September 04, 2004
Dems panicLast month the GOP faithful were starting to get nervous. Now it's the Dems' turn:
"He's got to become more engaged,'' said Harold Ickes, a former political lieutenant to President Bill Clinton who is now running an independent Democratic organization that has spent millions of dollars on advertisements attacking President Bush. "Kerry is by nature a cautious politician, but he's got to throw caution to the wind."Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a former rival of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, said Mr. Kerry still had not settled on a defining theme to counter what Democrats called the compelling theme of security hammered into viewers of the Republican convention.
"The people are there, the candidate is there; it's the reason to vote for the candidate that's still a little out of focus," Mr. Graham said.
Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said Mr. Kerry "has got to start smacking back."
And Senator Christopher J. Dodd, an influential Democrat from Connecticut, said his party's standard-bearer had "a very confused message in August, and the Republicans had a very clear and concise one."
Not very disciplined, are they? At least when the Republicans had the doubts hey were smart enough not to make their comments on the record.
I don't believe the current polls -- we're still in the silly season. Wait until September 15th to see where the election really stands. But regardless, what the hell is Bob Graham doing giving political advice to John Kerry. If he had any clue about what to do, he'd be the nominee. Or the running mate, at very least.
I'm not saying that Republicans are smarter or more professional, but at least they are scared of Karl Rove or the White House. Shouldn't the Kerry campaign be sending these wayward Democrats a cup of "shut the fuck up?"
Posted by Martin Devon at 07:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Culture of death freak showI must confess that I don't have a deep and thorough knowledge about the issues involved with the independence movement in Chechnya. I'm sure that the rebels have many compelling arguments. They'll need them:
More than 340 people, including 155 children, were killed in the violence that ended a hostage standoff with militants at a southern Russian school, a prosecutor said Saturday. President Vladimir Putin accused the attackers of trying to spark an ethnic conflict that would engulf Russia's troubled Caucasus Mountains region.Russian Deputy Prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky told reporters that 322 victims were killed, as well as all 26 militants involved in the seizure of the school. That raised the death toll well beyond the 250 officials had previously cited.
Medical officials said more than 542 people including 336 children were hospitalized after the eruption of violence that ended the 62-hour hostage drama on Friday. The hostage-takers -- who had been demanding independence for nearby Chechnya -- held the more than 1,000 hostages in the school's sweltering gymnasium, refusing to let in food or water.
I'm not inclined to trust Putin. I know that Russia, even post-USSR, is capable of real brutality. But actions like this turn Chechnya into a no-brainer for simplistic neo-cons like me. These "militants" (when did the AP contract Reuters disease?) are Putin's exhibit 'A' as to why Chechnya cannot be allowed to break away.
Those inclined to slam American soldiers by calling them "baby-killers" should take a long look at what real baby-killers look like. Those of us that follow the events in Israel know them well. Russia seems to getting more than its share now too. Even France is not being spared.
This is clearly having the effect that the terrorists intended. They *want* a war of civilizations. They seem to think that they can win. They seem to believe that the West will give in rather than start fighting it in earnest. Or they imagine that God will help them prevail in some miraculous fashion.
The biggest variable in all this is the millions of passive Muslims caught in the middle. The terrorists are trying to get them to choose sides. Sometime soon the advantage of keeping their heads down is going to disappear. Atrocities like this will force it. Does Islam condone taking hundreds of children hostage, denying them food and drink for days and then killing them? Some actions don't have much nuance...
Posted by Martin Devon at 06:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
September 03, 2004
Susan Estrich goes over the edgeMy girl Susan Estrich needs to get her meds adjusted. She thinks that Bush is behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and she wants to fight fire with fire (as she sees it):
The trouble with Democrats, traditionally, is that we're not mean enough. Dukakis wasn't. I wasn't. I don't particularly like destroying people. I got into politics because of issues, not anger. But too much is at stake to play by Dukakis rules, and lose again.That is the conclusion Democrats have reached. So watch out. Millions of dollars will be on the table. And there are plenty of choices for what to spend it on.
