We're not in Lake Wobegone anymore

August 30, 2004 7:26 AM

The maven of midwestern gentility weighs in on today's GOP.

How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
posted by psmealey (155 comments total)

Apologies in advance for OpinionFilter, BashBushFilter or whatever you want to call it. But, as an alienated moderate ex-Republican, this expresses my own feelings about today's GOP better than anything else I've read in the last few years. Was too good not to share.
posted by psmealey at 7:29 AM on August 30, 2004

When I want an assessment of state of the Republican party, I always turn to Garrison Keillor.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:32 AM on August 30, 2004

Well, I liked it.
posted by crazy finger at 7:38 AM on August 30, 2004

psmealey.
Apologising in advance before taking a shit in the blue, doesn't take away from the fact you still shit in the blue. This is a single-link Op/Ed. Honestly. Why the hell would you think this is FPP worthy? Did you bother to think at all about standards before you posted it?

It's one guy's rant about Republicans. Yes, many of us have disliked the tragectory of the Republican party even more since Reagan came to office. But I have a question for you psmealey. It seems from your profile that you live in Connecticut and are in a punk rock band. But, then, in your apologia, you seem to want to suggest that you "used to be a Republican." WTF? I'm pegging you at no older than 30ish, so that leaves your Republican views as Reagan-onward. But you are telling us that "Today's" GOP has you feeling alienated? "Today's" as opposed to what? Eisenhower's? Lincoln's? The article that Keillor is presenting is a post-Nixon to present assault on Republicans, but he is capturing your view of Republicans?

The reason why I am asking this is because I don't buy your little apologia. I think you just wanted to take a dump on the blue. So, just do it. Obviously Matt Haughey doesn't care any more. But don't try to sell it as something else. Grind your axe. Go for it. Metafilter is YOUR soapbox. Scream from it. Don't bother trying to hedge your post when you know its a piece of shit.
posted by Seth at 7:53 AM on August 30, 2004

Apologies in advance for OpinionFilter, BashBushFilter or whatever you want to call it.

Oh fuck off.
posted by techgnollogic at 7:53 AM on August 30, 2004

Entertaining and well written. Would read again A+++

But seriously: In a relatively few words it does appear to capture the angst of the middle-left.
posted by Elvis at 7:56 AM on August 30, 2004

this is going to be a awsome metatalk...
posted by Dreamghost at 7:59 AM on August 30, 2004

Oh, yeah.
And if you really want to discuss these kinds of things. Check out: Devoter. That is a good place for this politics crap.

Try to at least make an attempt at self-evaluation of a link before sharing it here.
posted by Seth at 8:00 AM on August 30, 2004

Notwithstanding Seth and techgnollogic's heartfelt and eloquent protestations, that's why I posted it, Elvis, it pretty much nailed it for me. I'll admit it was poor form to post a single link Op-Ed piece. Chalk it up to Monday morning fatigue, but I'll take my time in the penalty box for it.
posted by psmealey at 8:04 AM on August 30, 2004

I'm a raving Bush-hater but jeez. (And how does doing something first and then apologizing for it later become "apologies in advance"?)

Since this thread is all poopy anyway I'd like to apologize in, uh, retard? for jumping on davidmsc in a previous thread with a prescriptivist grammar flame regarding the use of "cohorts" for "cohort", a rule that has apparently been vitiated by even the American Heritage usage panel.
posted by nicwolff at 8:06 AM on August 30, 2004

Seth:
Let mathowie do his job, ffs. He'll consider deleting it, according to his judgement and his interpretations of his guidelines. Your incessant bleating and inability to pass over a thread you don't like reminds me of the kid with a mouth ulcer who whines "When I stick my tongue in it, it hurts..." Stop sticking your tongue in it!

How many times does mathowie need to say: a thread is for discussion of the link, Metatalk is for discussion of your friggin' hobbyhorse. Take it there [again], if you don't like the principle - this ain't the place for it.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:10 AM on August 30, 2004

Well, dash, seems to me that psmealey pretty much opened the can of worms by posting first his little "apologia."
posted by Seth at 8:12 AM on August 30, 2004

1. It's not an op ed, it's a book excerpt.
2. It's not some guy, it's Garrison Keillor. This is roughly akin to having Fred Rogers lecture you on why Mumia should be free.
3. It's a damned good piece and I was sure as hell glad to read it here.
posted by condour75 at 8:15 AM on August 30, 2004

the tragectory of the Republican party

I just wanted to say that I enjoyed this coinage very much. A perfectly-formed eggcorn.
posted by soyjoy at 8:20 AM on August 30, 2004

Lake Woishere.
posted by stonerose at 8:21 AM on August 30, 2004

nicwolff: that was a public service, and much appreciated. Nothing is more amusing than erroneous pedantry.
posted by crunchburger at 8:23 AM on August 30, 2004

I'd always understood that the Republican "party of Lincoln" (and Jefferson, for that matter) actually evolved into what we call "Democrat" today.
posted by crunchland at 8:24 AM on August 30, 2004

five bucks that seth will die from a heart attack while raging at a newsfilter post.
posted by Stynxno at 8:25 AM on August 30, 2004

Garrison Keillor writes well - wringing poignant and wry humour from a dire situation whilst making sharp observations and illuminating the political landscape of an America at the crossroads. I've never read his stuff before, nor heard his radio show.

This link is way above the usual junkFilter about Kommunist Kerry or Bu$hitler - it's actually well worth reading for this alone:

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

I strongly suggest that there is bushel of truth in that last sentence: unless you're a non-USian, it's unarguable.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:26 AM on August 30, 2004

make it ten
posted by trondant at 8:29 AM on August 30, 2004

I'll pay you the five bucks myself, stynxo, if it will hasten that end in any way. Christ, #1, ban the obnoxiously relentless little fucker and let the rest of us get on with it...

I hadn't seen this yet. I enjoyed reading it, and thank psmealey for posting it.
posted by JollyWanker at 8:31 AM on August 30, 2004

Thanks for the post. I can't stand newsfilter or much of the knee-jerk bashing around it, but this was a worthwhile read. Seth, I don't know how else to say it: no one cares what you think. The point you were making is lost in the noise you generate.
posted by yerfatma at 8:38 AM on August 30, 2004

I'd always understood that the Republican "party of Lincoln" (and Jefferson, for that matter) actually evolved into what we call "Democrat" today.

