August 27, 2004
What happens if the Democrats lose?
It seems all too likely to me. It could be an uncomfortable four years for everyone.
Show Comments »
Why Is This Girl Smiling?
«
Humor
»
No, seriously: why?!?!
LONDON -- Actress Alicia Witt models what is claimed to be the most colossal waste of effort in creating stupidest hat ever made, the $2,700,000 Champrau d'Amour, by celebrity couture hat designer Louis Mariette, at Christies in London. The hat is covered entirely in dazzling diamonds and inspired by entwined ivy and bluebells. (06/14/04 AP photo)
Oops, that wasn't exactly what they actually said, was it?
LONDON -- Actress Alicia Witt models what is claimed to be the most expensive hat ever made, the $2,700,000 Champrau d'Amour, by celebrity couture hat designer Louis Mariette, at Christies in London. The hat is covered entirely in dazzling diamonds and inspired by entwined ivy and bluebells. (06/14/04 AP photo)
Show Comments »
That looks like something created by Dr. Seuss. I suppose you would have to be incredibly wealthy to wear it, because you'd need to pay someone to lead you around since it blocks your vision.
posted by
Jordana on August 27, 2004 02:32 PM
Why is this girl smiling?
Because having her brain devoured by a Slivorjian Brainsucker is actually quite a pleasant sensation that has become all the rage among our nation's media and entertainment elites.
Well, ya gotta admit it would explain a lot...
posted by
McGehee on August 27, 2004 02:35 PM
« Hide Comments
Blindspots.
That's the simplest and most fair way I can put it.
I have several Democrat/liberal friends, and I'm sure that they will each think this is about them*, and they will all be partially correct.
Rather than 'blindspots', I could also call it childish petulance, because sometimes that's the way it comes across. But all of them are charming, witty, intelligent, thoughtful, caring people in everything besides politics, so I have to assume something else is at work, and 'blindspots' is the only way I can explain it.
When I'm driving, the thing I hate most is someone sitting in my blindspot. I will always adjust my speed to spend as little time in someone's blindspot as I can. Because when you glance to your left, you see your immediate left, and you also see mostly behind you through your sideview mirror...but there is a 'blindspot' big enough to hide a complete vehicle. If one is there, you can't see it, and so it is as if it doesn't exist at all for you. You can't make decisions based on a vehicle that doesn't exist in your experience...and that's how some horribly tragic accidents develop.
Here are two significant blindspots left unchecked by Democrats I often encounter:
They are upset at how Bush is handling the economy. Most of the time, they cite the economic statistics for their own state lagging behind the national recovery. What they ignore is that the states below the average (including Michigan, California, Washington, Oregon) are among the more liberal of states, with larger-than-average entitlements and tax rates. The states hurt least by the economic downturn and who recovered the most quickly are the conservative, low-tax, low-entitlement states whose state government used the same principles as President Bush. So blaming President Bush for your own liberal state's bad economy is like blaming the aspirin for the hangover. Refusing to vote for Bush because you live in a liberal state with a sagging economy is like trying to stay permanently drunk to avoid said hangover.
The unemployment rate is 5.5%. Experts say this level is pretty much full employment. Bickering about the specific number of jobs lost "during the administration" is silly, since it is based on a number that even the office that produces it says is underestimating the number of people working. Factor in the gainfully employed people not covered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Payroll Survey, and we are already seeing a net gain in jobs. And, in fact, by most major indicators, the economy is doing quite well.
Most experts also say the recent recession was much more shallow than expected, and recovery was quicker than expected. We had the best economic growth in 20 years in 2003! Manufacturing growth is at a 30 year high! The only possible way to criticize President Bush for his handling of the economy is to say that he is merely benefiting from natural economic cycles...but then you can't blame him for an economic downturn that began before he even took office, can you?
But the news media still reports the economic situation as bad, and my Democrat/Liberal friends are negative and critical along with it. Without a single fact to support that view, I might add, except that they are convinced things would be even better with Kerry as President. To which, I repeat: without a single fact to support that view. None of these people are dumb or essentially dishonest, so the only way I can explain it is they simply do not see the situation because their ideological views block out good economic news resulting from President Bush's actions as if they don't exist...
Another "blindspot" is concerning their anger that President Bush did not fulfill his promise to "Be a uniter, not a divider." They ignore that President Bush reached out to Democrat leaders from the very beginning, that he met with one of his most vocal critics in Ted Kennedy and worked civilly with him to produce the Education Bill of their dreams.
Things did get worse after that, yes. As President Bush said himself, "The most disappointing thing about his four years in office has been his inability to change the "harsh environment" in Washington."
But Democrats have used his expressed wish to be a uniter against him, demanding that he bow to their every wish or else be labeled "a divider". The Democrats were dividers in how they criticized every step President Bush took in the wake of 9/11. They demanded he come before Congress to get permission to invade Iraq, so he did. They demanded he go to the UN, so he did. They criticized him for appearing to delay until after the 2002 election for political reasons, and then criticized him even more sharply when he accomodated their wishes and made Iraq an issue earlier, in time for it to be an issue for the election. They used a loophole in the Senate to filibuster the majority of his nominees from a minority status, in flagrant disregard for the lesser obstructions of the Republican party under Clinton.
In every single case, President Bush has extended the hand of cooperation, and the Democrats have not only bitten it, they've blamed him for not preventing the biting.
It is extremely biased, negative, and dishonest to blame President Bush for current atmosphere when Democrats have pioneered harsh, partisan tactics at every stage. Unless it is just a blindspot for their own party's activities. I prefer to think of it so.
Read More "Some Things That Frustrate Me About Democrats/Liberals" »
Show Comments »
And no one seems to remember the huge blow dealt to our economy in September, 2001, and how astonishingly absent the economic repercussions were. I have no patience for the economy whiners.
posted by
Lenise on August 27, 2004 11:23 AM
« Hide Comments
August 26, 2004
More Caption Fun
«
Humor
»
Yeah, I get 'em all from Drudge. So what?
I'd do one myself, but like I said, ya'll are far better than me at this.
Show Comments »
Dangit! I forgot about the Botox-negating effects of corn dogs again!
posted by
Lenise on August 26, 2004 06:09 PM
That one made me giggle...
posted by
Nahtan on August 26, 2004 07:39 PM
Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, Purple Hearts aren't awarded for self-inflicted corndog wounds.
posted by
Eric on August 26, 2004 09:27 PM
Before the day is over, my nose is gonna be THIS long.
posted by
MORSteve on August 26, 2004 10:17 PM
"Oops, not enough ketchup. I'll just dispense a little bit more here..."
(after pausing to let the chorus of "EEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!" subside)
"You're tired of hearing about Vietnam? I've had it up to about here with it myself. But what can I do? I'm running for President and without Vietnam I got nothin'."
posted by
McGehee on August 27, 2004 02:32 PM
« Hide Comments
You might want to go to Rasumussen Reports (linked in my sidebar). Today they are showing Bush ahead by a percentage point, and Kerry at his lowest percentage since 4 August. This is only the 2nd time this month he has been this low. I'm thinking he'll slide further as the bandwagon effect kicks in.
