Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

I am fairly sure (99%) that no other foreign head of government is as eager than Tony Blair to see President Kerry's innauguration than Tony Blair. Why would Schroeder want to get rid of Bush ? Running against Bush was the only thing that saved him last election.

In contrast, until Bush came around, Blair had about as much chance of losing an election or leadership contest as Saddam Hussein and now he is down to the Hosni Mubarak level.

Ya know, i noticed that there were 2 comments on this rather droll demonstration of the right-wing mindset, and wondered just who had something to say about it?

And as a result, i got to see a second drollery: deep libertarian and silicon valley resident tbrosz thinks he lives in the "real" world.

In the real world, tbrosz, people have lives and families and health worries and not enough money and too many challenges and they could care less about a silly little sideshow like this. And putting aside the grasp on the "real" world that people who enjoy their "freedom" fries must have, anyone who thinks "ooh, PU, Chirac" was never, ever going to vote for kerry anyhow.

(Of course, as a final "real" comment, it was the dreaded chirac and his perfidious nation who were right before the iraq war - there is no causus belli and we should let the inspectors proceed until there either is one or we can agree that there is not a sufficient threat - and after - restore sovereignty as early as possible, because otherwise you are forever perceived, no matter what your intentions, as an occupier. That's twice he's been realer than Bush, the beloved and competent world leader, regardless of where the sun shines.)

Anyhow, tbrosz, what kinda libertarian defends bush?

Dat's wite, tbwosz, da big bad Kewwy man made up da howle thing to fwighten oo. But oo wasn't fwightened, was oo? Ooo'sa Big Boy, that's wight! Ooo'sa Big Boy oo wives in da Weal World. Does da Big Boy want is nappy now? Yes he does!

It was Chirac and France who had billions of dollars riding on Saddam staying in power, which seems to have been noticed very little in venues like this.

As for restoring sovereignity, we are coming up on one year since we crossed the border into Iraq. We were in Japan for almost seven years before we gave them back their country. We have made more progress than anyone could have dreamed.

As for agrajag, blogs like this would take up a lot less space on disk if someone developed an asshat filter.

It's no wonder the Bush folks want John Kerry to reveal his backing from foreign leaders. They remember the bounce W got from the endorsement of Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine" four years ago.

Take a walk down memory lane to March 2000. Candidate George W. Bush graciously accepted the ringing endorsement of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Poutine:

"I appreciate his strong statement. He understands I believe in free trade," Bush said. "He understands I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbor to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and we'll work closely together."

There was only one problem: the Prime Minister of Canada was Jean Chretien. Poutine is a fast food meal of french fries, gravy and cheese curd popular in French-speaking Quebec.

Unfortunately, the joke was on us.

http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/itcp/2000/msg00101.html

I always thought it might be easier to list the foreign leaders who actually wanted Kerry to lose. I mean, the list would be a whole lot shorter. I'm relieved to see that the Federated States of Micronesia (pop. 108,143) have thrown their weight into the balance -- nothing like the FSM to offset the lost of all those European democracies.

Personally speaking, I can't wait till the American people do a "Spain" on Bush come this November. Then President Kerry can get down to the real business of fighting terrorism instead of being sidelined into settling old family scores like the ex-governor of Texas.

jfk

P.S. I've given up on trying to reason with Bush supporters. I mean, if after three years of disasters both foreign and domestic, they're still for the guy, it's no longer politics we're talking about but pathology. All we need are the independents. The Bushophiles can stew in their own juices -- and obey the law.

the (very un Halal) middle lobster neglected to mention one foreign leader who, according to self porclaimed spokespeople, supports Bush -- Osama Bin Laden. Check here

that is here http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4591197§ion=news

"Anyhow, tbrosz, what kinda libertarian defends bush?"

The Bush presidency has convinced me of something that I always half suspected anyway - the great majority of "libertarians" are just Republicans with plausible deniability. Or implausible as the case may be. They claim to differ from Republicans in that they are in favor of "social liberty", but it turns out that social liberty boils down to stuff the rights to own a gun without having to tell the government about it, and have legalized pot and legalized prostitution. It certainly doesn't include things like the right not to be arrested without charge and secretly detained on suspicion of terrorism, the right not to be tortured on order of the US government, and other such niceties.

And when push comes to shove, most libertarians will always vote for the repressive candidate who cuts taxes and shows a proper hawkish contempt for the rest of the world, rather than the pro-liberty candidate who likes international treaties and won't cut taxes.