I understand you to be ill informed.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:41 AM on August 30, 2004

I come to MeFi to find things worth reading that I wouldn't find otherwise. Sure, I should probably go to Devoter if I want such finds to have a political bent, but frankly ... it's rather lonely over there and everyone I know is here. That said, I liked the post.

Oh, and Seth? Did you make that shiny MeFi FPP Deputy Badge yourself, buddy?
posted by grabbingsand at 8:41 AM on August 30, 2004

Obviously Matt Haughey doesn't care any more.

Obviously. So perhaps it's time to stop being so relentlessly disrespectful of the site owner and just STFU.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:46 AM on August 30, 2004

Let's see... this post is a link to something on the 'net I wouldn't have seen otherwise. And I like it.
posted by callmejay at 8:48 AM on August 30, 2004

You know, Garrison: shutup and sing....er do that Lake Woebegone thing...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:54 AM on August 30, 2004

whatever-filter whatever...I loved the piece (man GK can write) and wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Thanks for the post, psmealey.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 8:58 AM on August 30, 2004

If you're going to be inflammatory, be entertaining about it. I'm not crazy about Garrison Keillor's whole Wobegon schtick, but you can't deny the guy can put sentences together.

I'm ignoring the shitstorm in this thread and just saying I loved the rant as entertainment. The fact that I agreed with huge swaths of it was incidental.
posted by chicobangs at 9:04 AM on August 30, 2004

Garrison is brilliant. But, like most artists, he's blind; near-sighted, and can't see well beyond his realm.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:07 AM on August 30, 2004

S@L and PP if you're not going to try to form an argument don't even bother wasting the keystrokes.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:08 AM on August 30, 2004

like most artists, he's blind; near-sighted, and can't see well beyond his realm. - PP.

At least his sentences don't contain inanities, contradictions & redundancies....
posted by dash_slot- at 9:13 AM on August 30, 2004

it was wonderful watching o'reilley fail to ruffle garrison's feathers a few weeks ago. i thought bill was gonna go all seth on us during primetime!
posted by quonsar at 9:16 AM on August 30, 2004

That was an argument. And besides, my keyboard has plenty of keystrokes left in it.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:17 AM on August 30, 2004

F.O. Seth.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:18 AM on August 30, 2004

Seth, technollogic, etc: you just don't get one very simple fact about this. Because your political views are so very well known -- and Seth, because you're so very shrill about it every time -- you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to trying to invoke "the rules" to get rid of FPPs you don't like, even if you are correct. You are going to be seen (perhaps correctly) of using the rules to promote your own agenda, just as much you see making an FPP you dislike as promoting an agenda that opposes yours.

If you were smart, you'd leave those battles to people like nicwolf and wait to open your particular can of worms for the next time hama7 posts an op ed to the blue.
posted by namespan at 9:32 AM on August 30, 2004

And besides, my keyboard has plenty of keystrokes left in it.

My pants are in a similar state.
posted by yerfatma at 9:40 AM on August 30, 2004

Well, namespan, funny how you mention credibility, but then you presume to know my politics. I haven't mentioned my politics ever, but you think you know them. So forgive me for ignoring your advice when you so patently presume something that is wrong.

Futhermore, I have constantly noted poor posts when they are posted from the other side. Check my history to see. If there appears to be a majority of condemnations of left-leaning posts, it is because the vast majority of the posts here are left-leaning. But I have consistently criticized right-leaning posts, too. See, I think they are all shit. And that is exactly what you are full of when you say that my "political views are very well known." My entire critique of the politicization of MeFi would be undermined if I argued my politics, and I haven't. So, in all due respect, you are as wrong as this post was.

As for the rest of you who tell me to leave/shut up or whatever. Here is some advice that is always given me: "if you don't like it, skip it." You can feel free to constantly tell me to shut up, and I will feel free to constantly not give a damn about your comments. Sound fair?
posted by Seth at 9:42 AM on August 30, 2004

Futhermore, I have constantly noted poor posts when they are posted from the other side.
posted by y2karl at 9:48 AM on August 30, 2004

I appreciate that he said republicans are lying. Democrats dance around the issue saying the republicans are saying "false" things. Democrats don't have the guts to call the republicans out for their baldface lies, promotion of terror and manipulation of Christian beliefs. I only hope we survive this dark period.
posted by fleener at 9:51 AM on August 30, 2004

I'm second to no man in my admiration for Mr. Keillor's writing (hate his radio voice), but if he really wants to alter my eminently plastic intention to vote for President Bush, he should have used his eloquence to convince me of the preferability of John Kerry -- maybe a campaign biography on the order of William Dean Howells' for Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Instead, he just puts on a self-indulgent performance that could probably be duplicated by the second-string editorial writer at any alternative weekly in America. What is this psychological need to weigh in publicly with one's Bush hatred? "Me, me! I hate 'im, too! I hate 'im wors'n anybody!" Put that energy to some productive use on behalf of Kerry. From what I hear from my Democratic friends, who seem to be liking him less and less as the campaign goes on, he needs all the help he can get.
posted by Faze at 9:54 AM on August 30, 2004

My entire critique of the politicization of MeFi would be undermined if I argued my politics, and I haven't.

Shitting on every other thread doesn't constitute a critique.

psmealey: thanks for the link.
posted by goethean at 9:54 AM on August 30, 2004

You can feel free to constantly tell me to shut up, and I will feel free to constantly not give a damn about your comments. Sound fair?

No. The policy is to make comments about the infringements of guidelines in metatalk. You are again choosing to exercise your disgruntlement in the wrong forum. It's not shut up; nor go away.

"Please post to the right forum."

Tthis is advice that is usually only necessary to repeat to newbies and trolls.

Which are you?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:54 AM on August 30, 2004

S@L and PP if you're not going to try to form an argument don't even bother wasting the keystrokes.

Maybe you should tell that to Garrison Keillor:

The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

Wow, so clever of him. I guess that would be an 'argument' if we were on the playground in elementary school.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:57 AM on August 30, 2004

he should have used his eloquence to convince me of the preferability of John Kerry

If you intend to vote for a proven liar, what can Keillor do about it?
posted by goethean at 9:58 AM on August 30, 2004

I guess that would be an 'argument' if we were on the playground in elementary school.

