My mom, who lives in Mumbai, India, has trouble understanding American politics. Recently she asked me to give her a brief summary of what's going on.
I explained, "There are two parties in American politics. There is a stupid party and there is an evil party."
In an attempt to put my own cards on the table, I confessed, "I am a proud member of the stupid party."
Then I added, "Sometimes, American politicians do things that are both stupid and evil. Those things we call bipartisanship."
I was kidding, of course, but the humor arises out of the element of truth in this description. Consider the charge of stupidity. Would the Republican Party be in the confused state it is now if Bush had appointed a vice president who was electable and actually sought the nomination?
I'm not saying Bush shouldn't have appointed Cheney the first time around. Cheney inspires irrational and paranoid loathing on the left--he's Darth Vader for the Michael Moore set--and this alone was good reason to keep him reasonably close to the Oval Office, not to mention the nuclear arsenal.
But when Bush ran for re-election, he should have sent Cheney packing. Then the GOP would have an heir apparent who would have an inside track to the nomination and who could claim up-close experience in the responsibilities of governance. If Bush had done this, he would have shown both foresight and concern about the future of the GOP.
Now let's turn to the evil party. What other term is appropriate to describe a party where Ted Kennedy's endorsement is actually counted as a positive? This is the moral equivalent of Republican candidates rushing to make campaign commercials with Larry Craig. Notice how the moral scoundrels in the GOP are typically hounded out while the moral scoundrels in the Democratic party generally continue to enjoy their prestige and good standing.
Any party with a sense of decency would ignore and marginalize Ted Kennedy. Besides, what constituency does this man represent? Is it really that important to lock in the votes of dissolute, philandering seniors who still go down to Florida for Spring break?
So here's the situation. Kennedy offers his blessings to Obama and offers to say some black masses for him. Meanwhile, Hillary's camp claims that Obama turned away while Hillary was shaking Kennedy's hand because she is a woman.
Given the irrelevance of gender to this situation, the Hillary team's reaction is downright comic. Yet the shrews at the National Organization for Women are echoing the cries of sexism from the Hillary camp. All that remains is for Obama to counter with the race card and accuse Hillary of making such charges because he is black.
As the election gets closer, I'll try to give my mom a more detailed account of the issues at stake. But I think I've given her enough to keep her informed, and entertained, at least through the primaries.
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 37)
91. DD....Dude! Talk about stupid....do you really think that with the war in Iraq a disaster, oil at $90/barrel, and the economy headed into a recession with record high deficits that anybody associated with "W" would stand a chance in the 2008 Presidential election???? It wouldn't have mattered one wit if Bush had dumped Cheney and put in someone else in 2004. The current crowd of Republican candidates can't get away from "W"'s legacy fast enough!!! Romney, McCain and company stand a chance in 2008 ONLY because they aren't tied to Bush.
Think, man, think!!!
John Galt
John Galt at 4:39PM on Jan 30th 2008
92. Our parties: The Donkey and the Elephant.
The Donkey is the one who is not so smart, agile and does not know where he is going. The Elephant is so heavy to move anywhere. Both have problems. So why do we settle? maybe because some of us are donkeys and the rest are elephants. The fact is that the majority of us do not decide whom to vote for until a few days before, if not the morning of the voting. Most of the time we try to convince ourselves a candidate is 'good' or that the other one is 'bad'.
Our great Americian Flag is Red White and Blue. The white stripes are among the red stripes and the white stars are imbeded in the blue of our flag. However we have only red or blue states. Where are the white states? After all the color 'white'can only be white when it embraces all colors. I am sure the 'white party' will be the head of the American Eagle or a white horse. It would certainly not be 'a stupid- evil' party, but rather the proud 'smart-good' American party.
Mike at 10:57PM on Mar 31st 2008
93. Our parties: The Donkey and the Elephant.
The Donkey is the one who is not so smart, agile and does not know where he is going. The Elephant is so heavy to move anywhere. Both have problems. So why do we settle? maybe because some of us are donkeys and the rest are elephants. The fact is that the majority of us do not decide whom to vote for until a few days before, if not the morning of the voting. Most of the time we try to convince ourselves a candidate is 'good' or that the other one is 'bad'.