Of course, it may not. We are a long way from the election and this is all still in the margin of error.
But I'm thinking that the "Deny Them 1st Amendment Rights" response from the Kerry team to the SBVFT hurt Kerry and it is starting to show now.
Show Comments »
The push for individual liberties has done much to ensure that people can do whatever they want...
...unfortunately, it seems like what most people really want to do is be the biggest jerk they can be.
Read More "Individual Liberties" »
Show Comments »
KERRY CHALLENGES BUSH TO WEEKLY DEBATES: In Anoka, MN, John Kerry challenged President Bush to weekly debates on the issues.
BUSH CAMP REAX: "There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself. This election presents a clear choice to the American people between a President who is moving America forward and a Senator who has taken every side of almost every issue and has the most out of the mainstream record in the U.S. Senate," said BC'04 spokesman Steve Schmidt.
From The Note, via Drudge.
The link above does not seem to be permanent, and likely will point to new stories starting on 27 August 2004.
Show Comments »
during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself.
That's cute. :)
posted by
Frank Martin on August 26, 2004 11:18 AM
« Hide Comments
August 25, 2004
Caption
Contest
«
Humor
»
I've been racking my brains to think of a good pun for Kevin McGehee, who won the last caption contest...but I guess you can't force genius. And you can't force puns, either.
So I'm abandoning all pretext of having a contest, and just running the pics for the fun of it. I am still eliciting humorous captions, because you are all better at it than me.
Many thanks to those who came up with some good ones on the last picture.
Here is today's:
Show Comments »
To continue my tradition of lyrics for captions:
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/rocklobs.htm
posted by
Jo on August 25, 2004 01:56 PM
Wow these hand puppets are truly amazing!
posted by
David Weisman on August 25, 2004 06:52 PM
John Kerry demonstrates how he is being beaten to a political pulp by the Swift Vets on the one hand, and his political/legal advisors on the other.
posted by
Stephen Macklin on August 25, 2004 07:08 PM
"Preeeeezenting the defending champeen AND the challenger for the World Political Lightweight Champeenship, in a to-the-death grudge match: John Kerry and John Kerry!"
posted by
McGehee on August 26, 2004 01:37 PM
I'd have to give the nod to Mr. McGehee again...
Ever notice how Kerry just keeps giving the press amazingly goofy poses to snap pics of?
posted by
Nathan on August 26, 2004 07:42 PM
If only he weren't such a self-important goofball, maybe acting goofy would work in his favor. But ya just know he's not doing it on purpose.
And that's what makes it so much funnier.
posted by
McGehee on August 27, 2004 02:29 PM
« Hide Comments
I'm at home eating dinner, and the phone rings at 5:50pm. My wife ignores the phone because we get too many solicitors. For the most part, if it rings, it's someone trying to sell something. They usually leave us alone at dinner, though.
There is the requisite pause of an auto-dialer routine switching to the recording once it found a live line.
Suddenly the warm, dulcet tones of the leading Democrat candidate for Washington state Governer come over the line. She identifies herself, and I hang up.
If it were a person calling me to explain her positions and stances, I might listen. But there is no way I'm going to waste my dinner time listening to a non-interactive robot blather inanities and campaign promises.
Are Democrats really growing that tone deaf? Why would they deliberately use techniques identical to one of the greatest irritants of the 21st century?
She lost any chance to earn my vote.
Read More "Telephone Solicitors of Gore*" »
Show Comments »
I despise those recorded political calls. They were real popular in Maryland in 2002. Hope they aren't this year...
posted by
Frank Martin on August 25, 2004 10:19 AM
Democrats want to believe they are at the cutting edge of technology. They see the recorded phone ads as a way of getting more bang for the advertising buck.
Democrats don't really have a message. But they would like to be in power, for the sake of all the political appointments, committeships, control of agendas, federal judges, bully pulpits, and lots of political graft.
posted by
Ann on August 25, 2004 11:56 AM
When they discover that the automated phone calls at dinnertime aren't working in their favor, they'll switch tactics: a hundred identical e-mails sent every day to every address on the Internet.
posted by
McGehee on August 25, 2004 01:29 PM
We've gotten these phone calls from both parties. And yes, they suck.
Marty, I am leaving Ann to you. ;)
posted by
Jo on August 25, 2004 01:58 PM
:)
But they would like to be in power, for the sake of all the political appointments, committeships, control of agendas, federal judges, bully pulpits, and lots of political graft.
Sorry, that dog don't hunt.
The current crop of republicans in the White House and the Congress have perfected graft to an artform.
The Bush Administration employs a policy of having special interest groups draft their legislation and Dub's "Pioneers" (or whatever the heck they are) rewriting federal regulations. The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader arm-twisit business and associations to hire only republicans under threat that they will be denied access and a voice in the political process. What a model of good citizenship.
They spend resources they don't have to reward their friends and they will let our children and grandchildren pay for it all. What a model of fiscal stewardship.
They blow up third-world countries, deck themselves out in flight suits, strut across an aircraft carrier and declare "Mission Accomplished" and a year later American G.I.s are still being killed in the blown-up countries and they borrow more and more money to finance their war. But their friends make money, so what the heck. What a model of leadership.
The "pay-to-play" mentality has taken hold in DC to a far greater extent than ever before. Democrats can take a lesson from the GOP's perfection of "pay-to-play" tactics.
But they would like to be in power, for the sake of all the political appointments, committeships, control of agendas, federal judges, bully pulpits, and lots of political graft. Indeed. Get your head out of the sand, wake up and smell the coffee. Get a grip. Read a newspaper. Read a news magazine.
Sheesh!
(How's that?)
posted by
Frank Martin on August 26, 2004 05:44 AM
« Hide Comments
For those of you who are tired of Swift Boat veteran allegations and Kerry's administration attempting to smear President Bush as being more tied to the SBVFT than Kerry is to MoveOn.org, have patience.
The issues will return to prominence in September, as soon as we have the first debate. Of course, there's always the chance that Kerry won't discuss the issues even then... But at least it will be more clear who* doesn't want to discuss the issues, and maybe even why**...
Personally, I'm really enjoying the discussions of Swift Boat veterans' allegations.
Read More ""Help Is On The Way"" »
*John F. Kerry, of course
**Bush has done quite well on all major issues, better than the average president would have dealt with 9/11 and economic problems, and far better than Democrats can admit.
« Hide ""Help Is On The Way""
Show Comments »
Captain's Quarters has the rundown on a recent example of Kerry's foreign policy attitudes.
Kerry should not be President. Heck, John F. Kerry should not be a Senator. Although he votes so rarely, it is arguable whether he actually is a true representative of his constituents.
Show Comments »
Posted by Nathan at
09:14 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (1)
»
marcland links with:
Good one
So NPR uses military attempts to maintain Operations Security as a pretext to criticize the war in Iraq.
Here's Greyhawk's take on the issue.