That wasn't an argument. It was an eloquent and slightly hyperbolic description.
posted by goethean at 10:01 AM on August 30, 2004

Faze, what would you like to know about Kerry? I get vexed when I hear people muse abstractly that they want to know why Kerry is "better." There are hundreds of reasons (and many of them are implicit in critiques of Bush, such as that offered by Keillor.) What is it that you want, or need, in the way of "positive" reasons? What plank/s of the platform do you want to talk about? What attribute of personality? What do you need to hear?
posted by stonerose at 10:02 AM on August 30, 2004

Here Karl, let me help you:
(and no, I don't comment in every thread, because I don't read every thread).
Here are just two examples.

Karl, I am at least impressed you didn't cut and paste the contents of the link that you were providing. Good job, for once.
posted by Seth at 10:02 AM on August 30, 2004

I'm no fan of the radio show, but this is a wonderful piece. As usual, the Bush defenders demonize the messenger.
posted by digaman at 10:03 AM on August 30, 2004

[this is good]
posted by Grod at 10:08 AM on August 30, 2004

Metaphoric scenario: Your house is on fire and filling with smoke. The firemen arrive, run a ladder up to your second-floor window, and call to you to climb down the ladder.

"But why should I climb down the ladder? Is it a particular nice day outside? How do I know I'm not better off in here? People fall off of ladders, you know."
posted by digaman at 10:10 AM on August 30, 2004

With regret, MeTa.
posted by stonerose at 10:10 AM on August 30, 2004

So forgive me for ignoring your advice when you so patently presume something that is wrong.

Then take a page from watching what's happened to EB. He's right about newsfilter, of course, and his left leanings are pretty clear, but there's a lot of posters who simply will not listen to him because the sound of the squeaking hobby horse has gotten so annoying.
posted by namespan at 10:18 AM on August 30, 2004

a performance that could probably be duplicated by the second-string editorial writer at any alternative weekly in America.

So much material, so little time. Bush is really easy I agree. Even I can see that. Nothing there to match wits with.

To call a lot of this Bush hating is incorrect. I don't hate Bush, as a person he could be rather harmless. The machine behind Bush, however, is evil incarnate. Bush is the sock puppet of the machine, much as Raygun was.

Does the fire get directed at Bush? Certainly, taking the fire is one of the jobs of being a sock puppet of the machine. The machine is equally ruthless to adversaries as to its own so perhaps that's where we get the "party of morality."
posted by nofundy at 10:25 AM on August 30, 2004

Seth: get a fucking life, asshole.

You have zero credibility, and we could really care less what you think about any given post.
posted by bshort at 10:25 AM on August 30, 2004

slightly hyperbolic description

slightly? Boy, I'd hate to see "extremely" in you book.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:40 AM on August 30, 2004

Try to at least make an attempt at self-evaluation of a link before sharing it here.

Seth has spoken (yet, again) folks. Nothing to see here. Move along.
posted by terrapin at 10:44 AM on August 30, 2004

Great post.

There is little doubt that Lincoln is dizzy from turning over and over in his grave at what "Republicans" (that grand old party of, um, luminaries like Trent Lott) have become.

"By 2000, however, the positions of the two parties are reversed from where they were in 1896. The Democratic Party of 2000, like the post-Reconstruction Republicans, was a party advocating racial equality and urban tolerance, and the greater use of the national government to protect those ends. The Republican Party of 2000, like the post-Reconstruction Democrats, advocated states’ rights, allied with traditional Protestant values."

In 1932, Roosevelt forged a political coalition that would ultimately make the Democratic Party the dominant force in American politics. By 1936, black voters in the northern states had become a vital component of this New Deal coalition. Seven decades of loyalty to the Republican Party gave way to support for a president and a party that had harnessed federal power to relieve suffering amidst the worst depression in American history. As Pittsburgh publisher Robert Vann advised fellow black voters, "My friends, go turn Lincoln's picture to the wall. That debt has been paid in full."

By now the pattern is sufficiently well established that the generalization can no longer be denied: The Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility, trade restriction, big government, and failing-grade microeconomics. Surprisingly, Democratic presidents have relatively speaking -- become the agents of fiscal responsibility, free trade, competitive markets, and good textbook microeconomics.

And don't worry for an instant about the silly, ineffectual, endlessly boring naysayers, psmealey. These folks won't try to debate any issues you or Mr. Keillor or anyone else raise. Because they cannot do so, they'll just try to shut you up however they can. They will merely bleat "Bush-hate" or "why do you hate America" or "agenda-grinding" or whatever ad nauseum. New ideas and debate do not favor the ideologies of these folks (and their biases are usually obvious, their disingenuous protestations notwithstanding) and they know it. Silence and a maintenance of the status quo do. That's the particular brand of stinking shit they dump on Metafilter and upon America....continually.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:48 AM on August 30, 2004

I think Garrison Keillor is an enormous bore.

However, what's the problem with this post? Why shouldn't psmealey have posted it? He read an opinion piece by a well-known person in a fairly obscure venue and thought that folks on MeFi might be interested in it.

I read it and thought it was kind of tiresome, but there it is.

The endless Talmudic pilpul about whether FPPs are "appropriate" or "good enough" or too "___Filter" is getting ridiculous.

Enough, already. Don't like a post? Post something better. Or wait until something better comes along.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:52 AM on August 30, 2004

Here's what I want to know about Kerry: I'd like to know that he's got good karma of some kind, that he's lucky, that he's got the mojo, the juju, and the vibe to be the national penis. I'd like to know that he carries a personal magic that makes criticism roll off his back, and custard pies fly past him without making contact. I'd like to know if he's one of fortune's favorites (and I don't mean in the marriage sense). So far, he looks like a crazy, mixed-up guy who does dorky salutes, and can't control his wife, and has let criticism of his Vietnam service get out of control. He looks kinda like a loser, if you know what I mean. Bush, on the other hand, gets away with everything. Who cares if he showed up for service in the National Guard? I don't. He's got good posture. He says incredibly goofy things, and his supporters don't care. He gets away with some pretty extreme religious beliefs. At the same time, he's appointed more African-Americans to high-level positions than any Democratic president ever did. He's got loony views on homosexuals, but his vice-president feel perfectly free to speak out on the opposite side. He's swollen the government to absurd proportions, yet still gets the vote of small-government types like myself. He got the whole country to go along with him on this meshugganah Iraq war (including John Kerry). And you all think he's the devil incarnate! The guy's got magic! He's special! Like Clinton. He's something I don't understand -- and unlike a lot of ignorant yahoos, I don't condemn something just because I don't understand it. Where's Kerry's magic? He need to do something dramatic to convince me that he's a big, major historical person, and not a highly verticalized Michael Dukakis.
posted by Faze at 10:59 AM on August 30, 2004

Karma? Lucky? Special? Magic?