I'm not promising pretty.
What will it be?
Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? (Bush's Texas record has been sealed. Now why would that be? Who seals a perfect driving record?)
After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.
My experience of the Dems is that they fight every bit as hard (i.e. dirty) as the Republicans do. Remember the lynching ad? Or the last minute DUI? If Dems think that mudslinging will help them out they should knock themselves out. Of course, by so doing they might really be knocking themsleves out...
Posted by Martin Devon at 06:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 02, 2004
Luntz panelAs expected, Luntz did a panel with Ohio swing voters. I looks like 'W' hit a home run ("grand slam"). The praise from the panel was effusive. I guess they like the speech as much as I did.
Thye more I think about it, the more I think that it was Bush's authenticity that was so powerful. When he said that the people have gotten to know him, and they know where he stands even when they disagree with him. Powerful stuff.
Posted by Martin Devon at 10:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Kerry's desperationWhat the heck is kerry doing with this midnight rally? How petty! It just smacks of desperation. After watching Bush, comfortable in his skin, emotional and strong, watching Kerry listening to Edwards -- he looks so uncomfortable. It is a real mistake.
Posted by Martin Devon at 08:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
RNC: Liveblogging the finaleGeorge Pataki's remarks may read OK but watching him deliver it.. it just doesn't work. He's coming off as too much of a suck-up.
The pre-Bush RNC video has quite a bit of 9-11 in it. The Dems will probably go ballistic. But they always do...These videos are usually too syrupy for me and this one is no exception.
There's "W". Do you feel the love? The GOP rank and file love this man every bit as much as the Dems hate him.
For some reason he looks especially like his dad tonight. Must be the lighting. He's starting to speak.
He looks relaxed. No deer in headlights tonight.
His eyes sparkle when he mentions his family. Nice nod to Ronald Reagan. He's moving to policy. Medicare...senior...and then... tax relief.
And back to security, "this will not happen on my watch!"
Hmmm. his talking about the changes in the workforce... "2/3'rds of all moms work outside the home... all the core systems were built around yesterday's world, not tomorrow's"
Agenda items:
-- Reforming healthcare and social security
-- Tax simplification
-- Job training/community colleges
-- Amercian opportunity zones to help areas that lost manufacturing jobs
-- Small firms to band together to get health insurance
-- Health savings accounts for insurance portability
-- Ownership society: 7 million new home owners
I like the agenda. A bit too "State of the Union-ey" for me, but ok. I like that he's got second term goals. I hope he fights hard for them. To avoid second term drift he'll need that agenda.
Now on the compare and contrast part of the program. Some gentle jabs at Kerry. "Kerry represents the politics of the past, and we're looking to the future, and we're not turning back." Bush has a way of knocking Kerry without any bitterness. Kerry hasn't mastered that. It's a tricky (yes, nuanced) thing to pull off.
Back to security..."I wake up every day trying to figure out how to keep the country safe...I will not relent.."
Iraq: " Faced with that choice I will defend America every time." "When America gives it's word, America must keep it's word."
The speech is really well written, and Bush is delivering it very well. I have no clue about how this is playing to the swing voters.. I'm sure Luntz will do a panel in Ohio. My impression is that Bush is doing what he needed to do. It won't be long now until the baloon drop...
Speaking to servicemen and women and their familes is nice touch. Thanking them while extolling their service. And back to the $87 billion. Hah. And Bush is nailing Kerry for his crack about the"coalition of the bribed and coerced." Beautiful. I love it. If Bush is going to lose, it won't be because he was timid. That's the way to win! Be bold.
Bush refers back to WWII and the German reconstruction. He manages to take a shot at the New York Times editorial writers while giving props to Dem Harry Truman. Then an appeal to history...
"My fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me. the last 4 years we've gotten to know each other. Even when you don't agree with me you know where I stand." I love this guy.