My reaction? Well, I don't know. I don't trust NPR much to begin with, and when they say things like, "Critics say it's an attempt to suppress unflattering truths about the U.S. occupation" when Mil-Blogs are actually one of the ways you can bypass negative media accounts to actually hear good news about the continuing liberation* in Iraq.
I can understand the need for Operational Security. Our enemies say they can get 80% of what they need from open sources. We are accustomed to openness, and I can see the need to remind people to be careful what information they give out...even if it comes in the form of a warning that some people feel is somewhat threatening.
I also suspect that 'bandwidth' might be an issue. You don't want to miss an important message because someone is uploading an image to their website.
I can see a reason why some higher ranking officers might want to discourage blogging without actually saying "no". The less people doing it, the less chance there is of problems, but the people who really find it useful and soul-satisfying aren't barred.
To tell the truth, I am far more disturbed that the USAF (and maybe the rest of the military, dunno), totally blocks access to the portal mail servers (Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL). Even worse, they don't warn you before you deploy. It can be a significant morale hit to not be able to receive email or even be able to tell someone you won't be able to read their email until you return...
Read More ""Use Any Weapon"" »
*I never liked 'occupation'. I know President Bush used it at least once, but we didn't occupy a nation being governed willingly, we freed a people from a tyrant. The tyrants supporters and allies are still resisting our attempt to guarantee that the people remain free. Not every citizen wants us there, but the local people with perspective on the situation recognize the necessity. Describing that as an 'occupation' is clumsy at best and reprehensibly manipulative at worst.
« Hide ""Use Any Weapon""
Show Comments »
Posted by Nathan at
08:11 AM
|
Comments (0)
|
TrackBack (1)
»
Mudville Gazette links with:
With Friends Like That...
It is still early in the preseason, and I'm guessing at how many players Vermeil will keep at each position as much as I am guessing who will make the team. Based on my impressions of their performances thus far, and potential for improvement within the season, I think the final roster will look close to this:
Read More "Who Makes the Team? Roster Guesses" »
QB: 3
Trent Green
Todd Collins
Casey Clausen (makes team on strength of decent 4th-quarter 2-minute drill against Giants)
RB: 5
Priest Holmes
Derrick Blaylock
Larry Johnson
Tony Richardson, FB
Jonathan Smith, FB
WR: 5
Johnnie Morton
Eddie Kennison
Mark Boerigter
Sammie Parker
Richard Smith
TE: 3
Tony Gonzalez
Kris Wilson
Jason Dunn
O-Line: 9
Willie Roaf, LT
Brian Waters, LG
Casey Wiegmann, C
Will Shields, RG
John Welbourn, RT
Billy Bober C,G,T
Jordan Black LT
Brett Williams RT
Ryan Lilja, C,G
Kicking Specialists: 4
Lawrence Tynes, Kicker
Jason Baker, Punter
Kendall Gammon, Long Snapper
Dante Hall, P/K Returner
CB: 4
Dexter McCleon
Eric Warfield
William Bartee
Julian Battle
Safeties: 4
Jerome Woods
Greg Wesley
Shaunard Harts
Clint Finley
LB: 6
Scott Fujita
Shawn Barber
Kavika Mitchell
Monty Biesel
Keyaron Fox
Fred Jones
DE: 5
Vonnie Holliday
Eric Hicks
Jared Allen
R-Kal Truluck
Gary Stills
DT: 5
Ryan Sims
John Browning
Eric Downing
Junior Siavii
Lional Dalton
« Hide "Who Makes the Team? Roster Guesses"
Show Comments »
August 24, 2004
Kerry's campaign now says is possible first Purple Heart was awarded for unintentional self-inflicted wound...
If true (and Drudge doesn't have a link to anything there), that means that the range of responses to any and all of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are:
1) Stonewalling
2) Threats of lawsuits
3) Undermining the credibility of the SBVFT, rather than addressing the allegations
4) Admitting that perhaps an allegation might, in fact, be true.
This is getting ridiculous. I am feeling some sympathy for the minority of Democrats who were denied their chance to vote for Howard Dean in the election by other Democrats, but I honestly will lose all respect for anyone, anyone, who votes for John Kerry in this election.
Show Comments »
I honestly will lose all respect for anyone, anyone, who votes for John Kerry in this election.
You got to admit it isn't like you ever had any respect for me anyway... :)
posted by
Frank Martin on August 25, 2004 10:22 AM
Welllll....maybe I should change that to "political respect."
posted by
Nathan on August 25, 2004 10:35 AM
« Hide Comments
August 23, 2004
That idiot 'Brain Fertilizer' has another stupid, overly-optimistic post up again. Blah, blah, blah, KC will win the Superbowl 245-0 over the Denver Broncos, blah, blah, blah. Doesn't this guy ever shut up??!?!?!
Show Comments »
They did look dominating last night.
Impressive.
posted by
zombyboy on August 24, 2004 07:21 AM
The thing that stymies me is: the preseason is absolutely illusory and useless as a predictor of success. Except when it isn't. So I am getting my hopes up, but I don't really want to talk smack. Yet.
posted by
Nathan on August 24, 2004 07:31 AM
Sorry, but it's FINALLY the Redskins' year to win the NFC. I hope. Next year at the latest ;)
posted by
Lenise on August 24, 2004 02:27 PM
No, I'd wait a bit to start talking smack. Pre-season isn't meaningful enough to hang your hat on--but the first four games of the season are vital.
That said, damned if your boys didn't look like world beaters last night.
posted by
zombyboy on August 24, 2004 02:34 PM
I like the Chiefs, and living in Philly, came to like Dick Vermeil. The Chiefs might have what it takes this year.
I have less hope for the Iggles.
But no matter -- I'm actually a Jets fan. So at this point I'm mostly scar tissue.
posted by
IB Bill on August 25, 2004 06:15 AM
Lenise,
Ummmm...the line was a joke. KC can't play Denver in the Super Bowl...they are both AFC. So Kansas City absolutely doesn't pose any threat to your team's chances to win the NFC.
ZB,
We'll see. The important thing is that unless we have injury problems and collapse, it's going to be a fun season seeing how far they go.
IB Bill,
My condolences for being a Jets fan. Pennington is going to rock this year, I think.
posted by
Nathan on August 25, 2004 06:32 AM
Fine! Make me look like a stupid girl. I thought there was something fishy about that, but I KNEW Denver was AFC. Anyway, it was nice to see Marty Schottenheimer get treated well somewhere (KC), and I've had a bit of a soft spot in my heart for the Chiefs since then. Art Modell was totally unclassy to him, as was Mr. Snyder, sadly.
BTW, I loved the old post about the cat and the mug. Nobody ever comments on my kitty photos, which is hard to fathom, since the kitties (especially mine) are so cute.
posted by
Lenise on August 26, 2004 06:19 PM
« Hide Comments
Judas Priest, Barbara, it's one of those flaming bags again.
Show Comments »
Nilou Motamed is Very Beautiful
«
Blogging
»
She is the Travel and Leisure editor for CNN. But I can't find an image of her on the web. But then, one of the things I find so attractive about her is the way she smiles while talking, and the sparkle in her eyes...those might not show well in a still photograph.