You want a President with a wife that can be "controlled?" Really?

And if we're electing a National Penis and not a Chief Executive, then why isn't Ron Jeremy the write-in of choice?
posted by chicobangs at 11:05 AM on August 30, 2004

the vibe to be the national penis.

Just tryin' to help...
posted by soyjoy at 11:08 AM on August 30, 2004

can't control his wife

You are so doomed.
posted by keswick at 11:11 AM on August 30, 2004

faze:
Kerry... can't control his wife

A lot of people think that it is unethical to 'control' people, especially one's spouse. She's a fine, strong woman and she seems to like him. That counts good for him in my book.

[Bush is] like Clinton.

What's it like on Mars?
posted by n9 at 11:16 AM on August 30, 2004

Didn't Faze just say "I'm voting for someone who stands for things I'm opposed to because I think he's cute?"

Whatever, man. I'm not even going to pick up on the "control his wife" business.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:17 AM on August 30, 2004

Well, Faze, you pretty much confirmed my suspicions about anyone who's still considering voting for Bush.

I have difficulty believing you're serious. If you are, I hope you'll reconsider your entire approach to politics. It's not healthy to view politics as a game, in which style completely trumps substance. Is style somewhat important? Sure. But to consciously demand "magic" over sound, logical social thought is, frankly, nauseating. I hate to Godwinize the debate, but...
posted by stonerose at 11:19 AM on August 30, 2004

Faze, to the ignorant or stupid, a telephone is like magic. And for the record, I want a capable man who isn't a dork, a liar or utterly clueless to be President, not Harry Potter.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:22 AM on August 30, 2004

hehehe, my exact thought when I read that too keswick.

Wrong forum to go talking like that.

I read the article linked. Didn't set my world on fire. I don't see what Seth is all up in arms about. Dude, you need to relax a bit. Though, for pure entertaiment value, your comments and the subsequent replies are humurous.

There are a lot of people that feel alienated in todays political climate. It will probably get worse before it gets better.

The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few is the death knell of democracy. No republic in the history of humanity has survived this. The election of 2004 will say something about what happens to ours. The omens are not good.

I agree with that. This country is creating an aristrocracy of the super wealthy. And the super wealthy are becoming wealthier by the minute. And the ways in which some of them do it are in need of addressing.

I find it impossible to identify with either of the major political parties. I have been registered as in independant since I registered for selective service, all those years ago.
I really wish that a 3rd party would evolve and become strong enough to issue serious challenge to what we have going on today.

I have been encouraging people, regardless of what party the belong to, to change their voter registration to Indy. Maybe if the big 2 see a droppoff on their rolls, without seeing them defect to the other party, they might finally understand the politcal apathy that this nation is falling into.

But, that is just my opinion.

PS: Seth, relax, even just a little bit.
posted by a3matrix at 11:25 AM on August 30, 2004

And for the record, I want a capable man who isn't a dork, a liar or utterly clueless to be President, not Harry Potter.

I would like that too, but I don't see that in either candidate this year.
posted by a3matrix at 11:27 AM on August 30, 2004

Seth just needs a hug.

Not from me, though.

(good post)
posted by solistrato at 11:31 AM on August 30, 2004

The national penis?

Faze, that screed was possibly the single most moronic statement I have ever read or heard.

Plus it pretty much sums up why I just have no tolerance for Bush supporters anymore. Anyone who would vote for Bush in November is nothing short of a a braindead sheep.
posted by archimago at 11:38 AM on August 30, 2004

Metafilter: midwestern gentility meets endless Talmudic pilpul
posted by gwint at 11:39 AM on August 30, 2004

Bush's defeat would be good for the GOP.
posted by homunculus at 11:44 AM on August 30, 2004

You have no tolerance for Bush supporters? Where in your travels do you encounter Bush supporters--do tell.

I think it's more likely that you have lots of tolerance for cheap rhetorical tricks involving fictional encounters with the Righ-Wing caricatures of your imagination.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:58 AM on August 30, 2004

Ignore the loud-mouthed haters, psmealey, and thanks for the link, which I wouldn't otherwise have seen.
posted by rushmc at 12:01 PM on August 30, 2004

Close, but Bush will win
posted by homunculus at 12:03 PM on August 30, 2004

Faze, can I submit your collective comments to my local university's humanities program, most particularly, studies in absurdist literature and theatre? Once again, you rival the likes of Jarry and Eunesco. You are a pioneer.
posted by juiceCake at 12:05 PM on August 30, 2004

Faze, I think your comment is bar none the dumbest thing I've ever read. You seem to be confusing charisma with competence, and the "magic" you attribute to Bush has more to do with your willingness to ignore your own best interest than anything about Bush himself.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:08 PM on August 30, 2004

...unlike a lot of ignorant yahoos, I don't condemn something just because I don't understand it.

Sounds like that's exactly what you're doing.
posted by chicobangs at 12:18 PM on August 30, 2004

and has let criticism of his Vietnam service get out of control. He looks kinda like a loser, if you know what I mean

very sad but true. I see a big L starting to grow in the middle of his forehead. I thought he was going to respond like a mensch to the Swift Boat Liars shit, instead he let the other side dictate an entire (post-Convention) month's agenda. terrible, terrible campaign. a tall Dukakis indeed.
I mean, he's running against somebody who in the late Sixties was a cokehead and an alcoholic, and the Pentagon's dog ate his opponent's papers, and Kerry lets these Swift Boat Bums question his past?

It'd be funny, if Kerry hadn't just possibly given another four years of let's-play-dr-Strangelove to a man like Bush
posted by matteo at 12:24 PM on August 30, 2004

Control his wife
Badly worded I agree, but potential world leaders need for their spouses to be as on the ball and as media savvy as they themselves are. If your significant other disagrees with you, or does something that you do not agree with, then politically, this is a bad thing. This goes for John Kerry, and if, in 12 years time the Democrats can grow some, and they actually start practicing what they preach, then it'll probably apply to Hilary Clinton too.
posted by seanyboy at 12:27 PM on August 30, 2004

Do you guys like vanilla ice cream? Me, I'm a chocolate person, never really gotten the hang of the vanilla bean. But, really, what do you think?
posted by xmutex at 12:27 PM on August 30, 2004

psmealey, during alcohol assisted conversations with some mates the other night, MeFi came up and having had a chuckle about EB's penis in mouth post, seth's incessant policing posts also came up. I suggested that perhaps we should email any potential FPP's to Seth for his approval. Sort of like your apology but in extreme.

