZYPHYR: well, McKinney won the last two elections, so it's not clear that a more moderate Democrat is more likely to win the general election. If the Republican challenger is going to be a sacrifical lamb in any event, defeating McKinney in the primary was a major victory for the GOP.
posted by jaek at 10:42 PM on August 20, 2002


yonderboy: If Linder is arguably only slightly better as a candidate than Barr how is the cheering little more than personality bashing...?

Because Barr was visible on the national stage as one of the leaders of the Clinton impeachment, his defeat has echos nationally (if not locally in his district) as a defeat for the rabid right. This is an effect of perception, akin to market momentum versus fundamentals. Momentum makes a difference in elections because people like to vote for winners.
posted by alms at 11:05 PM on August 20, 2002


And Cynthia McKinney is gone as well! We here in Georgia will be partying today.
posted by Hall at 2:32 AM on August 21, 2002


Btw, the accusation that McKinney used an ancient Republican trick to discourage Democrat (read: black) voters from going to the polls ...

How could that be called an "ancient Republican trick," when there were no Republicans in the South from Reconstruction until the Reagan years? As a Texas native, I'm offended that you have robbed Southern Democrats of their achievements in this area.
posted by rcade at 5:20 AM on August 21, 2002


How could that be called an "ancient Republican trick," when there were no Republicans in the South from Reconstruction until the Reagan years?

Well, 'ancient' meaning going back to the early 70s, when those Southern Democrats left the party in droves to become Republicans. :) Supporters of former Democrat Jesse Helms (he switched parties in '72, I believe) used a similar tactic in 1996. I seriously doubt a black woman's campaign was the one behind what I'm sure was a racist stunt in Georgia.

I honestly don't know much about McKinney except that she was one of the few Congresscritters to speak up about the Palestinian situation in a way that pissed off AIPAC, the conservative American Jewish lobby that doesn't tolerate the kind of debate about the Occupied Territories that you actually get in, uh, Israel itself. To me, that was a huge plus and I'm sorry to see her gone. Congress will now be even less likely to put any meaningful pressure on Israel to negotiate a meaningful peace rather than continue down the road to permanent occupation and forced eviction of the Palestinian people from their land. More horrible, unjustified violence on both sides will follow.

McKinney was also one of the loudest voices calling for an independent investigation into Sept. 11, wasn't she? I don't get it, Georgians. I gather she was seen as wacky by some who thought her suggestion that high-level officials ignored warnings about the attacks was beyond the pale, but is the defeat of someone who'd dare to suggest such a thing really worth all this cheering? Are you really more concerned with Georgia's image than the courage of a lone dissenter? Or is there more to McKinney that I don't know about?

[oh, insomnyuk, "accusation" is the noun that "disgusting" refers to.]
posted by mediareport at 6:38 AM on August 21, 2002


McKinney gets much of her campaign money from foreign nationals, specifically arabs. That may have had something to do with it, along with her father's screeds against the "J-E-W-S" who were sabotaging his daughter's campaign.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:00 AM on August 21, 2002


Well, certain groups of well-organized Jews *were* sabotaging his daughter's campaign, but if he broadened that out to a "screed" against all Jews, that would be a problem. Do you have a link handy to help me understand what exactly he was saying?

AIPAC's ability to keep U.S. political discourse about Israel narrower than the discourse in Israel itself is exhibit A in the fight for campaign finance reform, btw.
posted by mediareport at 7:14 AM on August 21, 2002


racist stunt?

"Don't vote for the black woman! Vote for the other candidate! The...er.... black woman!"

oooooh kay.

permanent occupation and forced eviction

I don't understand the problem -- various forces tried to wipe Israel off the map. Israel responded with force and expanded her borders. Seems that the new land is also Israel, under right of conquest. Removal of the criminal element is appropriate, and incorporation of the good citizens (just like all the Arabs in Israel proper) is noble. Calling it "occupied land" is denying that the regional arabs lost the war, and their rights to the land, because they were too proud to take the offer given to them by the UN for their own nation.
posted by dwivian at 7:19 AM on August 21, 2002


the new land is also Israel, under right of conquest

What is this, the Crusades? It's called international law. Look into it.
posted by mediareport at 7:37 AM on August 21, 2002


"Don't vote for the black woman! Vote for the other candidate! The...er.... black woman

Targetting black voters with vague threats of legal trouble if they go to the polls works, dwivian, mainly because of, um, the legal trouble many black voters used to get when they went to the polls. It's a classic racist stunt. That it may have been done this time to elect a more palatable black woman than McKinney doesn't make it any less a racist strategy.