....just saying, yanno?
Show Comments »
I don't think I've ever seen her, but with a name like Nilou, she has *got* to be hot.
posted by
Jon Henke on August 24, 2004 03:57 PM
When the woman most closely associated with your network is Christiane Amanpour, is it that hard to distinguish yourself as attractive?
posted by
Sean Kinsell on August 25, 2004 09:26 AM
« Hide Comments
August 22, 2004
Both parties like to think they are inclusive. Talk about political parties, and you'll discuss how each party has a moderate wing and an extreme wing. Both parties don't do enough to disavow and marginalize the whackos, perhaps, and Democrats get blamed for PETA and ELF and NARAL as much as Republicans get blamed for Jerry Falwell and white supremacists.
This gets characterized as a "Big Tent"...
Read More "Musings on "The Big Tent"" »
The tent roof encloses the party, and if someone is in your tent, you are responsible for their presence in some way...you didn't hunt them down and throw them out, at the very least. The parties then try to expand the coverage of their tent. Republicans have been conservative, for instance...but as college students have gotten sick of 'speech codes' and extreme political correctness on campuses, being Republican has become somewhat cool, and we have what is known as South Park Republicans...people who agree with very little of the traditional Republican/Conservative background except for small government/fiscal responsibility. They want sex on TV, they like Howard Stern, they see no problem with legalizing drugs, might be weakly pro-choice, push for a more secular society and are weakly to strongly pro-SSM.
I disagree with pretty much all of that except for the 'fiscal responsibilty' part. In the past that would have put me squarely in the center of the party, but these days, I'm considered a right-wing wacko by many members of the same party. And yet I disagree nearly as sharply with Pat Buchanon or Jerry Falwell. Go figure.
I think this happened because President Clinton deliberately emphasized the "moderate" portions of his platform to attract moderate voters...but these people then felt betrayed by his actions and move back to the left after being elected. These are the same people who didn't really like Bush in the first place. These are the same people who are voting for Kerry because they feel like Bush is too conservative on social issues but a Democrat in spending, so they might as well get a Democrat who they feel more comfortable with on social issues. These are the people who are voting for Bush "while holding their nose" because they don't trust Kerry on a significant issue or two.
And that's fine, but it's an uncomfortable fit, sometimes.
Personally, I don't think a "Big Tent" is a very accurate analogy. It implies that you are either in or out. It implies the party has a great deal of control or choice over who is in, but nothing could be further from the truth.
There is a classic war novel that describes someone trying to unite a country through military conquest. It is my intention to rewrite the story as a political battle. Rather than capturing significant cities, the candidates attempt to capture significant issues. For instance, if more people care about retaining the right to abortion, it is a significant issue in one way...but in an entirely different way if more people care about protecting the unborn children. Thus, a candidate must not only stake a position, they must also persuade people to that position. A candidate will naturally try to emphasize an issue they feel they are already strong in. But a candidate who only weakly defends abortion won't win votes even if the overwhelming majority of voters want to retain that right. In the same manner, taking a city doesn't help you if you have to destroy the city to capture it, and if you can win the city's inhabitants so they work with you after capture, so much the better, right? And you start a war with certain cities already within your possession. A great general recruited to lead your battles is equivelant to a great campaign manager, I'd say. A political candidate needs top-notch advisors and assistants just like a conquerer needs the advisors and competent lieutenants.
Thus, I'd compare the parties to conquering armies and the voters to the land they occupy. Think about it, and help me refine this analogy, if you will.
« Hide "Musings on "The Big Tent""
Show Comments »
Hmmm, interesting read.
I'd say Clinton is moderate if you compare him to say, Dennis Kucinich. I'd say Dubya is moderate if you compare him to Tom Delay.
But Clinton is actually pretty liberal and Bush is actually pretty conservative. But neither is in the "extreme" of his party.
Liberals can desert Kerry for Nader. But that is a wasted vote in my opinion. Conservatives won't bolt "W" cuz he is one of them. So Dub has the moderate-right and right while Kerry has the moderate-left and left except for the Naderites. So they fight for that real moderate, center - if it really exists.
I'm not sure about issues, anymore. I'm getting so jaded that I am beginning to think there really is no undecided center that votes on issues.
If each candidate has pretty much sewn up 45% of the vote, finding that last 6% has got to be hard...
posted by
Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 12:23 PM
Sure, but only if you accept that the 45%/45% number is accurate.
Remember, the economic indicators are showing Bush is going to win with 55%-60% of the vote.
Whence the dichotomy?
Well, I still think that telephone polling results in costless support. When push comes to shove, I don't think Kerry will have the numbers. Remember what happened to Dean on the basis of a little exuberance? People jumped ship from his campaign in droves, and I think we may see the same thing in the election.
Plus, the margin of error on polling is established from scientific principles...but cellphones, dial-up internet access, caller ID, answering machines, and people just plain not wanting to participate in polls are all-but-proven to be increasing the margin of error far beyond what science says it should be. Telephone polling really isn't reliable anymore, methinks, and this election may well be its death knell.
posted by
Nathan on August 23, 2004 01:37 PM
Yeah, but if I remember right, Gore was supposed to beat Dub about 55 to 45.
Your thoughts about telephone polling are well taken.
I think people left Dean in droves when Kerry won Iowa. And in Iowa, while Dean had the coverage, Kerry had the Iowa Dem political establishment. Dean was a media phenomenon. Kerry toughed it out in the trenches. When he won Iowa it was over for Dean and the rest.
Look, Kerry isn't my favorite Democrat. But he has had real tough races before and has prevailed. Give Kerry his due - he's a tough S.O.B. when it comes to elections - for whatever reasons. He shouldn't win. But then Clinton shouldn't have won in '92 either...
posted by
Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 03:01 PM
...but Perot isn't running this year. [grin]
In any case, while there are a plethora of models to cite, I think the correct one is Clinton '96, for so many reasons.
posted by
Nathan on August 23, 2004 03:03 PM
« Hide Comments
I'm really not sure Karl Rove is earning his paycheck. Then again, I'm just about absolutely certain John Kerry's campaign manager isn't. You can at least make the argument that Karl Rove is waiting until after the Olympics are over and everyone can truly focus on the campaign before he gets things in gear. But Kerry's campaign took the wrong tack from the beginning, and the Democrat Party went right along with it. It will be their undoing.
Here's why I think that way:
Read More "Musings on the Campaign for the Presidency" »
President Bush is the incumbent. As such, his past shouldn't really make much difference. The only possible argument he can really make for his re-election is simply the job he did over the past four years. The flip side of that, however, is that the only valid argument for his defeat is the exact same thing: the last four years.
That's hardly earth-shattering. Many people more experienced and wiser than me have said that elections are pretty much nothing more than referendums on the incumbent's administration.
But if that is true (and I think it is), why did the Democrats worry about having a candidate with war experience? Why did they make the AWOL charge the main attack for more than a month? Has the Democrat Party truly lost every bit of its political sense?
Because by any rational measure, Kerry was toast before he even ran.