Back to the military families... the strength he gets from them...is he going to cry? It looks like it. Wow. What a finish! He rose to the occasion.
Posted by Martin Devon at 06:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
September 01, 2004
Red meat night
It was red meat night at the convention, that's for sure. There was more Kerry bashing than I expected, though of course, it was artfully done. Mitt Romney started things off from a Massachusets perspective, and got a few good rabbit punches in. Later, keynote speaker Zell Miller gave a full a passionate burner of a speech.
As a Democrat, Miller could be far more direct than any Republican could have gotten away with, going down every major weapons system that Kerry voted against and the way that it is currently being employed in the war. I couldn't understand why Miller was picked to keynote, but after I saw the speech the wisdom of the choice became self-evident. I can understand why Dems are bitter about him. 
Lynne Cheney was very good. I keep forgetting how smart she is until I hear her speak. I rememeber thinking that she has the brains in her family.... And then I hear her husband speak. Whatever you may think of them, the Cheneys are one high wattage couple.
Speaking of which.. Dick Cheney has really gotten better at public speaking. 
He'll never match an Arnold or a Rudy but in his own quiet way he's very effective. And he isn't shy about taking a few shots at John Kerry, either.
I can't understand people who complain about the quality of the presidential candidates (except when I do it). Both the DNC and RNC conventions have been almost flawlessly executed. They've provided sharp contrasts and very different messages. What more do you want?
The basic message for the Dems is "Bush bad, Kerry good." The DNC (and especially Bill Clinton) hammered that message home very effectively. Now the RNC is returning the favor, pounding Kerry's voting record and past statements to put forward the "Kerry bad, Bush good" message. We have a close race and two professionally run conventions. Again, what more do you want?
Reading the media coverage of the convention is sobering. The extent to which people watch these things with their own predetermined filters is quite astounding. What the hell are Andrew Sullivan and the guys at Slate watching? The same convention that Chris Matthews and crew are watching, I guess. The experience is something akin to a Yankee fan visiting Boston and watching a Yankees Red Sox game annouced by the local Boston broadcasters. Same TV feed, different game...
I'm still digging the C-SPAN feed. It allows me to work while I listen to the convention in the background.
Do you ever get the feeling like you're missing an important part of this race? My gut tells me that there will be at least 20 electoral votes separating the winner from the loser, maybe more, but I still have no clue who that winner might be. Something about the polls I see just don't add up. I know that swing voters are very few and far between this year, but I really don't understand what they are wavering about. What else do they need to know?
I'd like to see more stories about who is going to turn out. Will the African American vote turn out for Kerry? Will the evangelicals turn out for Bush? The 50-50 thing seems wrong to me. It is more like 55 to 45. But who has the 55?
Posted by Martin Devon at 10:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
The other son
It pains me to say it, but the Dems had the better Reagan son at thheir convention. Not that Ron Jr. is such a prize but there is something that is just a little bit off about Michael. He shares his dad's politics and his last name, but he ain't in his poppa's league.
The RNC was smart to have him introduce the Ronald Reagan tribute video. It allowed him to focus on the one area where he can add some value, and it minimized his abiility to go off on a looney tangent. I don't mean to be rude, but have you ever seen Michael Reagan on cable TV? Then you know what I mean.
Posted by Martin Devon at 06:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
The Kerry shakeupYeah, Bill Clinton had a great press shop but I don't think that Joe Lockhart is such a great "get," at least judging by what he does on-screen. Now if they'd have gotten his immediate predecessor Mike McCurry I'd have been impressed. As I recall, Lockhart was McCurry's deputy who stepped up when McCurry left post-Monica. The dropoff in quality was comparable to what we saw when Ari Fleischer stepped down and Scott McClellan took over. The B team.
Posted by Martin Devon at 07:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Twins speak outI see from the comments and looking around the blogs that most people didn't like the Bush twins. Well, their jokes *were* chutzpahdic (and as I said, over the line) but what can I tell you? Where others cringed I laughed. Maybe it's because I have two teenage girls, but I keyed on the energy and enthusiasm and ignored the impudence. Whatever else they are, they're authentic.
