Sunday, March 06, 2005

Agreeing to disagree

I'm involved in a lively discussion over at Fester's Place.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Amos the Poker Cat said...

Nothing more entertaining than seeing a bunch of leftie bloggers beatting each other up over the equivalent of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

Oh, Kathleen Brown did not endorse the Clinton in '92 either, but she was allowed to speak. There was also six "pro-choice" Republican women that were allowed to speak. Not sure they had any standing to endore anyone at a Democrat convention.

Clearly, from all the contempory news reports, Casey was not allowed to speak because he was passionately "pro life".

'Convention chair Ann Richards denied Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey's request to speak against what he claimed was the Platform's support of "abortion on demand".' - National Journal Convention Daily, July 15, 1992, p. 22.

If Casey was denied a speach only because he did not endorse Clinton, then why have Algore call after the convention with a token apology?

Yes, history is being rewritten, not by the WSJ editoral board, but by George Soros.

3:45 AM

 
Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

Where were you when I needed you?

And don't call me a leftie. It's an insult to the left.

9:51 AM

 
Anonymous Amos the Poker Cat said...

Where was I? Probably playing poker in AZ. Spring training time.

An insult to other lefties, eh? Rats, you have figured out my meta-game. ;-)

10:30 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

JP, if you can pull yourself away from Fester's meaningless din over another losing Democratic challenger to high office, as a former journalist of some standing, what do you make of WAPO's stuff today on Leopold?

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html

4:42 PM

 
Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

To be honest, I hadn't heard of the guy until this little brouhaha over his book. Frankly, I don't think people are as interested in journalists' lives as journalists like to think they are. This guy wasn't Jayson Blair, and I suspect the publisher figured his material was too suspect and not worth whatever they would get in book sales. The real question is why they signed him in the first place.

4:56 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK. You may now return to the self-destructive debate over whether the pro-choice or pro-life Dem gets to live with the ignominy of losing to a know-nothing blowhard who may, or may not, live in Penn Hills.

4:58 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, perhaps because he is so young and not from PA, Fester misses out on exactly why Casey is so popular (a point the chick doesn't get either).

First, the older "Reagan Democratic" base of the PA party tends to be grayer, more socially conservative and Roman Catholic than the national party. That's why Casey is such a natural to win a primary, despite his loss to a much more charismatic (albeit portly) mayor from Philadelphia.

Rendell, as us insidery types will tell you, got a lot of votes within his party for the same reasons Kerry did. With all those satisfied GOP voters in Philadelphia County, ward leaders knew he would be tough to be in a general election. He was, in a word, "electable."

By "satisfied," I mean Rendell's budget cutting and breaking of the municipal unions out east meant they didn't have to perform the same sort of bailout suburban Republicans here had to deal with (and if they didn't, the worst Iron City mayor since the Civil War called them "racist").

Casey is intriguing because of his pro-life record. He holds down the socially conservative but usually Democratic side of the vote AND gets the progressives (what, they're going to vote for a man reviled in a Dan Savage column? Yeah, right).

I haven't seen the early polling yet, but I get the feeling the tops (including Rendell) realize that Casey can siphon off a lot of the default abortion activist vote from Santorum.

I also would like to make a case for Casey ('case for Casey' -- I can see the bumper stickers shipped to Moveon already). He's been a fiscal conservative who truly cares about the little people, the dispossessed, the poor, the elderly. These principles were brewed from the kettle of his faith and tempered by a heritage of hard Dem politics.

He's going to take heat for his stand against the death penalty, too, don't forget.

That said, I still think he's going to lose, just as any Dem will lose, because the party grassroots organizing effort has collapsed. It's hard to get out the vote in urban neighborhoods in an off-year election, and the GOP just is too strong in the rural counties and suburbs thanks to years of cultivating voters street-by-street.

If the Dems try to counter that by releasing the troopers from the government unions, trade shops and Moveon hippies, they will only re-enforce a branded image that's a real loser in this state.

Plus Casey won't have nearly the money Santorum will have.

5:18 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And one more thing. If another democratic insurgeny breaks out in the Mideast, will you give Bush's risky decision to invade Iraq and trigger an historical seachange in the way the region looks at government, a free press, human rights a second look?


I know you opposed the war on pragmatic grounds, just as I supported it on equally pragmatic grounds. But isn't there at least an inkling, a tiny happy moment, to be shared with the people of Lebanon, Iraq and, perhaps someday, Egypt and Saudi Arabia?

They now get to elect their own Santorums, or Caseys, or whomevers.

5:46 PM

 
Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

As I've said before, you must not care for either your country or the cause of peace if, as a critic of the war and of the president, you wish for things to go badly to be proven right. I'm glad to see things going well, and I believe the president deserves credit.

That said, I still believe that this administration has made many mistakes that I care not to see repeated by future administrations, even if the end result is successful in this case. We can't just allow the administration to say "History will vindicate us." That's the defense of fascists. (And no, I'm not accusing Bush of being a fascist. I think you get my point.)

8:53 PM

 
Anonymous geoff said...

The motion to be discussed at this month's Doha Debates: "This House believes that George Bush has kicked open the door to democracy in the Middle East." I'll let you know what the folks here in Qatar say.

Lebanon is to be celebrated, despite the tragic catalyst to this series of events, and I think the Bush administration deserves some credit for the way it's shaking out. And it deserves credit for Mubarak opening the door a little, even if that turns out to be a charade. Same with the Saudis.

Reforms here in Qatar are the Qataris' own doing, though they are certainly getting help from some high-priced American consultants.

Libya, as I understand it, fell into the laps of the White House communications office. I have been told that there were no serious negotiations going on. That may be untrue.

Iran's reform movement has moved backward, however, and that's the fault of the hardliners there, not George Bush, though his policy toward Iran isn't helping any. Iraq's vote went better than anyone had a right to expect, but its strictly sectarian breakdown suggests to me that it is another step on the road to civil war. I don't know how news of the efforts to form the new government are being reported over there, but here it sounds like the buildup to a shooting match.

JP, how is it you didn't manage to attach yourself to the junket?

12:31 AM

 
Blogger Jonathan Potts said...

Too low on the totem pole, I guess.

Send me an email--I'd like to hear more about how you are doing.

9:41 AM

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home