The Office of the President is the head of the Executive Branch. As such, you need to convince people that you are the best executive for the job. There are exactly two ways to do this:
1) Provide an excellent example of your executive leadership ability.
2) Be charismatic enough to overcome a weak executive resume.
Every single President over the last 40 years was either a state governer or a Vice President, right? Take that back to Herbert Hoover, and the only exceptions were John F. Kennedy (won on charisma) and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who held the highest military positions (clearly executive excellence).
What on earth convinced the Democrats that they could blaze trails with someone as obviously non-charismatic as John F. Kerry?
Aside from all that, however, John Kerry needed to show the United States public that he has the executive skills to guide the nation more ably than George Bush through any difficulty the nation might encounter. He needed to demonstrate, with examples from his past or clear and specific plans for the future, exactly why he would make a better President, executive, leader, and Commander-In-Chief than PResident Bush has. They dropped the ball when they tried to make a four-month stint as commander of a Swift Boat be the main testimony to his leadership and executive skills. They made further mistakes when they merely criticized how President Bush has handled things and gave vague mumblings of, "I would do better."
No. Not good enough. Since the choice is between someone who has years of executive experience and someone who has little to none, John Kerry should be trying to demonstrate that he has the intelligence, flexibility, humor, aplomb, grace, decisiveness, courage, innovation, etc, to handle any situation. Not only better than Bush, but better than the voters themselves. Because few people really know what it is like to be President, to deal with the leaders of other nations who will do anything to undercut and backstab the United States if it will help their position in the slightest. John Kerry has not demonstrated he even understands that, much less can help the voters understand that.
That means he can't just choose examples of things that went badly (or even things that went fine that were perceived as going badly) over the last four years. He needs to demonstrate a very clear personality, a consistent approach if you will, to any problem that comes up. The best way would be to acknowledge that President Bush has done well, but that the moves were obvious enough that anyone could have done it. Then, point by point, he should have shown exactly how he could have convinced France to get on board despite their obvious commitment to oppose us. ...but the trick would be, to convince us both that it would work, and that he could have thought of it at the time. Running a campaign against a popular former state governer who ran a baseball team and kept things going after 9/11 and turned around a weak and shell-shocked economy in less than 2 years through sticking with his vision (tax cuts) of how to fix it even if it went against conventional wisdom (or what the news media believed/supported, at least)...well, that is nearly an impossible task. Once he won the nomination, Kerry should have built a staff of the most experienced economists and diplomats he could find, who would coach him on every minor mistake President Bush made so that he could offer suggestions off-hand with extreme comfort and naturalness. Like, "President Bush did a fair job assembling a broad coalition of nations for Iraq, but having most of the UN Security Council permanent members against it weakened his case. If he had contacted Chirac behind the scenes and threatened to expose their oil agreements with Saddam Hussein, threatened to deport every terrorist Muslim to Saudi Arabia, threatened to withdraw from the Shanghai Communique agreements and fully support Taiwan's independence unless China agreed and sent troops, and then used economic pressure on Germany, we could truly have made it a world-wide coalition. But I'll forgive him his inexperience, since he was only a baseball manager from Midland, Texas..." Now, the specifics could have been different, I don't know or care. The point is, with 4-5 expert advisors, they should have been able to use hindsight to come with a Me-Too-ism that would convince the average voter that it was the exact and perfect ploy to do better than Bush. He needed to "Monday-morning Quarterback" every major policy decision Bush made. He shouldn't tear down the "No Child Left Behind", but should be able to explain, simply and convincingly, how he wouldn't have had any difficulties funding it fully while still giving the tax cuts. He should denounce how the Democrats filibustered Judicial nominees and explained how simple and easy it is to lend a little political capital to dismantle such roadblocks within days.
John Kerry acts like his methods for dealing with past events should be secret...as if the problems of the future will be the same, and he doesn't want to risk Republicans stealing and adopting his brilliant plans. Well, someone who can win a Presidency has no such fear, because he understands that new and different problems pop up all the time, that his opponents lack the ability and intelligence to implement his plans because he is simply such darn good Presidential material. The way John Kerry handles it, he seems like he thinks that even though he has the right ideas, if he can't be the one to implement them, than the United States can go to Hell in a Handbasket for all he cares. He doesn't show confidence in his natural ability to lead.
It is easy to see that McCain was a better politician than Bush, and Bradley was a better politician than Gore. Howard Dean eliminated Edwards and Leiberman and Gephardt because he was the one with executive experience. He eliminated Clark because Clark really didn't convince anyone he had been a top-notch executive. When Dean imploded, I think the only person he really hadn't vanquished yet was the only person who really hadn't had a strong enough campaign to challenge him...and so being the only semi-viable candidate who hadn't already been rejected, Kerry was nominated by default.
It's sad, really. If Howard Dean hadn't gone crazy (or revealed his unbalanced nature, perhaps?), we could have had a true campaign between executives who both governed well, but with different assumptions and styles. It could have been a true contest.
The numbers make it seem like Kerry has a chance, but I am absolutely certain it will prove to be illusionary in the end. It will probably be bad enough that Democrats will be wondering what happened. The illusion is maintained because it is easy to say you will vote for someone because you don't really like someone else...but when you are actually pulling the lever, when it actually comes down to brass tacks, most people will choose the person with extensive executive experience and demonstrated executive competence over someone with none of either.
Right now, I think I could run Kerry's campaign better than his current manager. And I could be a more credible candidate than John Kerry.
« Hide "Musings on the Campaign for the Presidency"
Show Comments »
Hmmm, after reading your analysis, I guess we should just crown Dubya President. :)
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. But if Kerry is so weak, why is he leading in so many state polls today?
I still say the election is Dub's to lose. And as of today, it is quite possible that he will. Note I say "possible" and not "probable".
posted by
Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 05:47 AM
I know you were just jerking my chain...but I want to make it clear: while I think President Bush continues to be the best man for the job, I do not think Bush has earned the right to skip the elections or anything. I am mainly trying to say that Kerry's campaign is going about this the absolutely wrong way. He seems to be trying to just convince people to not vote for Bush rather than give them a really good reason to believe he can run the country more ably than Bush. He can't just say he will, he must demonstrate it, somehow.
And I think Kerry is leading in the polls because the media downplays his shortcomings, and Karl Rove hasn't really started the Bush campaign yet...and probably won't until during the debates. I don't mind you thinking it is possible W could lose: he certainly could. Lots can happen between now and November. But I think Kerry has nowhere to go but down...
posted by
Nathan on August 23, 2004 06:26 AM
I'm not yanking your chain. I know you think W is the guy for the job and I know you aren't suggesting skipping elections or anything like that.
I'm pretty much agreeing with you! I don't believe someone can win just by running a negative campaign. Voters need a reason to vote for Kerry as much as a reason to not vote for Dubya.
I don't credit the media for Kerry's lead at this point. If the electorate is polarized at 45% for Kerry and 45% for Dub, well, there isn't much to fight over.
My guess is that it is difficult for either Kerry or Dub to drop much below that 45%. But it is the state-by-state voting that will determine who wins. If all Kerry's votes come from New York, California and Illinois, he can't win. If all Dub's votes come from Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, he can't win either.