And before it gets out of hand, I'm not a diehard McKinney supporter; I don't know enough about her. I'm just curious about the glee at her defeat, since all I've seen is a woman who's not afraid to criticize blind U.S. support for Ariel Sharon and who dared to hint that -- get my smelling salts! -- some in the Cheney administration may have found it useful to look the other way in the face of warnings of a major attack (just like FDR did with Pearl Harbor, but that's my addition).
posted by mediareport at 7:51 AM on August 21, 2002


Targetting black voters with vague threats of legal trouble if they go to the polls works, dwivian, mainly because of, um, the legal trouble many black voters used to get when they went to the polls. It's a classic racist stunt.

There was a message out on the phones in Georgia the day before the primary telling Republicans not to vote in Democratic primaries without proper documentation. Is that racist? Look, the Democrats had a stranglehold on the South until really the last 20 years, and they were the ones who perfected these tactics.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:59 AM on August 21, 2002


mediareport -- the calls were to republicans in the 4th district. This is not the bastion of black voters being intimidated, but soccer moms. I'll accept it was racist, if you'll accept it was anti-white racism....

Oh, and the link you requested about what her father said:
http://www.11alive.com/specials/local/decision2002/news_article.asp?storyid=20594
About halfway down, as I recall.

And, I have done more reading about International Law than you have, I'll bet. It is merely the collection of all the treaties between nations, and their ability to leverage economic or occasional war powers, to enforce a status quo.

Under International Law, a country that is attacked has a right to respond. If, in that response, the country changes borders, that's legal if it is supported by the international community. Right of Conquest can only be opposed by other countries, and continued holding of the contested land only proves that the conqueror has a legitmate right to it. Israel is being rather generous in calling it a territory, rather than just assimilating it, but you can tell by their occupation that it is an intent to keep the land, and the locals had better either decide to live peacefully, or move.

Or, to be more blunt -- so long as nobody complains enough to put their people and economies on the line, Israel wins. The only ones that care are the same people that didn't want the country that the UN offered, because they hated Israel too much and wanted it all. Some respect for International Law, huh......

I feel the same way about the Kurds of northern Iraq as you do about the Palestinians, I think, so I understand your points. Until someone does something to help, though, no amout of blather about the mythical International Law has any significance.
posted by dwivian at 8:38 AM on August 21, 2002


Was there only one set of calls about "proper documentation," made to mostly white voters in a bid to discourage crossover Republicans voting in the Democratic primary? Oops. I apologize for my completely stupid misreading of the Times story.

dwivian, your last post is so full of misinformation I don't know where to start, except to note that Dubya himself calls the West Bank and Gaza "occupied territories," and that "the only ones that care" are just about the entirety of the international community, not just the Arab part. Israel's land grab post-1967 has never been "supported by the international community," so by your own logic it's wrong. And we'll leave aside what it's doing to the Israeli economy. Your overly simplistic story about the complex mess that was the beginning of Israel's nationhood is classic -- straight out of Ben-Gurion's autobiography. Please read Mark Tessler's A History of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict for a more complete understanding.
posted by mediareport at 8:59 AM on August 21, 2002


mr. happy: the Libertarian candidate, Anne Rand, aired a TV ad featuring a severely disabled woman with MS talking about how Bob Barr wanted to take away her medicinal marijuana. She keeps repeated, "Why would you do that to me, Bob?" The ad was effective in that it was heartbreaking but I felt it was totally exploitative of the poor woman. Furthermore, I doubt voters in the 7th district care too much about the issue addressed.
posted by mariko at 9:34 AM on August 21, 2002


McKinney and Barr were both bomb-throwers. They were beaten by candidates who are not.

Being an effective member Congress is one part ideology, one part non-ideological collegiality and playing by the rules, and (at least) one part log-rolling and pork-barelling which follow regional and economic-activity lines, rather than party lines. Linder and Majette are essentially the same on ideology as Barr and McKinney respectively (Israel/Palestine aside, in the latter case), and far better able to work as congressmen in the other areas.

No Republicans and few moderate Democrats were willing to work with the McKinney on legislation or lobby for executive action. Although Barr wasn't quite as despised, and made some headway in small areas, he was still quite disfunctional as a member of Congress.
posted by MattD at 10:22 AM on August 21, 2002


mediareport: International Law has a very strong de facto component. What Dubya calls the West Bank doesn't matter. What he does to make Israel stand down does. And, since this country made it a federal crime to refuse to do business with Israel, I can easily state that we support their actions. Words are nice, but they have no effect, and have no authority under International Law, without threat of action (economic or war).

I became a student of International Law in my studies of the deposement (is that a word?) of Nobility, and their attempts to preserve their state as Fons Honoria. From there it becamse a fun study, wondering how the interactions between sovereign nations is managed. There was no misinformation in my post. Right of Conquest exists, and can only be opposed by action (witness Kuwait, for instance). International Law is, and always will be, just the collection of conventions and treaties between sovereigns. If someone wants to play rough, the world has an obligation to react, or accept the end result.

