Friday
(0)The left thinks that the issues around the TANG service are relevant – Bush was AWOL then, Bush lied about WMD, both instances involve acronyms, and can't you SEE the cloven hooves? It's the same sort of thing that gripped the feverish elements of the Right in the 90s: Clinton winked at drug-smuggling out of Mena, therefore he sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign donations. ISN'T IT CLEAR? But that sort of nonsense was confined the margins; the editor of the Clinton Chronicles wasn't sitting in the presidential suite at the 2000 convention like Michael Moore sitteth at the left hand of Jimmy Carter in 2004.
- James Lileks via Hugh Hewitt
Great quote - but it came from Lileks' The Bleat. Hewitt was quoting it himself (although that wasn't clear from the way Hewitt presented it).
Posted by El Rojo at September 17, 2004 03:56 PM
Rojo's right. You could probably mine a quote a day from the Bleat.
Posted by R C Dean at September 17, 2004 04:01 PM
the editor of the Clinton Chronicles wasn't sitting in the presidential suite at the 2000 convention like Michael Moore sitteth at the left hand of Jimmy Carter in 2004
No, that was in 1996...
Posted by flaime at September 17, 2004 04:41 PM
Now, as a rule I don't believe conspiracy theories. They are too neat, and always refuse to accept the importance of chance, incompetence and unintended consequences.
But just for fun, here's my Conspiracy Theory for the 2004 Presidential Election -- feel free to spread it if you want to:
John Kerry was supposed to lose. The Democratic Party leadership calculated, wisely, that they were likely to lose against an incumbent during an economic upturn and in the War On Terror climate. Their strongest potential runner was, and is , Hillary Clinton. But they won't risk losing her...
...so they pick a sacrificial lamb, a blowhard Northern senator who couldn't possibly win any presidential election, and let him run. The trick is to pretend that he can win, and then make sure the campaign sinks. Hillary runs in 2008.
How's THAT for a conspiracy theory? Everything fits! (Of course, I'm only kidding. What do I know about U.S. politics? I'm Swedish. ;-P)
-A.R.Yngve
Now, as a rule I don't believe conspiracy theories. They are too neat, and always refuse to accept the importance of chance, incompetence and unintended consequences.
But just for fun, here's my Conspiracy Theory for the 2004 Presidential Election -- feel free to spread it if you want to:
John Kerry was supposed to lose. The Democratic Party leadership calculated, wisely, that they were likely to lose against an incumbent during an economic upturn and in the War On Terror climate. Their strongest potential runner was, and is , Hillary Clinton. But they won't risk losing her...
...so they pick a sacrificial lamb, a blowhard Northern senator who couldn't possibly win any presidential election, and let him run. The trick is to pretend that he can win, and then make sure the campaign sinks.
How's THAT for a conspiracy theory? Everything fits! (Of course, I'm only kidding. What do I know about U.S. politics? I'm Swedish. ;-P)
-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com
Posted by A.R.Yngve at September 17, 2004 10:11 PM
The Democratic Party leadership calculated, wisely, that they were likely to lose against an incumbent during an economic upturn and in the War On Terror climate.
Except that Bush was polling weakly, and being trounced by "any Democrat" in the polls last year. The Dems believed their own press, and went all in on the mistaken belief that their own "Anybody But Bush" mania was widely held in the electorate. Kerry was chosen because of, not in spite of, his "electability" (as ridiculous that seems in hindsight).
Basically, the Dem calculation was that the ABB vote meant Bush was gone so long as they put up a safe and minimally plausible candidate. Now, Kerry is nothing if not safe and minimally plausible, as he puts enormous effort in being all things to all people and taking carefully nuanced and inoffensive positions.
Plus, he had bonus Purple Hearts and medals for valor! Just the gilding the Massachusetts lily needed with a war on.
Now, this may all seem ludicrously disconnected from reality, but this was the sincerely held belief set of the Democrat activists.
Posted by R C Dean at September 17, 2004 10:30 PM
"Now, this may all seem ludicrously disconnected from reality, but this was the sincerely held belief set of the Democrat activists."
Well it hasn't failed quite yet, as most polls (not that they're trustworthy...) have it as a close race and there's still over a month and a half left. I'd hold off on calling it ludicrously disconnected from reality unless it actually does fail miserably, as there's still a chance it could work.
Posted by Will (Davis, CA) at September 17, 2004 11:08 PM
Sorry about the double posting. My mistake. :-/
-A.R.Yngve
Posted by A.R.Yngve at September 17, 2004 11:21 PM
Yngve - for what it is worth, many folks in the states have speculated this also, but it seems implausible, since Hilary doesn't look like a viable candidate in 2008 either.
Posted by Oscar at September 18, 2004 01:37 AM
Anyway, Lileks was wrong - it wasn't nuketech we 'sold' the Chineese, it was Missile Guidance systems, and booster parts - after all, we needed them to help put all our commsats up, and the ones that didn't blow up got lost...
NKorea got the NukeTech...
Posted by Pete(Detroit) at September 18, 2004 06:24 AM
