Thursday, August 10, 2006
Bad politics, good policy?
Glenn Reynolds thinks that politically, at least, Bush is once again blowing it:
Bush certainly seems to have hit the sweet spot -- prosecuting the war [in Lebanon and Israel] vigorously enough to anger the antiwar left, but not vigorously enough to please the prowar right.
This is certainly true as a statement of the political condition. It is not, however, evidence that Bush's policy is worse than the alternatives. In Middle Eastern affairs, the level of anger that a policy engenders is not a reliable measure of its merit.
15 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Fri Aug 11, 12:16:00 AM:
The good news is that your Republican Party is busy photoshopping (much like a certain photographer in Lebanon) a Hitler moustache onto Howard Dean's face. The Republican National Committee is photoshopping their own truth now. Maybe you'll want to write a letter thanking them for keeping Democrats out of Congress with photoshop slander.
Because surely you won't apply the same standards to Ken Mehlman that you apply to the press...
link
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Aug 11, 08:59:00 AM:
Wow. Are you serious, Scott?
You're saying the Republican National Committee is operating under a different set of rules when they put a Hitler moustache on the Chair of the Democratic National Committee and deliver that image to tens of thousands of people?
That's why I really want you people to lose. Your ethics are for shit.
Sorry about this one, Hawk. But, as you know, I'm a Dean fan, and it is so very wrong to turn him into Hitler.
Absurd and deeply wrong.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Aug 11, 09:14:00 AM:
Here's the link to the pictures. GOP.com didn't like getting caught, and they took the doctored picture down without comment.
Will someone over here please assure me that most Republicans don't support such tactics? Or does the War on Terra justify it for you?
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Aug 11, 10:32:00 AM:
Well, it looks more like a "Saddam" moustache than a "Hitler" moustache, but, yes, Screwy, it is an asinine thing to have done. There is, however, a difference between a deliberate mocking of a political opponent, however much in bad taste, and deception by a news organization in an existential war that may turn on public perceptions. There is no a priori basis to determine which is worse and I won't even try. I will say, however, that it is equally silly to analogize the two offenses, just because Photoshop was involved in both. The Dean moustache atrocity is entirely unrelated to the Reuters fautxtography scandal. It is like trying to compare a drive-by shooting in south Los Angeles and a car bomb in Baghdad. Both are crimes that required automobiles, but I don't know how you decide which one is "worse." They are different.
By 
, at
Fri Aug 11, 10:33:00 AM:
Screwy,
I went an looked at the photos-without trying to be difficult, I didn't see the mustache.
And as long as you're crying about Republican ethics, where are you on the August 3rd ad in the New York Times directly compating W to Hitler signed by none other than Michigan's own John Conyers? Text of ad follows.
"People look at all this and think of Hitler - and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come."
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Aug 11, 10:41:00 AM:
Screwy - but absolutely no liberal democrats have created pictures and posters attaching the current President doe Nazi symbols. Yeah. Right.
And then there's today's NYT telling the Bush Admin we need to be doing way better collecting intel on prospective terrorists. Yeah. Right.
Howard Dean is a poor leader for the Democratic Party. Nancy Pelosi is a poor leader for House Democrats. They do not represent the views of a broad swath of Democrats, much less the country. They do not speak, for instance, to the south... at all. Leaving aside what you think of a silly picture of Hward DEan, what do you think of him as a leader for the Democratic Party?
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Aug 11, 11:00:00 AM:
Screwy - uh - oh. Looks like you've got Charles Johnson going...
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22051_Daily_Kos_Alters_GOP_Photograph&only
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Aug 11, 11:31:00 AM:
Whoa, CP, Charles Johnson backed off in an update just moments ago!
I still say it was a Saddam mustache.
By Gordon Smith, at
Fri Aug 11, 03:41:00 PM:
All,
That's some fancy tap-dancing. How about we say that if you're purporting to accurately represent something, you ought to accurately represent it? Fair?
John Conyers' invocation of Hitler is wrong. Bush isn't Hitler. Bush is Bush, and that's bad enough without der Fuhrer into it. No more Hitler references in general would be fine by me.
Howard Dean has mobilized and energized the Democratic base. He's bringing in more money and more volunteers than the party's ever seen. His 50-state strategy is moving locus of control further from Terry McAuliffe's old office and closer to the grassroots. The DNC, so far behind the RNC in the ground game, is hiring folks for districts that have never had full time Democratic Party employees.
