Third-party follies -- Paul and/or Bloomberg in 2008

ehBeth wrote:

blatham wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
blatham wrote:
The jockeying is not interesting. The coverage of it is. And then there's the matter of the outcome and for that, "interesting" is quite insufficient.

did you read the New York mag article on the possible New York triad?

it was interesting.

I didn't. What's the title?

the link's inside this post

sheesh...I'm sorry, I did read that one. Good writing in that magazine these days.

0 Replies

Ezra Klein can be very very smart... this is an excerpt on the Bloomburg possibility and the crowd publicly pushing it.

Quote:

These would-be unifiers are furious at the rules, but lack the strategy or vision to challenge the current order. When the only tool you've got is a self-interested billionaire, every problem needs to look solvable by the application of a self-interested billionaire. So what is actually a problem of power and structure is rhetorically reframed as a matter of partisanship and disunity. A failure of rules is thus recast as a failure of personalities, and thus rendered vulnerable to the arrival of a newer, better personality.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=revolt_of_the_hasbeens

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Would you be so kind as to accept my allegiance to this country.
I do accept it as an apparent personal condition. As I do with any jihadhist, or member of Pol Pot's army, or Hell's Angels member, or a Tutu swinging his machete down towards the face of a Tutsi, or an Israeli terrorist planting a bomb in a Brit barracks, or a Brit celebrating the slaughter of Hindus contesting British corporate control of salt production and sales. Pat yourselves on the back, you patriots.

Quote:
And, if I ever visit Canada, I will not question native born Canadians on their political positions.

Your choice, of course. But you perhaps ought to steel yourself against a rather serious degree of disrespect for having decided to make yourself cognitively comfortable through the expedient of pretending you have neither brain nor conscience.

Your historical timing seems to be off. When the British were being bombed in the Holy Land, Israel, nor Israelis existed at that point. They were being bombed by Jewish Zionists. You may say that, inasmuch as you would then be historically correct. Otherwise, the cart is being put before the horse, so to speak. The purpose of the bombing, obviously, was to expedite the goals of these Jewish Zionists (not redundant, since there are Christian Zionists too), which was to get the British to leave and allow a Jewish Homeland and "Israelis" to come into existence.

You are comparing me (in an oblique way perhaps) to Jihadists? Anti-British Zionists? Please make ad hominem remarks more in line with my non-political existence, other than my one little ole' Republican vote.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am a plain citizen with no political involvement.

If that were the case, you wouldn't be on this discussion board and you wouldn't be speaking in praise of your nation and its role in the world nor of the positives you perceive arising from this administration nor of your allegiance to a particular party.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I am a plain citizen with no political involvement.
If that were the case, you wouldn't be on this discussion board and you wouldn't be speaking in praise of your nation and its role in the world nor of the positives you perceive arising from this administration nor of your allegiance to a particular party.

This virtual, cyberspace world is not political involvement, in my most humble of opinions. I see it as political "comment." Or, in my case, "political pride." I am proud to be an American that votes Republican. Call it bragging if you like, but not involvment.

0 Replies

Call it etheric kanoodling if you like. But as you are in a public forum, and as the ideas and values you express or laud are matters of communal policy and interest, you make yourself fair game for critical comment in support of contesting ideas and values.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

...as you are in a public forum, and as the ideas and values you express or laud are matters of communal policy and interest, you make yourself fair game for critical comment in support of contesting ideas and values.

To what "communal policy and interest" do you refer? I'm not aware of any.

It is indeed a public forum, and all ideas offfered are equally subject to criticism, comment and diagreement, but, beyond that what are you saying?

0 Replies

Happy new year, george. I have resolved to somehow use my relationship with you in order to get to David Addington and then shove a jumbo icecream bar up where the sun don't shine.

As regards your query, the exchanges are on the previous page (and have earlier iterations in some prior discussions). The fellow is a Republican voter and commends this behavior to others. Surely, it's an act of great bravery to actually admit this in public (given the times) but for myself, precisely like this present administration, I've always considered bravery a quality laudable in the lower classes yet quite vulgar and unnecessary for the wealthy and connected. True, situations might arise wherebye one has to put on a uniform (so long as it is a sexy and manly one, like a flight suit) or to stand in front of a bunch of soldiers when you have your photo taken or , heck, even roll up your sleeves and pick up a pitchfork for the White House PR team so as to give that impression that you're sweating from manly travails rather than from the brandy hangover. But all in all, you simply do not hang with the peons because they are in a different class and there are rules about that. We know who made those rules because we remember doing it ourselves, over brandy. All of which leads me, straight as an arrow (or straight as Ted Haggard's penis when he's on meth and with his gay prostitute friend, if you prefer that metaphor) to why, when foofie talks his foofie talk, the wild boars are released on his heels.

Clear?

0 Replies

Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg
A tale of two mayors

Jan 3rd 2008 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition
Far from Iowa, two would-be presidents are biding their time

If Hillary Clinton and Mr Giuliani are the Democratic and Republican nominees, there will scarcely be room for another New Yorker in the race. But if one party picks a base-pleasing populist (say, Mike Huckabee or John Edwards), Mr Bloomberg may see open ground for a pragmatic centrist. Even as he touts the virtues of non-partisanship in Oklahoma, he will be keeping a close eye on Iowa.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10431050

0 Replies

Looks like The Economist has been reading New York Magazine.

0 Replies

Mr. Bloomberg would also first have to get elected, and this has to be considered a very long shot. His best chance would be if the two parties nominate candidates on the ideological extremes -- say, John Edwards on the left and Mike Huckabee on the right. But even if this happens, which of the 50 states would Mr. Bloomberg be able to win to deny one of his competitors an Electoral College majority? Even if he did carry enough states to throw the election into the House of Representatives, Mr. Bloomberg would then face a majority controlled in all likelihood by Democrats.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119931975338663653.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

blatham wrote:
Quote:
I am a plain citizen with no political involvement.
If that were the case, you wouldn't be on this discussion board and you wouldn't be speaking in praise of your nation and its role in the world nor of the positives you perceive arising from this administration nor of your allegiance to a particular party.

This virtual, cyberspace world is not political involvement, in my most humble of opinions. I see it as political "comment." Or, in my case, "political pride." I am proud to be an American that votes Republican. Call it bragging if you like, but not involvment.

Blatham replied:

Call it etheric kanoodling if you like. But as you are in a public forum, and as the ideas and values you express or laud are matters of communal policy and interest, you make yourself fair game for critical comment in support of contesting ideas and values.

And Then Foofie Said:

You seem to have changed the topic. My comments are not political involvement. I don't mind your, or anyone's critical comment.

But in your further posts you seem to be involved in one's social position. That's cute. Based on my background I am not part of that mostly WASP game. I do hope though that you are in some Blue Book somewhere. Perhaps, you are descended from aristocracy? I hope so. I wish you happiness and contentment. Voting Republican does help one achieve that goal, I believe.

By the way, my one Republican vote is not based on my identifying with any social/economic class. It is because the Democrats have a portion of their constituency that have ideas that I just consider too radical for my preferences. The candidates, in my opinion, are quite standard fare for the Democratic Party. I just don't care for some of the people that call themselves Democrats. Not based on socio-economic class, but on ideas/beliefs. So, I'm really forced to vote for a party that seems to keep that "other" constituency out of the party.

0 Replies

Third-party follies -- Paul and/or Bloomberg in 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know