Update: Michael Graham on the Bush twins get's it just right [MP3] ("Guys, the twins weren't talking to you. They weren't talking to Fred Barnes. They were talking to young non-Republicans.")
Posted by Martin Devon at 12:11 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
August 31, 2004
RNC Primetime #2Arnold delivered. He managed to sound conservative and moderate at the same time. He also gave a full-throated endorsement of President Bush. I wonder if the Kerry campaign will be smart enough to let the "economic girlie men" comment drop, or will they be stupid enough to take offense.
I thought that the Bush twins were terrific. The probably crossed the line wih their jokes abou Andy Card, Condi and Dick Cheney. But they were very funny.
Has Laura Bush become a great speaker or what? In 2000 she seemed kind of shy. Not tonight. She probably did her husband some good, reminding voters why we like him. She sure seems lik she sill loves him after all these years.
It is striking how different the RNC is from the DNC. I thought that the DNC was very effectively done. While the RNC is equally well done the tone is totally different. The RNC speakers seem so much more relaxed. Rudy's conversational style last night set the tone. George P, the twins, Arnold and Laura all continued in a relaxed, confident manner.
Rebetzen Jungreis? Rebetzen? At a Republican convention? How far we've come. Very haimish.
Posted by Martin Devon at 07:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
'P'Both Jenna and Barbara are babes, but George P. Bush is probably the best looking of the Bush cousins (Isn't one of the cousins a supermodel? - ed I mean besides her). 'P' looks quite a bit like his dad Jeb, but with some calinente Hispanic features. He's also a darned effective speaker. Could he become our first Hispanic president? Maybe. Ironic...
Posted by Martin Devon at 05:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 30, 2004
The glory of C-SPANI watched the DNC with either MSNBC and Fox on in the background. Now I wish I had done what I did tonight -- watch it on C-SPAN. You know what? There's actually much more to see than I had realized.
Did your momma ever tell you not to talk unless you can improve on the silence? I guess that neither Chris Matthews' or Bill O'Reilley's mother ever taught their kids that crucial lesson. I got to hear lot's of ordinary people speak, and even a few non-headliners like Sen. Lindsey Graham. The other nice thing about C-SPAN is that I can leave it on in the background. The lack of screaming commentators is a real advantage.
Posted by Martin Devon at 08:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
College conservative's lamentDo you proclaim your ideals loud and proud, or do you shut up and get laid? Is there a better subject for an alternative rock song? But the lyrics may surprise you:
She had hair under her arms And hair on both her legs And her hate for you was never-ending She was socially aware, yes And I really couldn't care less But her chest kept me pretending She always said that she wished you were dead And I nodded so she'd shut up and hop into bed But that's the part that I'm sorry for now Because I love you more than I loved her anyhowRonald Reagan
Please forgive me
Too dumb to see
What you were trying to give me
Ronald Reagan
You showed me this land's mine
They said you were living
In your own B-movie
But when the Wall fell
That's not what it looked like to me
Ronald Reagan
You showed me this land's fine
That song captures what it is like to be a red stater living in a blue state perfectly...
via Jay Nordlinger
Posted by Martin Devon at 07:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 28, 2004
Why think differently?Just after I graduated high school we got an Apple IIe. It was a revelation. My brother and I spent many an hour trying to master the thing. There weren't too many applications for it yet, but we reveled in every new one that we found. We also learned to build out own. I'll never forget the Hebrew language word processor that my brother wrote. He hand crafted every letter, and he had to write special "right to left" and keyboard mapping routines. It took him hours and hours, but he did it for fun.
Once I joined the work force I got an IBM PC (an AT, actually). Th killer app that drove the purchase was Lotus 123. I had used Versa Calc on the Apple, but 123 was so much more powerful and easier to use. So before I knew it I became a PC guy. I never lost that soft spot in my heart for Apple, but business was business.