And, by my logic, support is defined as a lack of action, so it would seem the international community is strongly in support of Israel maintaining control of the West Bank. Perhaps that is because Israel was smart enough not to annex it outright, but instead puts on a charade that it might one day allow autonomy.

For what it's worth -- I worked for an Israeli owned company for a few years, and I saw the strength of Israel compared to the region. I suspect a good portion of that is American foreign aid, though. The fun part is that many of the employees were Israeli Arabs, so I got to hear lots of things that most don't about the region. I even have my name written in the four regional languages used in the West Bank. Kinda neat. I wish I remembered what they were, so it would be neater, but I digress.

If we really wanted Israel out of the West Bank, we need merely threaten that stream of revenue, and I bet things would change. The fact that we don't....well, as I said above, it seems that we like to talk, but our actions indicate our support. Can you imagine the end result of our actions if we had said to Iraq: "Pretty please, get out of Kuwait! Here's a cheque."? We tried diplomacy in the first half of the last century, and look where that got us -- we finally had to put actions to our words. THAT is when International Law matters -- when the risk of action changes the course of sovereigns.

As to my "over simplistic story"...well, I did drag it down to only a few sentences, so I am at a disadvantage against several pages. The short form stands, though, according to what I was told by my former coworkers. Israel was created, Palestine could have been, but they wanted Jerusalem so refused the gesture. They then tried to take Israel, and were soundly repelled, and lost not only their gains, but ground as well. Israel still holds it, and only recently gave back parts of Lebanon. The borders there are almost as fluid as India/Pakistan, another I/P interaction. Israel has a strong Arab population who function many ways as second-class citizens, because they aren't anti-Arab (anti-semitic, while accurate, seems to have been co-opted as a term by American Jews). Does that have it about right, by you? Or, should you do some reading beyond Tessler?
posted by dwivian at 11:10 AM on August 21, 2002


The fact that we don't....well, as I said above, it seems that we like to talk, but our actions indicate our support.

That's a very good point. However "our" actions are actually dictated by a small group who cares passionately about the issue, and the rest of the country has no real reason to care. This is democracy, if people want a chane in the policy they have to convince the rest of the country to stand up and say something, or have the representatives do it for them. That is why McKinney is out, because she didn't toe the line on Israel. That she was an idiot and a loon is beside the point, if she had supported Israel you can bet she would have won that primary without a challenge.

The short form stands, though, according to what I was told by my former coworkers. Israel was created, Palestine could have been, but they wanted Jerusalem so refused the gesture.

Jerusalem wasn't taken by Israel until 1967, so either your co-workers or you are confused. They "refused the gesture" because it was a terrible deal at the time (minority land-owner becomes majority, in the best areas, overnight)... however they wish they could take it now! As much as I wish we didn't live in the "might makes right" world that you describe in your post, it is surely the case. As you explain, international law is only as strong as the guns willing to enforce it. This is why Saddam Hussein's UN resolution violations are grounds for war, and Israel's are not.
posted by cell divide at 11:44 AM on August 21, 2002


cell divide: Could be both -- have you tried to work through thick mumbled accents? I'm sure my english was just fine, but they laughed at my Hebrew for being "wrongly american." I think I'm not sephardic enough, but they wouldn't elaborate.

However, I seem to remember that they held half of Jerusalem, no? And that the push in the war was to take it, and everything else, from Israel. At least, that's what I'm remembering. That particular discussion was at a nearby pub, where we were enjoying heavy beer and heavy discussion. At one point it was noted we had a Jew, a Muslim, a Catholic, and a Protestant all calmly discussing religion, at which point the jewish guy stood up and said "there's a protestant here?!?!?!!"

Beer actually came out my nose. I don't recommend it, mainly because it wastes beer.
posted by dwivian at 12:33 PM on August 21, 2002


God bless you, Cobb County, Georgia (something I never *ever* expected I'd say) for firing Bob Barr. We citizens of Washington, DC---Barr's favorite kicktoy for proving that he's only a small-government Reaganite unless one of his pet issues is at stake---thank you for it.

Can we get the damn airport named back now?

As for McKinney, I cannot imagine what Neal Boortz will have left to rant and foam about without her. A sad day for AM right-wingers who will now need new kicktoys of their own.
posted by Sapphireblue at 1:40 PM on August 21, 2002


Barr was elected in the Gingrich contract with america days, right? (1994?) How many of them are left?

and keep up the I/P stuff! us newbies haven't been in one yet!
posted by amberglow at 4:38 PM on August 21, 2002


I thought the original post was talking about McKinney.

She was as racist and looney as any other single elected official, left or right, that anyone here could care to name. Conservatives are glad she's gone because despite her nuttiness - or maybe because of it - some people actually believed her. Majette will be a relative pleasure to deal with by comparison.
posted by mikewas at 7:53 PM on August 21, 2002


« Older Iraq's Aziz Says U.S. Attack Would Fail   |   Embryos can be donated on the... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post