Dean's doing a great job, and no one votes against a Democrat because of what they think of Howard Dean. He's also a convenient target for the Republicans, and he's willing to take those barbs to give other candidates cover.
Dean's role is to elect Democrats, not to set policy agenda, so I don't know how his beliefs would even affect a "broad swath" of anyone. Nancy Pelosi is problematic, and I'd rather see someone with National Security credentials in the post. My guess is that we will.
When Bush is at 33% in the polls and Republican candidates across America are running away from the President whose policies they ardently supported for six years, it's the Republicans that need to worry about leadership and representing a broad swath.
You've got the Hawks and the Evangelicals. Everyone else is a potential Democratic Party voter.
By Fabio, at
Fri Aug 11, 05:16:00 PM:
Maybe it's because I am not into American politics, but I noticed that there is some kind of shadow unde Dean's nose only when I heard of the brouhaha.
Yes, this kinf of beahviour is stupid and reprehensible. No, it's not the same as producing propaganda for Hizballah.
By , at
Fri Aug 11, 06:31:00 PM:
Screwy,
Looks like we've found something to agree on-I also think that Howard Dean is a great leader for Democrats and only wish that he'd spend even more time on TV-seriously, it's like Christmas every day with that guy.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Aug 11, 08:18:00 PM:
Apparently Screwie, you and your ilk have become SO delusional that you can leap on something so minor, stupid, and possibly illusionary as a shadow that looke like a moustache (I'm not fully convinced... the whole image has been darkened because it's a background piece and it's entirely possible that it's a natural result of the altered brightness. Plus, *I* could draw a better Hitler 'stache) and COMPARE it (not contrast, you see) to deliberately staging and altering photographs in a war zone that play up (and invent) tragedies while telling people that it's the truth, in order to manufacture a dig at your political opponents, and feel intellectually and morally secure. Even if it were true, it is completely unworthy of the comparison you attempt.
Go dig up an example of the military masterminding a plot to draw in weapons on massacred civilians in Basra, or something. That's a better comparison. See the difference? It ought to be apparent from the change in your salivating.
Y'all have completely lost credibility. At least when I argue against policies and persons I don't have to rely on speculation, half-cooked conspiracy theories, and shadows that might resemble facial features.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Aug 11, 09:28:00 PM:
Oh look! Supporting evidence!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22051_The_Kos_GOP_Photograph&only
http://www.blogman.net/mt2/archives/deangoesmad2.jpg
Just in case you don't bother looking again, this is *after* the already referenced backing off of LGF before. Looks like they found a non-Photoshopped original, and the issue came from scale and color. Imagine that.
Another victory for logic.
By Gordon Smith, at
Sat Aug 12, 12:09:00 AM:
Dawnfire,
There's a river in Egypt you must be well acquainted with.
I imagine it's hard to see the photoshop with all that spittle on your monitor.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Aug 12, 11:52:00 AM:
"It's a conspiracy! An evil cabal of Republicans have joined their forces to *grasp* draw what kind of looks like a moustache but not really on a 2nd rate political figure! That's just as bad, if not WORSE, than the Reuters scandal!"
The burden of proof is on you, moonbats.
When people started talking about a Hezb Allah conspiracy at Qana, or questioning Green Helmet Guy you people laughed and pointed at the silly fools trying to defend their Holy Masters Bush and Olmert with the presence of an evil Muslim conspiracy. Well, we know how that turned out... a bunch of you guys have been eating proverbial crow. Well, ought to have been, but way too many (visit KOS) are in, um, denial.
But now that YOU have decided that this is true, (without referencing a shred of supporting evidence) we're supposed to just accept it as fact? And when someone says, "that's pretty lame," they must be in denial? I had not idea that you were such an authority on reality.
All I said was that I'm not convinced. Have you got something else to back it up? Have at it.
Also I think that my point still stands that comparing this molehill to the Reuters fauxtography mountain is inexcusable, but I suppose that can be attributed to over-zealousness. Again.
And lastly, this is like the fourth time your 'defense' against an argument of mine has included (or been entirely composed of) some stock comment about spit. Move on. It's pathetic, and does not replace an actual, cogent, articulated argument.