Our great Americian Flag is Red White and Blue. The white stripes are among the red stripes and the white stars are imbeded in the blue of our flag. However we have only red or blue states. Where are the white states? After all the color 'white'can only be white when it embraces all colors. I am sure the 'white party' will be the head of the American Eagle or a white horse. It would certainly not be 'a stupid- evil' party, but rather the proud 'smart-good' American party.
Mike at 12:47PM on Jan 31st 2008
94. Dinesh, if the Republican Party is the Stupid Party, then you are right where you belong.
emelpe at 5:01PM on Jan 30th 2008
95. By the way, DD, way to undermine your mother's intellect by describing a political system in terms of "stupid" and "evil."
emma at 5:24PM on Jan 30th 2008
96. Clif,
You are me.
Botts at 5:10PM on Jan 30th 2008
97. What I'm really asking is, what are the ethical underpinnings of why we should keep it legal or restrict it?
xx
you can start with the ethics of the law itself. If you're defying stare decisiis, there had better be an overwhelmingly good reason, not an ethical conundrum for a specific and predictable minority of the population based on religious dogma.
Public Policy makes the law. If you have a personal struggle with ethics, your decision is going to boil down to obedience or defiance.
In general the reasons for defying law aren't given much weight.
xxx
We as a society decide what is right and wrong and enact that into law.
xx
that's what I said in the first place - Roe v. wade is public policy. that means it's right and was enacted into law.
xxxx
If we suddenly added 25% more population to the earth, and they were as profligate and wasteful as the average American, then certainly we'd face resource depletion. With sustainable resource use though, this planet could easily sustain a few billion more people.
xxxxx
population increases exponentially, not linearly.
Your thought that the earth could be stressed with 'a few billion more people' and it would be ok with 'sustainable resource use' is like saying it's ok to smoke because you don't have lung cancer yet and besides you can quit any time you want to.
I'm not interested in any such social or biological experiments based only in thinking for the moment and inattention to consequenses. That's what got us into iraq and in debt to the chinese communists and saudis.
Clif Kuplen at 5:10PM on Jan 30th 2008
98. alan(#43) -
actually it IS possible(though rare) for a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term. it happened to my SIL when she was carrying twins; one died and could not be removed without endangering the other. she carried them both for several more weeks before giving birth.
wendy at 5:27PM on Jan 30th 2008
99. Brian
You are a perfect example for the cause abortion.
gshort3011 at 5:23PM on Jan 30th 2008
100. The Republicans are the party of unconscionable evil. The Democrats are the dumb party for letting them get away with it.
JP at 5:33PM on Jan 30th 2008
101. Clif Kuplen position is,
As to when life begins, it begins on formation of the gametes. You can't fertilize a dead egg with a dead sperm. The kind of life you're talking about, that of an individual in a dioecious species has two beginnings. Life in this sector of the universe more than likely 'began' in numerous places on the planet three billion years ago and was never extinguished, so that's where life begins for real around this star.
----------------------------
What an imagination...
Life started three billion years ago he say's.
Would you care to prove it?
What evidence do you have to support your claim?
kent Hovind at 5:40PM on Jan 30th 2008
102. kent, you wouldn't happen to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old?
emma at 5:47PM on Jan 30th 2008
103. #99 - kent Hovind - Clif said "more likely than not", which is not an absolute. He is using scientifically accurate wording. No humans were there, thus we cannot "prove" anything. His comments reflect the best scientific theories at this time.
To everyone who pointed out how wrong I was assuming a dead embryo would spontaneously abort, my thanks. I will try never to post anything in the future that I cannot support.
alan at 5:50PM on Jan 30th 2008
104. Kent,
Please provide evidence to show life didn't start 3 billion years ago.
I eagerly await your response. It'll be a gem, I'm sure.
K at 5:52PM on Jan 30th 2008
105. Kent,
Homo Erectus Fossils that have been found can be traced to about 1.8 million years ago. It is still in despute to whether or not they were direct ancestors of modern Homo sapiens.
However, as for Homo sapiens, DNA evidence strongly points to our existence 200,000 years ago originating in Africa.
Botts at 6:13PM on Jan 30th 2008