Either guy can win Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, and a handful of other states and he only has to win - it doesn't matter if is .5% or 5% - he just has to win.
I will also suggest that negative campaigning does work. Dub will continue to hammer Kerry, but it will be tough to drive down that approximately 45%! Because that is pretty solid Kerry. Just like additional negative advertising may not drive down Dub's 45%. However, if it suppresses the vote - well that's a different story.
posted by
Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 12:35 PM
Oh, the after reading your analysis, I guess we should just crown Dubya President. :) part seemed like a mild teasing; that's the only part I thought you were tugging on any binding devices.
Other than that, I find it interesting that you only refer to Bush as running a negative campaign. The main negative attacks against Kerry are all '527' group ads...so by the same token, Kerry-supporting '527' attack ads are more prevalent and have been running far longer, and yet Bush's numbers don't really go down. F9/11 gave Kerry more bounce than his own convention!
And I credit the mainstream news media for keeping Kerry's campaign afloat because they hammered Bush on the AWOL thing, the Stephanie Plame thing, the Yellowcake thing, the Richard Clarke thing, but have absolutely downplayed the vindicating evidence that might help Bush. Their coverage of the SBVFT was woefully absent; when Kerry finally responded so they could no longer ignore it, they covered it disproportionately from how they handled questions about Bush, and for the most part have spent all their effort attempting to undermine the SBVFT credibility rather than spending time verifying Kerry's now-questionable claims.
But not everyone sees it that way, I know. But I only have my eyes and my mind, so my perspective is pretty hard for me to ignore... [grin]
posted by
Nathan on August 23, 2004 01:29 PM
Sorry if I seemed to be suggesting that Dub is running only a negative campaign, he isn't.
Also, I lump the 527s either with Dub or with Kerry - whatever fits. Same for the DNC and RNC. If you want to say the Move On ads are "Kerry's" then I have no real disagreement. Technically they aren't, just as the Swift Boat guys aren't Dub's, but in reality I say they are.
You may think Kerry is getting a free ride from the media and there are others that argue Dub is. Probably neither is, really. But it seems that way to any subjective party.
you wrote: yet Bush's numbers don't really go down. That is my point! The pro-Dub and pro-Kerry support (whatever it is) is so solid right now (for whatever reasons) their support levels don't change that much. They are fighting over about 10% of the voters! And I have no clue what motivates that 10%. Is it issues? I don't know...
Arguing about who gets better media coverage is just an exercise. The media coverage is what it is, you know? That's why you have to depend on paid media and massive GOTV efforts. I think that is where the election will be won or lost - whoever gets their voters to the polls. Dems need a nice, warm, sunny day. The GOP needs cold and rain.
posted by
Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 02:54 PM
Yeah, I can go with all that. I don't agree with much of it, but I don't exactly dispute much of it, either. It's well within my margin of error of understanding, I'd say.
posted by
Nathan on August 23, 2004 03:01 PM
I think what's going to decide this election is not going to be the swing voters, but the base -- as in, which side's base voters become demoralized by their candidate's lousy campaign and decide to start looking ahead to 2008 before 2004 has even run its course.
But that's what I've been thinking for months now.
posted by
McGehee on August 24, 2004 06:11 AM
« Hide Comments
August 20, 2004
This is an attempt to leave an impression in the minds of voters, regardless of whether or not the accusation goes anywhere.
And you can bet the New York Times will do all it can to try the case in the court of public opinion with a biased jury.
Show Comments »
I remember when I was a kid, I used to wonder why all the fuss about politics. My folks were active in following the Kennedy campaign and took an active part in the Goldwater campaign, at the grass roots level, some 4 years later. Because of that I was exposed to it rather early, but it wasn't till high school, that it took on some significence.
Now, we face an evil abroad which if allowed to continue unchecked can and will threaten our western civilization as we have come to know it. And at home we face a far sinsiter threat. That of what is fast becoming two polar opposites in our choice for the leader of the free world.
Sometimes I wonder, if it would have been somewhat less stressful 50 years ago...when all we had to worry about was the "Commies" and "The Bomb" (and most times they were one and the same, fear wise).
But come November I shall vote as I have in the last eight elections....for the best man availible for the times and the job. In this case George Bush. And to hell with the NYT!
posted by
Guy S. on August 20, 2004 06:22 PM
I just posted a question myself on my blog about all of this veteran crap. Do people actually care about this trivial junk compared to the real issues the U.S. faces?
posted by
Warren on August 20, 2004 10:43 PM
Weeellllll, I do care, because I think this is establishing whether or not Kerry tells the truth. If he does not, how can we trust him on any of the real issues? But I'm tired of blogging about it.
In any case, I'm sure they'll discuss issues like Iraq, the War on Terror, the economy and such in the debates.
posted by
Nathan on August 21, 2004 08:02 AM
I'm with you on the truth factor. For me that has been established and it seems to be droning on. Perhaps it needs to continue for the rest on the masses to get it.
posted by
Warren on August 21, 2004 09:23 AM
I agree that the issue -- why it "matters" -- is because it establishes that John Kerry lies, has lied, is continuing to do so, just to maintain his idea of self-history.
I think he's maintained a finely constructed self-portrait ("it's seared into [him]") about who he THINKS others will believe he is, and that's why it's threatening to such an extent to the Left and to Kerry and now even Edwards (who "defends" Kerry's "military record of service" although Edwards was no where even remotely near Kerry's military service when it took place)...because, it calls into question the fact that some people in the country are ready and willing to follow Mr. Make Believe into oblivion.
The Demos are literally grabbing at straws this evening with anyone and everyone possible as to blame, demands, accusations, about this issue. Everything EXCEPT proving Kerry right, or, providing any iron-clad proof that what the Swiftees have to say is not true.
Instead, they and apologists continue to blame Bush and "call on Bush to renounce the ads (by the Swiftvets)" and the like. Nothing about Kerry's lies, meanwhile, not a peep...
posted by
-S- on August 21, 2004 08:21 PM
Yes. And so while I'm personally a little bit tired of it all because I've been convinced of his essential dishonesty and lack of integrity for some time, I don't mind the situation being flogged and blogged for a while yet, for one important: the Democrats and the press are willing to overlook significant integrity and honesty problems of Kerry as long as they can get W out of the White House. Every person who sees the blatant bias in the news and the lack of concern about honesty by the Dems is another person who won't trust those institutions very much in the future.
This isn't just about defeating Kerry anymore, for me (because I think that will happen, easily). It's about Democrats who deliberately conceal their agenda so they can get elected, and the mainstream news media who make it easy for them to do so. I want both institution to collapse. I want an America that demands a reasonable level of honesty from its politicians.
posted by
Nathan on August 22, 2004 07:09 AM
Nathan, you make good points. For more on the, "anybody but Bush," zealots, I invite everyone to visit TownHall.com: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/dg20040821.shtml
posted by
Tenaj on August 22, 2004 08:48 AM
Does anyone dispute that Kerry served a stint in Vietnam? I don't think so. What we seem to have is some veterans who have a deep personal hatred of Kerry for his activities after his service. Apparently none of his critics were actually there when Kerry supposedly took fire. Read William Rood's account of the February 28 incident - he was there.