Somewhere along the line, when I was running an application development group for a record company, I got Mac to supplement my PC, I used it just to run one of my team's applications that was used in the creative department, but the interoperability wasn't to the point that I could use it as my main machine.
Yeah, I've read Steven Den Beste's arguments against the Mac. They make good sense, actually. And yet here I am with a PowerBook. So what happened? In a nutshell, Unix and the Internet.
While Den Beste is basically right about the processor problem facing the Mac, James Lileks is also right about what a joy the Mac is to use. And that really matters. even to a geek like me who has no problem with complex technology.
A couple of years ago, before most people had ever heard of WiFi, I set up wireless access at home. I bought an early Linksys router (this was before Cisco bought Linksys). I configured it myself. It took me two days of patient debugging to get it done, but I did it. And I felt that I was ahead of the game. But the cute little Airport Express is ever so much easier to install.
Bottom line -- I understand Windows really well. But my Mac was connected to the Internet 15 minutes after the time I opened up the box. Easy, easy, easy.
But Apple is dying, isn't it?
If Den Beste is right, then I've picked an architecture that is a dead end, locking myself into a machine that will always be slower than what I can get on Wintel.
Could be, but I don't care. Why? Let's see:
Speed: I know that there are many faster processors out there. I just don't know why I need a faster processor. Back in the early days, I set up some monster spreadshets that took 15 minutes to recalculate. I would salivate for every increment in clock speed. But now? It is all about how quick my (wireless) Internet connection is. The only thing I want a faster processor for is to have multiple applicaions open. But in the Wintel world I'd have to be careful about that because my machine would crash. I don't feeel the need to have many apps open at once. But guess what? It turns out that on that on the Mac that opening a bunch of apps at once is not an issue. Cool. Unless and until a new killer app comes out that requires every last bit of power the G4 is more than enough for me.
Compatability: I work with people on PCs every day. So far the compatability issues have been minor. I can read and write documents that work perfectly well with PCs. If the Mac is a dead-end then switching back will be a snap because all my files alreadywork well on the PC. I'll just copy them over and they'll work.
Virtual Machine: The kiker is that I actually have an XP machine on my Mac, It isn't as quick as an XP, but it runs fast enough to operate. If I have to test how some code runs on an XP I can sill do that on the Mac, Ditto for Unix apps as well.
Life is too short: The Mac just works. Who needs the hassles?
Posted by Martin Devon at 11:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
The new DoleWhen the Republicans nominated Bob Dole I just couldn't figure out what the hell they were doing. I mean, nice guy and all, but Bob Dole? I'm hardly the first to note that John Kerry is the Dems' Dole, but watching Kerry wiggle sure knocks the point home. Perhaps this is a bipartisan problem, the result of a united base that hate's the other party's president.
In 1996 Republicans hated Clinton, and perhaps thought that Dole was the guy to beat them, so instead of voting for the guy they really wanted, they coalesced around Dole. The Dems did a similar thing when the swept Kerry to the nomination. The polls said that primary voters picked Kerry because he was the most electable. But maybe primary voters aren't the best judge of electability.
Unless you are a staunch conservative or an arch liberal, you probably have ten reasons to vote against Bush and one reason to vote for him. When you tally up the pros and cons on the con side... perhaps you don't like his judges, or you have second thoughts about Iraq or you don't like how much he's increased spending or you don't like his tax cuts. On the pro side, Bush is a solid guy who has proven his mettle in a crisis. I starting to think that it may be enough...
Posted by Martin Devon at 07:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
August 26, 2004
Jersey
Garden State was great, even though it was a bit chickflicky. Writer/actor Zach Braff even has a blog.
Posted by Martin Devon at 11:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 20, 2004
The other beachI've extended my quickie trip to NYC by a couple of days. Like most weekends, I'm going to the beach, but this time it will be at Fire Island, one of my favorite spots. But now wireless access changes the whole experience.