Libertarian rhetoric in brief: "DAMN THOSE PERFIDIOUS EVIL PINKO LEFTISTS! by the way legalize prostitution and pot"

I think "out here in the real world" [the USA], most people don't even know who Chirac is. Or care. But I guess demanding any basic knowledge of the state of affairs domestically or internationally to vote would go against that "Democracy" thing we (kinda) have going on...

If for whatever reason, John Kerry should find it necessary to offer a few names, at the very least, he should insist on a quid pro quo: the White House must release the names of the "respected experts" on the White Energy Policy Group which Vice President Cheney chaired. While this would stray somewhat from the principle of equivalence, it would not be an unbecoming solution. We, the public, would be better informed about who is being advised by whom - and we can then form our own conclusions!

"It was Chirac and France who had billions of dollars riding on Saddam staying in power, which seems to have been noticed very little in venues like this."

The Orwelian beauty of this focus on the French (right or wrong for that matter) is that it seems to override the fact that pretty much the whole world but the UK (not to be confused with its population), Spain (not to be confused with the electorate - in case that had previously escaped your attention) and Poland despise Bush. This includes pretty much all Asia (including China and Russia), all Latin America, Mexico, Canada, Russia, and pretty much the entire African continent (except Israel's likudniks). What's left? Well, let's count;

Tony Blair: 1
Aznar: 1 (oops, -1)
Poland: 38,622,660 (July 2003 est.)
Total: 38,622,661

World population: 6,413,129,086

Wanna hair split? Add a 100 million supporters worldwide and you've got your upper bound, that 2%. Bad bad French people and Chirac!

And no, it's not anti-Americanism as usual. Clinton, aaaaarh the C word, was an idol overseas. Now, between being an idol and being loathed by almost the entire world, aren't all kinds of shades of grey that should be strictly prefered (on purely self-serving grounds for the US, to begin with) to the Bush phenomenon?

The real question is: why did I just waste 10 minutes to write this up? Don't I have better things to do with my life than answer that kind of...

Um... everyone does see that the Medium Lobster is engaged in a very deeply sarcastic comment, here, right? Since the only people he lists who like Bush are either in countries with little power on the world stage, are on their way out of power, or are Tony Blair (mentioned four times, for nice ironic effect).

Oh. And Kerry *didn't* say it. A reporter made it up, and has since admitted his error. (the url in my signature will take you to a cite for that, from the NYT). Not that tbrosz will tell you that, or will care about its truth now that I have, since he seems to have too much cognitive dissonance invested in Dubya to switch horses in midstream.

alsafi:

If Kerry didn't say it, why wasn't that the first thing out of his mouth when the subject came up? Nice try on Healy's part on covering Kerry's ass (no media bias here), but Kerry's behavior since then has been defending the remark, not claiming he never said it.

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014654.php

Reading this Medium Lobster was the laughter highlight of my day. Thanks for posting this one!

Of course, the american voters that Medium Lobster is angling at won't ever understand what a mea culpa is (it's a French thing, right?), much less that the reporter made one.

We can expect the dumb amerikan president to use the original quote against Kerry in the debate. Kerry will counter that a mea culpa was published, the president will counter that Kerry uses big words and accuse Kerry of being a French lover.

oh, tbrosz, not your best night.

the chirac comments don't even deserve an answer, but the idea that a boston globe reporter is covering anything for kerry betrays nothing so much as a lack of knowledge of the real world of the boston globe and bay state politics.

the globe, as anyone informed will tell you, hates kerry with a passion, because he's a moderate, and they'd rather he were another teddy kennedy. so no, there's no media bias here: there's only that increasingly rare phenomenon, an honest reporter admitting a mistake.

And that only too common phenomenon, self-pitying whining about the so-called liberal media....

Sixties-style anti-American leftism? Kerry spent the last three years of the sixties taking fire in Vietnam, something that George W. Bush never did. I think the Vietnam war was a bad thing, and it was perfectly all right to oppose it and not fight in it, but the accusation of sixties-style anti-Americanism is deserving of utter contempt.

Self-correction--Kerry was in the Navy for the entire last three years of the sixties, but not in Vietnam that whole time. He was in Vietnam long enough to pick up three Purple Hearts.

The Medium Lobster really had me going for the first few phrases and then he got down to saying what any intelligent observer of presidential politics knows and understands, but can hardly find anyone who will say it.

But in this thread that tbrosz is almost as amusing. Man, those libertarians.

Joe Willingham writes: Kerry despises this country, its people and its ideals.