I quite liked the link as well and I would not have seen it. I found the "devoted to their communities" point very telling in light of the sudden concern for the fabric of the community when it comes to gay marriage for example and the complete lack of concern on many other issues that may (or may not) affect the community, the United States, and those beyond it's borders. It was also hilarious and somewhat tongue and cheek, but that may have been missed by some. The issues are definitely serious and at times, within these posts, some great points are raised and debated.

Having said all that, I have to say I'm slightly shamed to be sidetracked by the seth issue.
posted by juiceCake at 12:28 PM on August 30, 2004

Matteo: the bottom line in this/that is that Kerry has no core beliefs, and he's acquired a false-sense of campaign competence in Massachusetts. I mean, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy win there!

Face it: however incompetent you may think George Bush is, he is beating, or at least, not losing to Kerry!

Perhaps all of you will, after the President's reelection, revaluate your political perceptions?

Nah.....
posted by ParisParamus at 12:29 PM on August 30, 2004

Face it: however incompetent you may think George Bush is, he is beating, or at least, not losing to Kerry!

Unfortunately for all of us, competence as a campaigner does not correlate to competence as a President.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:33 PM on August 30, 2004

I'd like to know that he's got good karma of some kind, that he's lucky, that he's got the mojo, the juju...

...rest assured, he has the juju in his camp. Hope I cleared that up.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:43 PM on August 30, 2004

You have no tolerance for Bush supporters? Where in your travels do you encounter Bush supporters--do tell.


If he's indeed winning, as you claim, then all I need to do is look out my front door.

however incompetent you may think George Bush is, he is beating, or at least, not losing to Kerry

Which is exactly what scares me. If Bush wins I would consider moving to Canada not because I would not want to live under Bush but because I wouldn't want to live among people who thought the nation needed a spokespenis.
posted by archimago at 12:50 PM on August 30, 2004

When I want an assessment of a popular humorist, I always turn to ParisParasmus and Steve@Linnwood.

I'd like to see MeFi's answer to Rush & O'Reilly's assessment of Faze's totally skin-deep explanation of his support for Bush.

On preview: what him and his monkey said.

And thanks for the interesting links, homunculus. I'm gonna FFP both of them at Devoter.
posted by wendell at 12:51 PM on August 30, 2004

David Copperfield bows in awe at the trick of turning 20 years of lawmaking record into 4 months of 36 year old 'Nam duty.
posted by HTuttle at 12:53 PM on August 30, 2004

Yes, George Bush has brought a reign of terror to the once wonderful United States.

Sure. That you "hate" "despise" and "detest" the President , rather than "disagree" with him just underlines how detached from reality you are. Unbelievable.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:53 PM on August 30, 2004

he he he... PP just called someone else "detached from reality"...

Even on a bad day, it's always a good day for MetaFilter...
posted by JollyWanker at 12:59 PM on August 30, 2004

PP: "Perhaps all of you will, after the President's reelection, revaluate your political perceptions?"

Unfortunately, I have this nagging fear that if he is indeed reelected, we will all have our political perceptions realigned, somewhat forcibly, for us, by the Department of Homeland Security and perhaps eventually by our own military.

A bit of an extreme thought, I know, and probably unnecessary for this land of burgeoning apathy. But nonetheless I'm pretty confident that all power of the people that still remains will be completely and finally removed in the next 4 years under a new Bush administration and the continuing dominance of the hyper-wealthy that will continue thereafter.

Sheep don't know they're headed to the slaughterhouse until they're close enough to smell the blood. Probably not even then.

Hyperbole? Yep. However, I don't put much past lying, bloody-minded war profiteers. And neither should you.
posted by zoogleplex at 1:13 PM on August 30, 2004

How many people does someone have to kill unnecessarily before I'm allowed to hate him, rather than just disagree with him?
posted by stonerose at 1:16 PM on August 30, 2004

faze ... i would never in a billion years vote for bush, but you've hit the nail on the head about kerry ... he really has no "mojo" ... he's a pure product of modern politics ... calculating, unknowable and easily changed by opinion polls ... bush, on the other hand is a leader ... a rather short-sighted and partisan one, but a leader none the less

how else could someone screw things up so thoroughly and still have a following? ... and mefites ... perceptions like faze's are precisely why the race is so close ... people sense something about kerry that's not real ... and many people do vote for the man, not the issues

i disagree with one central point of garrison's article ... i don't feel that the 50s rotarian club republicanism he romanticizes is all that different than what we're seeing now ... there's always been a dark side to the "pragmatic Main Street businessmen" and their practice of hometown politics and charity and the bush years have brought it out in the open ... if garrison had spent a little time on the wrong side of the tracks as a midwesterner, he'd see this ...

small towns and cities in the midwest are nowhere nearly as idyllic and calm as he likes to make them out to be
posted by pyramid termite at 1:21 PM on August 30, 2004

How many people does someone have to kill unnecessarily before I'm allowed to hate him, rather than just disagree with him?

The answer, stonerose, is blowin' in the wind.



Oh, alright. How about... a thousand?
posted by chicobangs at 1:23 PM on August 30, 2004

You're free to hate anyone you like: this is not Canada!

Look, it's obvious you're pathologically wedded to the idea that someone who doesn't favor abortion, and doesn't favor gay marriage, and who prays, and who used force to take out a dangeous regime, which caused soldiers to die, and who lowered taxes must be The Devil. I just hope that only on Metafilter, and in the depraved assemblies of protests like yesterday's, is such a view common.

The question is, why do so many hold such depraved views of President Bush; only a psychologist or psychiatrist is qualified to say.


Today's New York Sun, a "Right-of-Center" newspaper, conducted a survey at yesterday's protests.

Questions:
--Who do you plan to vote for in November: Kerry 76%.

--Did you oppose the war in Afghanistan: Yes 62%, No 30%

--What system do you think is best: Socialism 34%, Capitalist 33%

--Are Iraqi attacks on American troops Legitimate resistance: Yes: 67%, disagree 21%

--Did neoconservatives, with close ties to Israel manipulate American into going to war? Yes: 58%, No 22%

--America, overall is a negative force in the world: Yes, 52%, No: 40%

--America should end all military aid to Israel: Yes: 50%, No, 40%

In the local vernacular, there were an awful lot of "fuckwits" at those protests; and it's said group of people who make this election even close.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:37 PM on August 30, 2004

Fold_and_manipulate thanks for those links! Very thought provoking. I have been away from metafilter for a long time. It seems as if it has changed. We used to debate issues instead of shitting all over each other. It is too bad that metafilter is starting to look like America’s political scene. (You’re stupid. No you’re stupid! You’re ugly. No, you’re ugly! )

I always enjoy learning new things and seeing different perspectives. Thanks for this post it is well written and thought provoking.