My latop gave up the ghost yesterday, so on top of all the travel I'm doing I also had to get a new laptop. It will take me a while to get it all sorted out. I haven't check my patio mail in days...
Don't freak out or anything, but I got a ac-may! Don't tell Lileks...
Posted by Martin Devon at 12:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
August 18, 2004
Random thoughts from the shallow endWhen analyzing politics I hate to generalize from my own experiences as I see so many Washington types do. I believe the polls that say that John Kerry will handily beat Bush in the Jewish vote, and that many Bush 2000 voters will defect. But I sure don't see it.
I'm in New York this week, and all I keep running into are Jewish Bush backers. Today at lunch I felt like a lefty in the midst of hard right post 9-11 Bushies everywhere.
Business Associate #1: How any New Yorker can vote for anyone but Bush after 9-11 is beyond me. I was here, I saw what they did and how Bush handled it. We are at war. Has anyone told Kerry?
Business Associate 2: There will be many New Yorkers who are ashamed to tell a pollster that they are voting for Bush, but they will.
Like I said, I don't generalize from my experience [Why not? - ed because I'm not Mickey Kaus -- that's his deal.] But having such conversations with people I've just met is striking.
I've been following the Olympics as best as I can, but between the travelling and time delay from Athens it isn't too easy. I haven't heard much chatter about it from people who I encounter either. I'm not sure why. It was a much bigger deal in 2000. Maybe we have other fish to fry now.
Is it just me or have the NYC summers gotten more humid since Bloomberg was elected? Say what you will about James Hahn, but he's done a great job with the weather in LA since he was elected.
Did I mention that I hold mayors accountable for the weather? Someone has to be responsible, and I'm not sure what else the mayor does, so... Let me tell you, whoever was mayor of Montreal (Jean Drapeau?) when I grew up really sucked by that measurement.
I'm not gonna make it back to LA in time for the Luke Ford party. Bummer. Buy his new book (or whatever he did that the press club is buying). I did my part -- I thought of him at the fancy Kosher steak house where I had dinner tonight. It's the thought that counts, right? Or is that some other religion?
OK, I'm going to go to sleep now...
Posted by Martin Devon at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Kristof confused by cosmeticsI guess that Nicholas Kristof read my praise of his work on educating people on the crisis in Sudan and decided that he had to remind me that he was a liberal. Hence this run-of-the-mill piece on the "assault weapons" ban entitled, Who Needs Assault Weapons? Kristof, who grew up on a farm and should know better, completely buys into the confusion about what an assualt weapon is:
I grew up on an Oregon farm that bristled with guns to deal with the coyotes that dined on our sheep. Having fired everything from a pistol to a machine gun, I can testify that shooting can be a lot of fun. But consider the cost: 29,000 gun deaths in America each year.While gun statistics are as malleable as Play-Doh, they do underscore that assault weapons are a special problem in America.
They accounted for 8.4 percent of the guns traced to crimes between 1988 and 1991, and they are still used in one in five fatal shootings of police officers. If anything, we should be plugging the holes in the ban by having it cover copycat weapons without bayonet mounts, instead of moving backward and allowing a new flood of weapons and high-capacity magazines.
What the hell does that mean? If 8.4% getaway cars used in bank robberies had mag wheels would Kristof favor banning them too? The law covering "assualt weapons" just covers the cosmetics of the guns. Does a flash suppresor make a gun more lethal? No. Does the styling? No. So why the big fuss? Gang members with priors (i.e. gang members) are already prohibited from buying guns. Do you think that one more law will make any difference? And if it did, do you doubt that they would buy another gun, one without the "mag wheels?" Sohow would banning "assault weapons" make one bit of difference? It doesn't.
I understand why some people want to ban private ownership of guns, and I suspect that these folks are pushing the "assault weapons" ban as a way to ban at least some guns. But they are just playing word games. A rifle is a rifle. If it can kill a deer it can kill a man.
Posted by Martin Devon at 12:01 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