It is interesting to me that so much is being made of this Vietnam incident. It happened 35 years ago! It would seem to me that where both men would take us in the next four years should be more important.
Kerry "lied" about wounds he recieved and Bush "lied" about WMDs in Iraq. Call it a wash and move on, fer crying out loud...
posted by
Frank Martin on August 23, 2004 05:58 AM
« Hide Comments
August 19, 2004
...regarding this post:
It's all no big deal. I'm feeling a little disappointed in blogging lately, like I've been spending too much time doing it...and not pleased with my results. I haven't had a post I'm proud of in a while. I haven't had a post with truly original thoughts or development in longer than that, probably. I've been linking stuff I've enjoyed reading, mostly just to get another post up so people will still keep dropping by. And while that's a perfectly valid way to blog, it's not me.
I want to do more posts about China. I want to try some Op-Ed. I want to concentrate on writing some new puns. Goodness knows I'm years overdue for the Pun-Fest that is the Just-Us League.
Bottom line, though, is that I've been doing oodles of politcal and social blogging, particularly over the last year. I'm more than that. The blogosphere is more than that. Sure, the most pressing issue is the Global War on Terror mixed in with the economy and pressing social issues of abortion and homosexual rights, and they all intersect in the 2004 election. The mainstream news media has dropped all pretense of objectivity in trying to get Kerry elected, and the blogosphere plays a very important (if not vital) role in defending the nation from the onslaught against democracy by Democrats.*
But I'm tired of it, and I'm not the only one. I think the blogosphere is going to contract quite a bit, if not actually implode, after the elections in November. We will have a landslide, or at least a clear mandate, and there will be little to fight for once the politicians stop stirring us up and the mainstream news media stops being complete hypocrites and partisans (either because they won and don't have to anymore, or because they lost and ended up selling their integrity and ethics for nothing).
So I want to work on sharing my whole mind, my whole thoughts, and preparing for Blogging Life After November. Sure, not everyone is so wrapped up in it, but I am, and many of the blogs I read are. Some will be so burnt out they will take a break, if not flirt with quitting. I don't want to be burnt out, I don't want to be exhausted. I want to put better quality of posts out, I want to research topics instead of just putting stuff out first draft. I never even 'sanity-check' 'em for grammar/spelling clarity! I think this method has limited my effectiveness as a writer and persuader. I do want to become a professional writer, and one of the choices is as an Op-Ed writer, but you can't just spout of your gut reactions, you have to back it up. I need to develop as a writer.
Don't get me wrong, blogging has gotten me to this step, and I'm betting blogging can take me to the next level, too. But I'm going to have to consciously make a change to do it.
And so look at my posts today. It's a rare thing, indeed, when I only have 3 posts. And I wouldn't have even had this one if it weren't for Casey's comment on the aforementioned post.
Don't worry about me, people. Don't cry for me, Blogentina! I ain't going nowhere! But it is time for me to make a qualitative change. I can feel it. I hope you'll be able to see it.
Read More "An Explanation" »
Show Comments »
I get decent amount of traffic, but I don't get that many comments. So sometimes I feel the same. However, I realize that my blog really is just an outlet for me and not a true investigative type of blog so I don't spend oodles of time researching (time is a resource I have little of).
You're on my RSS reader, so I read a lot of your stuff but due to the hundreds of posts my reader gets each day, I just don't have the amount of time to respond to all of them.
In other words, we're here even if you don't see us!
posted by
Sharp as a Marble on August 20, 2004 05:31 AM
That's been at the back of my mind as well - the blogsphere getting quiet after the election.
And....in a way it won't; regardless of who wins in November, those that feel cheated by their candidates loss will gear up for the second wave of accusations, innuendo, and hearsay.
It'll be a two-edged sword in either case: interesting because it will seem alive and boring because it'll be the same crap.
posted by
Mad Mikey on August 20, 2004 05:50 AM
I'm betting/hoping the margin of victory will be big enough that no one will feel cheated and much of the controversy of the last election will be avoided. That might just be wishful thinking, but I feel it would be best for the well-being of the nation.
posted by
Nathan on August 20, 2004 06:21 AM
Quantity isn't the same as quality. So what if you only post once a day or every other day? Many bloggers only post once a day, even some of the better ones. (No, I am not amongst them. My traffic totals are relatively small - around 200 per day - but I'm not about to pander in the interests of increasing my traffic totals.)
Post less often but make 'em count. (Yeah, no pressure there.....) You'll feel better.
posted by
DCE on August 20, 2004 09:09 AM
I agree with the previous comments, I too will continue dropping by to see what new item you've posted.
Like you I had begun to feel as if my writing was becomming stale. When I moved to my new site I decided to post only if I was passionate about the topic instead of out of a sense of obligation. Yes, I did lose readers, but I now have a better discussion interaction with those that remain.
I find I like the quality of our interaction better as they don't post comments, instead we have long email discussion which are much more satisfying.
You are a gifted writer! I hope you give yourself the gift of writing something you enjoy out of love and passion rather than obligation.
posted by
michele on August 22, 2004 07:50 PM
Just my two bits here...I don't particularly care for poli-blogs or war blogs. Those two topics are already covered to the point of stupefaction in the news every day; to have people blogging further about them is simply overkill.
I do have to disagree with you on one point: The blogoshere will be as active and strong as ever after November. Sure it may quiet down some for a while, but it will come back. There are just too many bloggers with too many opinions out there for it to be otherwise.
Yes, you are a gifted writer. I enjoy reading what youw rite, even if I don't always agree with it.
posted by
Funkalicious on August 22, 2004 09:57 PM
Yes, you are a gifted writer. I enjoy reading what youw rite, even if I don't always agree with it.
There's a typo in this line. You obviously meant to type "ever", rather than "always". [grin]
You also said:
Sure it may quiet down some for a while, but it will come back.
Actually, that's all I meant. It will quiet down for a while. People will recover, and people will find other things to blog about, and fences will be mended and Jo will start blogging again and it will all be cool. And there are enough bloggers out there that don't war- or mil-blog to keep things going while everyone else takes a breather.
...but I want to be rested and fresh, because I plan to make up ground in the rash of eventually-retracted "I quits!" that I expect to be reverberating around 15 November or so...
So, people, please: it's not a crisis or anything. I appreciate the support, but I wasn't down or discouraged. I'm going to post less, but try to make it higher quality. That's all. Since I have a history of 5-10 posts/day, I figured it is only polite to announce that's going to change.
posted by
Nathan on August 22, 2004 10:14 PM
« Hide Comments
China Expands Strategic Bomber Fleet
«
China
»
I'm not sure I believe it, but Global Security's website is reporting that China has formalized plans to acquire Russian Tu-22M Backfire bombers.
The acquisition would significantly increase stand-off ranges against the US Navy in the event of a conflict over/invasion of Taiwan.