Also, people please relax a bit. If you don’t like a post just skip it.
posted by aj100 at 1:39 PM on August 30, 2004

I liked this FPP. It was a fine piece of invective, in a fine American tradition (go read some Mark Twain if you don't recognize which one). And it pretty much summed up what I feel about Bush and his minions; but that's not just why I think it's a decent post. I come to Mefi to read good writing (or at least interesting writing), and this certainly qualifies.

But also, I am scared shitless that Bush is going to be re-elected. I walk around in a pre-election state of numb disbelief and fear, and when I read comments by people here who want their supreme leader to wield some fascist glamour, I want to puke. The thing is, if the States re-elect Bush, all those who voted for him will get what they deserve: more of the same, but much, much worse. But it's not just those who put that X beside Bush's name: if Bush is re-elected it's the whole world which will have to live with the consequences, as well. If America asks for war, for theocracy, for continuing punishment of the poor, Bush will deliver.

I have my doubts about Kerry (he voted for the Patriot Act, after all) but at least he's not a theocrat, and if he lacks Magic Great Leader Voodoo, then all the better.
posted by jokeefe at 1:45 PM on August 30, 2004

"How many people does someone have to kill unnecessarily before I'm allowed to hate him, rather than just disagree with him?"

I'm not sure - I start hating pretty early myself. But then thats one of the reasons I am happy we got rid of Saddam...but so many on the left think he was a good guy it's hard to tell. Remember, Michael Moore says before the war Iraq was all about kids flying kites.

At least I used to be able to get behind the "anyone but Bush" honesty. Now that it's turned into a weird sort of Kerry worship I've lost respect for it somewhat. The guy is a non-entity. Don't try and pretend otherwise, just be honest about it.
posted by soulhuntre at 1:46 PM on August 30, 2004

I just like the phrase "Lamborghini libertarians."

On preview: Why shouldn't America end military aid to Israel? They can clearly defend themselves.
posted by oaf at 1:46 PM on August 30, 2004

You're free to hate anyone you like: this is not Canada!

Wtf?
posted by jokeefe at 1:47 PM on August 30, 2004

I am happy we got rid of Saddam...but so many on the left think he was a good guy it's hard to tell.

Another wtf? I think I can qualify as being amongst those on the left, and I never heard or read anything defending Hussein and his policies. I do remember protests against the economic sanctions, which were causing widespread malnutrition in Iraqi children, but I think you would have to look very, very hard to find anybody on the left who didn't acknowledge that Hussein was a bloody dictator.

(You know, like guys who run China or most of Africa and stuff. Except the Chinese are good friends of the American government now, right? Don't get me started.)
posted by jokeefe at 1:52 PM on August 30, 2004

PP: That you "hate" "despise" and "detest" the President , rather than "disagree" with him just underlines how detached from reality you are.

I hate, despise, and detest any person who treats the Constitution like Bush has.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:24 PM on August 30, 2004

jokeef, you're sort of correct. And the best we can do with China is keep it from eating-up Taiwan. And the similarly re NK.

Funny, I don't see any mass protests against the Bush administration for its position on China--why is that?

If you're so "principled" that it's all or nothing, you wind up with nothing.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:44 PM on August 30, 2004

Faze: He got the whole country to go along with him on this meshugganah Iraq war (including John Kerry).

I find myself compelled to address this meme which the Bush people have injected into the body politic. John Kerry voted to give the President the authority to go to war. That's it - nothing about actually going in, or how it was done. To make an analogy:

John Kerry voted to give George Bush a driver's license. Now Bush is going around saying that Kerry agrees that driving drunk off a cliff was the right thing to do.
posted by bashos_frog at 2:45 PM on August 30, 2004

I think that's a false analogy because the supposed "friends" that didn't join us in "going in" have little to no serious military, and, the UN scandal strongly suggests said "friends" were never going to "going in," even after the hundreth UN resolution. So, please, get real: authorization to go in was authorization to have happen what happened.

By the way, looks like the rate of American casualties has dropped to a trickle. Tragic, always, but more and more, harping on Iraq is going to look more like highlighting a success than a failure.

I think the pro-Kerry crowd is rapidly running out ammo.
Any change Michael Moore will explode when Bush is reelected? I hope so.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:54 PM on August 30, 2004

oops: any chance Michael Moore...
posted by ParisParamus at 2:59 PM on August 30, 2004

A trickle?

8/04 = 62
7/04 = 54
6/04 = 42
5/04 = 80
4/04 = 135

Just so you don't attack the source, spend some time at Centcom and check any month you like.
posted by whatever at 3:10 PM on August 30, 2004

What the fuck do "friends" have to do with it? John Kerry said the President (any President) should have the authority to go to war. He also thinks George Bush totally fucked it up. FUBAR, if you will. The fact that he didn't get many friends to join him in his colossal fuck-up is not relevant to the argument.

Authorization was leverage, same as a driver's license is mobility. The idea of using that authorization (or his driver's license) in a responsible manner, has clearly evaded George Bush.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:13 PM on August 30, 2004

John Kerry said the President (any President) should have the authority to go to war.

Does Kerry really believe that?

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power... To declare War.
posted by trharlan at 3:24 PM on August 30, 2004

You know what? I apologize for that characterization. I did not know the total was so hight, and in fact, no total should be characterized as such.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:25 PM on August 30, 2004

The reference to "friends" pertains to Kerry's suggestion that with a larger coalition of countries, the same result could have been achieved without as many deaths.

I think that is a wholly speculative claim, and shows nothing more than Monday morning quarterbacking on Kerry's part.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:37 PM on August 30, 2004

tharlan: Why do you hate context so much?

If you recall, the President was asking Congress for the authority to go to war. John Kerry believed that there was reasonable cause to give the President that authority. He would have wanted that authority himself, because without it the President could not back up his efforts at diplomacy with the threat of force. Unfortunately this president made no such efforts at diplomacy.

