More politics in the afternoon
Say what you like about Gerald Ford, but he was, in fact, an athlete and a great sportsman. People talked about Bush père and fils during their times in office, saying how outdoorsy and such they were. Carefully orchestrated rubbish. Ford was a standout college football player and had an outside shot at the NFL. The rap on his clumsiness came after an incident not too long after he took office, when the press was looking for some "hook" about him, and he provided it by slipping on a European tarmac that was completely iced over during a winter visit. He in fact took the fall in place of his wife, who was also having difficulty walking.
As another way of looking at things, Ford was the last surviving member of the Warren Commission. I don't think this will mean any new developments or releases as far as that goes, but yanevahcantell. Ford had some misgivings about the final report, and was one of the few commissioners to go semi-public with them.
On another note, the Sun this morning had an article from a prof at UMBC, who was encouraging the Democrats to abandon the "Southern Strategy". The thinking is simple: nobody says that for the Republicans to win, they have to get latte-drinking northeasterners to vote for them, so why should the Democrats concern themselves with NASCAR fans? The whole thing is a misguided notion that the Dems have lost touch with the "real 'Murricans". (Have you noticed how racist that is? Why is it that when politicians talk about "getting to the grassroots", they don't think about talking to people in the Bronx? What makes a white Iowa farmer more "American" than a black guy from U St. in D.C., or a Latino in Tucson?)
Anyway, the strategy makes perfect sense in one respect, since the Democrats don't have any ideals - and please, let's not get all huffy. Are the Dems in favor of the war, or against? For or against single-payer health care? How about gun control? Abortion? The answers are "it all depends, dot dot dot", because the Democrats are a loose, non-conservative electoral coalition which doesn't have any unifying characteristics. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples; they rose on firey, principled stances, then took their perches in the leadership and stopped saying anything of value except that "Republicans are bad, m'kay?" Getting conservatives to vote Democrat means that you'll have to actually offer them something to vote for; thus, why bother? Stay where you know you'll have the votes without having to say anything in order to get them.
Republicans, OTOH, are unreservedly the party of conservatism, in its many stripes. They made the message simple by going with the standards of greed and self-interest, then wrapped themselves in the flag and shouted "yee-haw" for the rest to bring in the low SAT score set...this is why when election time comes around, the Dems run in circles while the GOP gets the religious fanatics, Randian nutbars, tinpot militarists, and corporate criminals to all strap on the armbands and march in the same direction. (And you must admit, their separate ideologies do lend themselves very well to the "big guys lead, little guys follow" mindset.)
The Dems will have to make some choices in the coming years. Do they stay as they are, or attempt to actually craft an identity? The odds favor the former, not only because of inertia, but because leading progressives would have to get up and leave for there to be a difference, and they refuse to do so because of the broken democracy we practice (ref. the last post I made), which makes Schaller's ideas quite valid. (Also, according to the article, "Burger Bob" Ehrlich seems to hate Schaller, which helps with my opinion of him because Bob Ehrlich is a prick.) If, however, they attempt to follow Howard Dean, who, to be credited properly, is pursuing a "50-state strategy" in a way, with some possible early success, you'll want to develop an identity and stick to it. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
As another way of looking at things, Ford was the last surviving member of the Warren Commission. I don't think this will mean any new developments or releases as far as that goes, but yanevahcantell. Ford had some misgivings about the final report, and was one of the few commissioners to go semi-public with them.
On another note, the Sun this morning had an article from a prof at UMBC, who was encouraging the Democrats to abandon the "Southern Strategy". The thinking is simple: nobody says that for the Republicans to win, they have to get latte-drinking northeasterners to vote for them, so why should the Democrats concern themselves with NASCAR fans? The whole thing is a misguided notion that the Dems have lost touch with the "real 'Murricans". (Have you noticed how racist that is? Why is it that when politicians talk about "getting to the grassroots", they don't think about talking to people in the Bronx? What makes a white Iowa farmer more "American" than a black guy from U St. in D.C., or a Latino in Tucson?)
Anyway, the strategy makes perfect sense in one respect, since the Democrats don't have any ideals - and please, let's not get all huffy. Are the Dems in favor of the war, or against? For or against single-payer health care? How about gun control? Abortion? The answers are "it all depends, dot dot dot", because the Democrats are a loose, non-conservative electoral coalition which doesn't have any unifying characteristics. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples; they rose on firey, principled stances, then took their perches in the leadership and stopped saying anything of value except that "Republicans are bad, m'kay?" Getting conservatives to vote Democrat means that you'll have to actually offer them something to vote for; thus, why bother? Stay where you know you'll have the votes without having to say anything in order to get them.
Republicans, OTOH, are unreservedly the party of conservatism, in its many stripes. They made the message simple by going with the standards of greed and self-interest, then wrapped themselves in the flag and shouted "yee-haw" for the rest to bring in the low SAT score set...this is why when election time comes around, the Dems run in circles while the GOP gets the religious fanatics, Randian nutbars, tinpot militarists, and corporate criminals to all strap on the armbands and march in the same direction. (And you must admit, their separate ideologies do lend themselves very well to the "big guys lead, little guys follow" mindset.)
The Dems will have to make some choices in the coming years. Do they stay as they are, or attempt to actually craft an identity? The odds favor the former, not only because of inertia, but because leading progressives would have to get up and leave for there to be a difference, and they refuse to do so because of the broken democracy we practice (ref. the last post I made), which makes Schaller's ideas quite valid. (Also, according to the article, "Burger Bob" Ehrlich seems to hate Schaller, which helps with my opinion of him because Bob Ehrlich is a prick.) If, however, they attempt to follow Howard Dean, who, to be credited properly, is pursuing a "50-state strategy" in a way, with some possible early success, you'll want to develop an identity and stick to it. It'll be interesting to see what happens.