Not protecting the nation from 9/11 terrorist attack is loving this country. Lying to the Congress and the nation about non-existing WMDs is loving this country. Sending the troups to attack the country that did not attack us, wasting hunderds of lives and producing thousands of sick and injured US soldiers is loving this country. Getting the country so deep in debt our children won't be able to pay it out is loving this country. You make me sick.

Seems like the quality of contrary opinon has really declined over the past 6 months. Even the trolls seem to be of worse quality. Joe Willingham and tbrosz for instance... why do people even bother responding to their absurd comments?

Do you want to win this war and save your precious democracy? Lose the war. Simply announce that the fabled US government was wrong to mess with Islam and the Middle East. Withdraw. Severe all political and military ties. Be neutral. No more subsidies, no more free weapons, no more advisors. "Here, have your land back, sorry. If you want to do business, great." It'd take a Don Quixote to keep fighting us. Otherwise, amerika would have to be willing to kill every muslim to win this so-called war.

No, I suspect you want to keep throwing treasure into the tarpit. As long as someone else is dying and you have $2.00 gasoline.

Of course, our idiot rulers are too proud and stupid to make such a decision as withdrawal. It's out of our control, so at least do yourself a favor and protect your assets. Buy some oil & natural gas, silver & gold, and otherwise dump your dollar-denominated assets (see the inflation?).

Think independently and get rid of the talking points.

Of course, Osama bin Laden and his like ARE Don Quixotes...

"It was Chirac and France who had billions of dollars riding on Saddam staying in power, which seems to have been noticed very little in venues like this."

It was Bush who left him in power in 1992 because of money, and who warped the policy this time because of Saudi money. That the French didn't want to go to war, in part, because it was bad economics, should have clued us off as well.

Whether or not Kerry said it, and I doubt he did, based on the reporter's correction, the whole matter has become another useful way to badger and embarass the Bush campaign. Therefore there's no reason for Kerry to spend time refuting something he didn't say. In fact leaving it hang out there works to his (and our) advantage.

It's hilarious to see Bush and his people swinging at this shadow when the whole world knows what Kerry didn't say is true.

Lobsters are evil! Shrimp are evil! God hates lobsters and shrimp.

(see Leviticus 11:9-12)

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

More entries in the Kerry Motto Lotto contest:

" Kerry 2004; he's convinced Jean-Philippe Stijns."

Or, " Kerry; 40 million frenchmen can't be wrong."

Definitely winning positions.

How about; "Kerry-Zapatero 2004; hombres non cojones!"

JFK writes: "if after three years of disasters both foreign and domestic, they're still for the guy, it's no longer politics we're talking about but pathology."

Just to flesh out this idea with a some thoughts that came to mind. When Bush seeks to increase air pollution, which harms primarily children and the elderly --and lies about his intentions by calling it the 'Clean Air Initiative'-- and when Bush seeks to reduce our national forests to clear cut blight --and lies about his intentions by calling it the 'Healthy Forests Initiative'-- and people see this stuff going down and say " yeah, let's help make our children and the elderly ill, let's help destroy one of our national treasures and it's OK with us if he is a liar and can't be trusted to tell the truth. Bush is our guy, we need four more years of this.", that is pathology.

Now that's funny--I cite the NYT, and have *Instapundit* cited back at me. XD Who's got media bias here, I ask you? And I even went to the trouble of googling a major media citation for it, rather than a leftie blog, to avoid charges of bias. I guess I put too much faith in your intelligence, T.

Okay, okay, I'm going back to lurking and ...not...feeding ...the trolls. (whew, that's harder to do than it ought to be.)

How about:

"Kerry 2004: Even His Shadow Terrifies Republicans"

Going the other way,

"Think Republican! 3% of Humanity Love 'Em"

Just having fun. I know they're not that reviled, quite.

oops... there goes another one: WARSAW, Poland (AP)--President Aleksander Kwasniewski, a key Washington ally, said Thursday he may withdraw troops early from Iraq and that Poland was ``misled'' about the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I would like to point out that "Vote for Kerry - foreigners LOVE him" is not a meme the Democrats should be pushing. It will cost him a ton of votes in the Midwest, intermountain West, and South, no matter HOW he answers the question "Which ones?". Its not like "Texans love him" would exactly be a selling point for a California gubernatorial candidate, why would "the Japanese, Germans, and Koreans love him" be a selling point in Michigan or "the French love him" a selling point anywhere?

It's not, "Vote for Kerry: foreigners love him." It's, "Vote for Kerry, not for the incompetent one."