And in a minor technical nit-pick, there has been no declaration of war by the US since 1941. There have been a lot of end-runs around Article 1 Section 8, though.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:37 PM on August 30, 2004

You know what? I apologize for that characterization. I did not know the total was so high

That's understandable. You probably assumed it went down because the media no longer considers the daily death toll newsworthy, and of course because you're not alllowed to see the coffins when they come home.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:46 PM on August 30, 2004

Paris, you seem to have forgotten that my original point was that Kerry did not "go along with" Bush's actions in Iraq.
I agree, ideas about a larger coalition are speculation, but they have nothing to do with my point that the Bush campain is lying (again) about what Kerry said.

Personally, I don't think there was any chance of any coalition, large or small, or anything else in the world preventing Bush from acting on his obsession to out-warmonger his Daddy. But that's the core of the problem, isn't it?
posted by bashos_frog at 3:47 PM on August 30, 2004

“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP

'The boy has Oedipal problems and government is his daddy', says Garrison Kiellor.

Nice lines.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:54 PM on August 30, 2004

Any chance Michael Moore will explode when Bush is reelected?
Nope, he'll just make a 100-Million-grossing sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 (Fahrenheit 9/12? Celsius 911 for the foreign markets?), before he has to leave the country under threat of arrest under Patriot Act IV, and live out his life fat and happy in France. If Kerry wins, Moore won't be able to make the transition to yes-man for the Administration like Limbaugh and his ilk have, and he'll lose a lot of his less-politically-extreme fans. Anybody who thinks Moore is "irrational-hate-driven" is totally ignorant. A mix of hard-core political blinders, egotistical self-branding and the joy of having as easy a target as Bush; that's what's driving him (that and a chauffeur).

And going back to Keillor, he grew up on a farm reading The New Yorker and his biggest break was writing an article about The Grand Ole Opry for that magazine. A Manhattanite trapped in a Minnesotan's body, he prides himself on being able to write halfway-respectfully about people he always considered himself superior to, only occasionally keeping himself from exploding by letting off steam with pieces of supposedly-uncharacteristic-for-him biting satires. His parody of Jesse Ventura was not his best work. His current rant at least has more actually skillful turns of phrase than the works of most of the full-time ranters out there.
posted by wendell at 3:55 PM on August 30, 2004

people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico
Have never met a Republican whom thought this (met many many many...)
Can anyone explain this - sure there may be some.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:16 PM on August 30, 2004

Keillor's so clever -- I really love his work. My trouble is that he probably would've written this stuff during the Eisenhower Administration, too. He's a partisan and that's what they do. (It isn't just restricted to the left -- in the 1960s William F. Buckley called the Eisenhower Administration "a warm puppy of a time, when the White House was inhabited by competent, bridge-playing businessmen," and then went on to express regret for having been so critical of Ike. The point is that Keillor isn't writing this stuff because the facts of the last four years have taught him anything new. They've just nurtured the kernels of what he already felt.

"Midwestern gentility", indeed.

Besides, Keillor's let his preening get the better of him here. Who's he going to persuade with that "hairy-backed" stuff? And does he really think the swine weren't at the trough during the last administration? It's a deft trick to call your political opponents cavemen in one breath, mention your own duties "sacred" in the next, and then complain that the "angry people" on the other side are the root of all your problems. He's not winning any converts; he's just wanking his friends off. That's fine and all -- I really do like the invective -- but don't let him think that he isn't also contributing to the anger.
posted by coelecanth at 4:21 PM on August 30, 2004

I did not know the total was so high

Yeah, well you be sure to tell us the right number of Americans to die to make Iraq safer for radical Islam, the right number of Americans to die to get rid of a dictator who was scarcely more fond of Al Qaeda than we are, and who had not one fuck of a thing to do with 9/11. You be sure to give us that number, Paris.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:23 PM on August 30, 2004

You know what? I apologize for that characterization. I did not know the total was so hight, and in fact, no total should be characterized as such.

Let's show a little class here. He admitted his mistake. That so rarely happens here in these "discussions".
posted by whatever at 4:30 PM on August 30, 2004

people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico

he's just wanking his friends off.
Thanks for the explanation
posted by thomcatspike at 4:50 PM on August 30, 2004

ParisParamus, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy are incredibly popular in Massachusetts. They've represented their constituencies extraordinarily well. Which is why they get re-elected over and over without doing any campaigning.

That just chaps your ass, doesn't it?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:16 PM on August 30, 2004

No it doesn't "chap my ass"; rather, it suggests he's learned how to preach to the choir, which may make for a rude awakening beyond Bay State.

By the way: a reality check for all of us: wasn't Mike Dukakis, Super Loser, ahead, or at least neck-and-neck at this point when he ran? In other words, the polls, at this point, don't tell much (I suspect what they tell is that people try to deliberate as long as possible, giving people who that probably won't vote for the benefit of the doubt until nearly the last moment).

The "right" number of dead to oust Saddam? Given the World's belief about Saddam at the time of the invasion, I don't think 1000 would be outrageous.

But of course, lots of people here believe Bush never had a good faith belief re WMDs in Iraq, which is, of course the crux of matters. I think he did, and I think they will be found--although, perhaps not until Syria is invaded. "You" think he didn't, and I question the origins of your belief.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:43 PM on August 30, 2004

I think he did, and I think they will be found--although, perhaps not until Syria is invaded.

Who's going to lead the invasion? The 101st Fighting Keyboarders? Hallelujah!
posted by RakDaddy at 5:51 PM on August 30, 2004

Frank Newport of the Gallup Organization pointed out that, in Gallup's surveys, no president since World War II has won reelection after falling below 50 percent approval at this point in an election year. "Looking at it in context, Bush is following the trajectory of the three incumbents who ended up losing rather than the trajectory of the five incumbents who won," he said. (WaPo)
posted by amberglow at 5:55 PM on August 30, 2004

I think they will be found--although, perhaps not until Syria is invaded

Yes, Paris, it'll always be in the next place we want to go. Cute little self-sustaining belief system you've created there: no evidence needed or even wanted; because evidence that doesn't exist can't be refuted! Very, very cute. Irrational to the point of gibbering lunacy, but cute.

I question the origins of your belief.