Please understand (if you don't already), China has no plans to attack or get involved in an extended war with the United States. The United States' policy toward China and Taiwan is somewhat schizophrenic, agreeing that Taiwan is part of China on hand but promising to defend Taiwan from an invasion by China on the other. China apparently plans on exploiting that ambiguity by presenting a strong enough defense to make defending Taiwan costly in terms of US military lives. China seems to hope that they can capture and consolidate Taiwan before the United States could summon up enough political will to get involved, and present the world with a fait accompli.
They could do that without these aircraft, and the addition of the aircraft themselves doesn't make this scenario appreciably more likely...but if true, it is simply one more indication of the plans China has for the future.
Show Comments »
...guess I Don't Have Much To Say (UPDATED)
«
Blogging
»
I think this blog is going to go through a metamorphasis.
In trying for volume of blogging, I have done everything 'first draft' and done lots of 'link + reaction" blogging. I'm growing displeased with the results.
Okay, I'll admit it: one of the reasons I'm displeased is that the kerfuffle I unfortunately dumped on Michelle Malkin gave me more than 1000 hits one day and over 600 the next, the first two steps of a long, slow decline back to equilibrium. ...and now I often don't crack 200. While I understand that is the normal course of events, and while I recognize that my hit total equilibrium is still significantly higher now, I still feel a touch of chagrin that I'm still currently incapable of sustaining that level of traffic.
Sure, I have some nice puns, but I can't produce them consistently. I have some original opinions, and some original and unique viewpoints, but the brutally honest self-introspection says that I don't offer the same quality as Stephen Green at Vodkapundit, or Zombyboy at Resurrectionsong, Juliette at Baldilocks, or Ace at Ace of Spades HQ...just to name a few of the better bloggers out there. Yeah, each one of them has a schtick that helps them stand out...but having stood out, they attract and retain traffic through top-notch writing and content.
Don't get me wrong, I think I can do the exact same thing. I think I am capable of being a top-notch writer and producing top-notch content. But I don't think I've actually demonstrated it, at least, not consistently.
And so, I think it is time for a change, of sorts. I'm going to spend some more time researching things I want to discuss, instead of depending on my native intelligence and vague understandings. I'm going to try to focus on some areas in which I have fairly unique knowledge. Like: China, for instance. I love history, and study it, and have some very controversial viewpoints on certain aspects...but I've depended on other people to bring up the topic before I responded and reacted, so how many people really know that I'm a history buff? Probably few. I did some good stuff for Zombyboy's Africablog, but what have I done lately? Zilch. It's time to change that.
But the time's gotta come from somewhere. So it is possible that my volume of output might be reduced somewhat. Or I might end up falling into the same routines and things will be the same as always. Dunno.
It should be interesting to watch, though.
Some related thoughts.
Show Comments »
Hey, there, don't compare your work, yourself, with others. Just write what you know, even what you don't -- continue to raise the issues that you find curious and interesting, pose the problems, air the considerations -- but don't fall victim to the thinking that because others are successful (and they are, true) that you aren't by comparison (not so).
The people who write well do so because they write often. But, we're all individuals and one person's achievement at any point in time isn't that by anyone else...also, we all have different processes, different approaches, different minds and experiences and questions, even, about the same issues from different perspectives.
I like your site and enjoy reading it. I like other sites and read those with enjoyment but the appeal is based on uniqueness of authors, not on similarities.
posted by
-S- on August 19, 2004 03:10 PM
Well, yes. That's exactly what I mean. In trying to "maintain" my traffic, I was going for volume, and while it was 'me', it wasn't really 'me' at the same time.
So I am going to focus more on what I like instead of what I think the blogosphere is paying attention to.
The change may be drastic or unnoticeable, I have no idea. But I can feel that it is time for a change.
posted by
Nathan on August 19, 2004 03:22 PM
Damn. -S- beat me to it! :(
Yeah, Nate, go with what's true. That's what I do on my blog, but my problem is actually posting regularly. I can always think of something to write about, but I get depressed about some chronic personal issues (including employment), that I sometimes don't post for several days in a row...
This is Not Good. {wry grin}
Besides, WTF are you bitching about barely cracking 200/day! I get 20/day on a good week. Shmuck. Heh...
BTW, I came by here from the Queen's place, so thank Rose for the hit. :) Actually, the MuNuvians I've "met" are all pretty cool, like Rocket Jones, and Publis.
posted by
Casey Tompkins on August 19, 2004 08:35 PM
I've done my time at that level, Casey, believe me!
Honestly, blogging is a little like multi-level marketing. If Glenn Reynolds hadn't started until today, he wouldn't get more than a handful of hits a day. But he was one of the first to blog, period, and he was one of the first to range far and wide to gather interesting bits together. He filled a niche/need. Scrappleface might have a hard time getting so big if he started tomorrow...but he was one of the first to do sarcastic takes on news items...of course, he still might have hit it big quickly, because he consistently does several funny things every day, so who knows?
Find your own idiom, develop it well, and people will come.
I'm going through some personal crap as well, that's probably affecting my mood, but I'm actually in 100% agreement with you both. It's just that I've suddenly realized that in my desire to get and maintain good hittage (and believe, me, I recognize how fortunate I am!) that I've gotten away from the stuff I really want to do. I'm so eclectic, no one may even notice, but I will...and that's kind of the important part. I wasn't being true to myself, but now I will make a renewed effort.
posted by
Nathan on August 19, 2004 09:45 PM
« Hide Comments
August 18, 2004
Or, for that matter, the Democrat Party who champions him?
Well, here's yet another reason why you shouldn't.
Honestly, there is enough information out there about liberal/Democrat distortions, enough proof about their fundamental dishonesty, that I begin to wonder just how powerful willful ignorance can be.
Excerpt:
Is he going to sue Moore? No he's got a better idea:
"If anything, I'd like to see (Moore) throw some money toward a veterans charity,'' Damon said. "He claims to be a champion of soldiers, but I haven't seen him do anything for us.''
Unfortunately, its unlikely that Moore will share his windfall from his propaganda film with the unwilling stars of his film.
Damon, showing a wisdom far beyond his years has the final say:
"Just the whole thought of being in this piece of propaganda. It's like a documentary Hitler would have made. You know when you join the military that there's an inherent risk,'' Damon said. "I was doing my job the same as any guy in a foxhole was doing his. I don't blame this on anybody. It was an unfortunate accident.''
How about it, Mr. Moore? You have profited greatly from tragedies like Columbine and 9/11. You have made a fortune on the pain of others. Why can't you let some of the sufferers share in the windfall?
Show Comments »
When reporters reached the woman, she said, "This stupid meteorite was following me around for years! ...making phone calls, bugging my employers... I finally got a restraining order, and even that didn't help. I finally had to move to Suffolk and change my name to Rose Smythe to get away from that jerk. Um, that last part was off the record, right?"
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Kerry spokesman David Wade said it was an unintentional error by a campaign volunteer and then criticized President Bush's economic policies.
Read Only Half Of It.
Show Comments »
HammerHead
