 (On the Wall) |
|||||||||||
|
Sunday, February 22, 2004 "Enough is Enough!"
From Atrios, California right-wingers are pissed about Bush's immigration plan: Hundreds of GOP loyalists booed the president at a rally where U.S. Senate hopeful Howard Kaloogian and his allies denounced Bush's plan to give temporary legal status to undocumented workers.This is where we see the clash between the corporatist wing (which funds the Republicans) and the evangelical/social-conservative wing (the necessary voter base). The party's true loyalties are to big business; Republicans know, however, that rich people are only 2% of the vote, and so they use social wedge issues to attract the base. The problem is that, on immigration, these two areas clash. The corporatists, of course, love cheap labor, but the rednecks sure hate those Mexicans who come and steal their jobs. (The only logical reason for Karl Rove to have done this would have been that it is a condescending attempt to win Hispanic votes, but I don't think it's likely to work since "guest worker" sounds a lot like "second-class citizen.") The furor over Janet Jackson's nipple is another example. The Republicans want to please the base by going anti-nipple, but they can't push too hard since they know that "decadent" culture is created by the giant capitalist machine that they worship. As this waffling becomes more apparent, it seems less and less like the Republicans are a united front -- which has been their biggest strength since 1994. (Kos gives another look at how social conservatives are getting used by the corporatists. Hopefully the shit will hit the fan in October or so.) Saturday, February 07, 2004 Focus Groups
In almost every primary/caucus state, MSNBC does this "focus group" thing during hardball, which involves a pollster from the Northeast asking a group of people from that state a bunch of condescending questions and then pretending to draw some earthshattering conclusion from the whole process. Please stop doing this. It makes your network look like a bunch of condescending assholes.
The Fundamental Question
No one has yet given a sufficient response to my question: Why is it that war is legal but nudity is not? In a similar vein, I think that our slogan come November should be More Breasts, Less War. Which one is truly harming American children? Which would you rather see on TV?
The Pacifist Manifesto
Ken McLeod calls for a scientific pacifism: pacifism or anti-militarism needs its Marx. It needs someone to argue for it in a non-moral, cynical, side-of-the-mouth kind of way. (Pass it on.)One thing that struck me as I saw a religion teacher desperately argue for pacifism was that he had no support of his opinion beyond compassion and Church teaching. That sort of stuff won't win theoretically -- and neither did socialism, before Marx.
Karl and the First Amendment
Atrios points out a lovely morsel about the federal government subpoenaing records on protestors: In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.I believe the Marxist critique applies here: While the Bill of Rights (which was written by bourgeois politicians) gives the freedom of peaceable assembly, what is truly protected is the peaceable assembly of the ruling class. Foreign policy meetings between neocons and free trade meetings between global capitalists -- both of which result in great dals of harm worldwide -- are fully protected. But the meetings in the streets of those against war and free trade are suppressed by police and/or subpoenaed by federal judges. Class warfare? Of course. But we didn't start the war. Saturday, January 31, 2004 Exactly
Nitpickler echoes my doubts about John Kerry (and much more eloquently): Here's a man that has spent twenty years in the senate, more in politics, demonstrating little or no initiative for party leadership and he now wants to be put in the Whitehouse. Can anyone name any truly significant piece of legislation he has authored? He's says we need someone who can stand up to Bush, and says Ashcroft needs to go. Yet, he voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraqi Invasion. ... Iraq, he was decieved - were you? Was he not around when Colin Powell basically said Saddam was impotent, that the sanctions and inspections had worked? He touts his foreign policy expertise, yet he was so easily deceived?Quite frankly, his insistence that he was so easily deceived by Bush indicates that he's too stupid to be President. And that's the last thing we need: Another stupid Yale boy running the country.
Matchmaker, Matchmaker
I found this candidate match quiz (from Sully) to be the most accurate yet. I recommend taking it. For the record, here are my results: Kucinich 100 (of course)Notice that big hole between Bush and Lieberman. I'm genuinely surprised, although it works against the assertion that Lieberman is Bush-lite.
Oh, That Liberal NYT
The New York Times is sooooo liberal. That's why they want to exclude the two most liberal candidates from the debates: Representative Dennis Kucinich has every right to keep campaigning despite his minuscule vote tallies, but he should not be allowed to take up time in future candidate debates. Neither should the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is running to continue running, not to win.Hooray for democracy, eh? Hooray for divergent ideas. This stuff makes me want to emigrate.
Fuck the American Dream
A fair and balanced "business analyst" (i.e., GOP operative) just said, "It takes money to make money!" Even they have begun to admit that the rags-to-riches myth is a fallacy, even if they're unwittingly doing it while trying to denounce Democratic economic policy. |
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
© peter horace 2004 |
|||||||||||