No further comment necessary at this point.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:31 PM on August 30, 2004

I bet the weapons have been hidden in China
Go Paris go!
;)
posted by matteo at 6:36 PM on August 30, 2004

George, baby, I didn't "imagine" Syria into being a murderous regime with the same Bathist origins as Saddam: educate yourself, at least a bit.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:38 PM on August 30, 2004

If Saddam was smart, he would have sent his weapons to North Korea. God knows we're never going to cause any trouble over there. I mean, what's 500 tons of nerve gas and a half dozen nukes between friends insane dictators?
posted by bashos_frog at 6:43 PM on August 30, 2004

John McCain vs. Michael Moore! Lower the Thunderdome!
posted by homunculus at 8:40 PM on August 30, 2004

that 2-minute-hate made Moore the news of the night. How scared they are of him.
posted by amberglow at 8:43 PM on August 30, 2004

"people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico" - thomcatspike, I'd call that a newly evolved type of American rhetorical illogic. Dems and Repubs alike use it, and it merely amounts to a sleight of hand :

"You're a kook, or you talk to kooks!"
posted by troutfishing at 8:46 PM on August 30, 2004

"ParisParamus, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy are incredibly popular in Massachusetts." - Sidhedevil, you failed to insert a comma there.
posted by troutfishing at 8:49 PM on August 30, 2004

failed to insert a commie?
posted by matteo at 9:02 PM on August 30, 2004

Etch-a-Sketch president

Do you really think GW Bush knows what he is doing? He was talking about "his" health care plan today. Do you really think he knew what he was talking about? Did you see his last press conference? Come on, now.

I'm not addressing that at anyone in particular, really. I'm just talking about GW Bush, here. If you feel compelled to answer, please don't say, "Yeah, but Kerry..."
posted by jaronson at 9:28 PM on August 30, 2004

Asked about McCain's remarks, Moore said, "I can't believe they're dumb enough to bring up the film and help its box office."
posted by homunculus at 9:56 PM on August 30, 2004

One from the left, without a doubt, who understands the game.
posted by troutfishing at 10:00 PM on August 30, 2004

Unfortunately for all of us, competence as a campaigner does not correlate to competence as a President.

Truest thing said in this thread.

The question is, why do so many hold such depraved views of President Bush; only a psychologist or psychiatrist is qualified to say.

It has become clear that 1/2 of the population is stark raving bonkers.

The question is, which half?
posted by rushmc at 10:22 PM on August 30, 2004

You're free to hate anyone you like: this is not Canada!

What the fuck does that mean? Don't make me come down there.
posted by sharpener at 10:56 PM on August 30, 2004

rushmc ... the half that's voting
posted by pyramid termite at 4:46 AM on August 31, 2004

Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill
posted by a3matrix at 5:17 AM on August 31, 2004

"What the fuck does that mean? Don't make me come down there."

It means that hate-speech is banned by the Canadian Constitution, n'est-ce pas?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:39 AM on August 31, 2004

and who prays -PP

And here is Bush and PP's prayer. Mark Twain wrote it in 1905. Its still true today. Hatred and fear brings war. God is on our side. %<
posted by nofundy at 5:46 AM on August 31, 2004

[ on cue ]

"Some Americans, notably Mark Twain, strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines. Other Americans mistakenly thought that the Philippines wanted to become part of the United States......During the war, 4,234 American soldiers were killed and 2,818 were wounded. Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 while civilian deaths numbered in 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos. U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure[?]) and the concentration of civilians into "protected zones". Many of these civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to disproportionate reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a "nigger killing business". "
posted by troutfishing at 6:03 AM on August 31, 2004

Dukakis was never ahead. I knew people who worked on his campaign, and they would rejoice whenever he was as close as ten points behind. (Oddly enough, many of these people were Red Sox fans. Coincidence? I think not!)

Oh, and a reality check for ParisParamus--wasn't George Bush pere, at this point, way ahead?
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:16 AM on August 31, 2004

Imperial Amnesia
posted by homunculus at 9:30 AM on August 31, 2004

Actually, WRONG: Dukakis was well ahead as late as late July.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/29/column.shields.opinion.perspective/
posted by ParisParamus at 9:40 AM on August 31, 2004

Even more relevant: where did Grover Cleveland stand at this point in the 1892 election?
posted by eatitlive at 9:49 AM on August 31, 2004

ParisParamus, we were both inaccurate. Dukakis was never in the lead while my friends were working on his campaign (which was after the Democratic convention, and I should have specified as much); it's true, though, that he did poll ahead of Bush during June and July of 1988.

By this time in the cycle, however, which is what you originally contended, PP, Papa Bush was ahead of Dukakis.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:58 AM on August 31, 2004

Oh, and I was wrong, too--Clinton was ahead by this point in the 1992 cycle, though GHW had been leading in the polls during June and July.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:01 AM on August 31, 2004

he's acquired a false-sense of campaign competence in Massachusetts. I mean, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy win there!

And William Weld. And Mitt Romney.

lots of people here believe Bush never had a good faith belief re WMDs in Iraq, which is, of course the crux of matters.

I'm sure Bush has a good faith belief in many things that are demonstrably untrue.

If you're so "principled" that it's all or nothing, you wind up with nothing.
posted by ParisParamus

Haw!
posted by Vidiot at 11:28 AM on August 31, 2004

It means that hate-speech is banned by the Canadian Constitution, n'est-ce pas?

Not quite. Under the Constitution Act, specifically, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadians have "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." Under the Criminal Code of Canada:

"Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction."

Furthermore, citizens cannot be convicted if the statements were part of a private conversation, based on belief in religious text or if they are, in fact, true. In essence, we are free to hate anyone we want (just like you) - we just have to be careful how we spread the hate.
posted by sharpener at 1:47 PM on August 31, 2004

sharpener, I find the idea rather intriguing, although probably not managable. But the truth is, I could happily live out my days and never run a foul of such a rule.

What I'd love to know is, is it illegal to accuse someone of violating this law? In otherwords, of accusing ParisParamus of publically expressing hatred for ethnic group X?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:35 PM on August 31, 2004

I would agree that it seems unmanageable, and I think the majority of Canadians are, likewise, unliekly to come under fire. There's plenty of hate up here, but you'd have to hold a seminar or take out a newspaper ad advocating the destruction of Jews or homosexuals before you come under scrutiny.

You can publicly express hatred all you like - the difference is if your actions are seen to incite hatred that is likely to lead to a breach of the peace. You can stand on a street corner and yell hateful epithets until you're blue in the face; if no one lodges a complaint then bully for you. Chances are most people will either ignore you or call you an ass. Or they might accuse you of inciting hatred. But until they file a formal complaint, you're free to do as you please.
posted by sharpener at 5:07 PM on August 31, 2004