Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

How exactly did Herb Stein (it was Stein, wasn't it?) put it? Whatever can't be sustained, won't be sustained?

I believe that includes the coalition of the willing.

I hear there's another possibility: "Kerry-Mahathir 2002"

Oops, should be: "Kerry-Mahathir 2004"

Considering how far into the ditch the GOP has driven our country, I would think OBL also would like to see GWB reelected so he can finish the job.

Which is the greater threat to the majority of Americans--terrorist attack or economic catastrophe?

537 has it right. OBL wants Bush to win - the need for a Great Satan to fight is more important to him than anything else (from a tactical point of view). Any let-up in the hegemony makes it more difficult for him to raise funds and gain supporters. This is one of the main resons for getting rid of Bush.

Another main reason is to try to reverse the deep and potentially long-lasting damage to our economy being done by Bush. As to whether it's a greater threat, if one excludes a nuke, it is. We'll have folks lying in the street for lack of medical care, colleges closing down when student loan support gets pulled, farmers unable to plant because the cost of petrochemicals is out of sight, and real estate values falling like flies in a DDT cloud. Oh sure, we'll have a good market in cat food to feed the old folks, but I don't think that'll support the economy.

[Oops, should be: "Kerry-Mahathir 2004"]

Can you please join the Bush campain? That would be very helpful... for the Kerry ticket. :-)

This said, there are days on which I enjoy mud wrestling:

"Bush jr. - Prince Bandar bin Sultan 2004"

you might like to google on the subject
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bush%27s+foreign+friends%22&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky

"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."

Omigod. Saddam got %100 of the Iraqi vote in 2002, while the last time Hosni ran he polled only 94%.

I can see the Schroeder argument, but that doesn't negate Blair. Why would Blair want his own people to participate in one giant international "wave" of ousting leaders? Wouldn't he like to see that wave die out before it gets to his section of the populace?

Perhaps the European leader with the most to gain from George Bush's re-election is Gordon Brown.

Bush will KO Kerry by Round 3. Bush is extremely weak, but the game is rigged. Let's refocus on something relevant to the next 4 years, like nuclear shelters.

Last hope: Get Bush to pull Kerry's finger on camera.

Actually the way I read it in the Polish press there is a bit of a translation error. What he actually said would probably be better translated as "we were mistaken" or "we were mislead" - the
significant thing being that he was speaking not only of Poland, but of UK and US. So it was not a "Poland was taken for a ride by US/Bush" but more along the lines of "crappy intelligence" type of comment.

I haven't read the original speech however, only what some of the Polish newspapers are saying, so the above could be spin.

It was crappy intelligence. Some of the crappiest brains in the world started that illegal invasion of Iraq.

My Brit friends have told me Blair is out in any case--after seven years, everybody's tired of looking at him. As for Mubarak, he's the one who told John McLauglin on-camera that terrorism is almost entirely caused by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and when that is resolved the world will be better. Let's hope he stays in office, at least until somebody in our government listens to him.

what is wrong with the resolve of the coalition of the wavering?
at least greater micronesia remains firmly committed.

Uh, let's see. According to Patrick, since the KKK endorsed Reagan in 1980, that proves by itself that Carter should have won. Right.

(Incidentally, Rand Beers not only announced today that Kerry rejects Mahathir's endorsement, but exactly why he rejects it -- namely, that Mahathir is 'a totally deplorable avowed anti-Semite'. You remember Beers, don't you? Fellow who originally advised Bush on security, until he concluded that Bush and Cheney were complete clunkheads on the subject and switched to working for Kerry?)

The hysterical reaction of the hawks to the Spanish election was pretty dispiriting. Rather than admit that there are and were real problems to Bush's particular approach to the war on terrorism, and that some people think that we need another approach, in the snap of a finger they decided that a.) the Spanish people are no damn good and b.) Western civilization is doomed.

I occasional use the term "hysterical bitches" to describe that (mostly-male) contingent, and in the last few days the term has seemed entirely justified. (Yes, I sometimes do use technical terminology of that type even though I'm not entirely sure that it's justified. So shoot me).

I don't know how typical of the population the warbloggers on the comment lines are, but I go get that sinking feeling about the future of civilization from them.

They remind me of the fictional characters which are analyzed as "plot-functions". The plot-function's job is to move the plot along by being evil all the time, or by being victims all the time, or by being wise and good all the time, but the story isn't about them so you often know nothing about why they do what they do. I'm not sure it's true in Shakespeare, but in many sories the Iago character is just evil and no one knows why.

A long way round to get to my point -- there sure are a lot of pure, stubborn, reflexive anti-liberals around, who never do more thinking than to figure out the liberal position and say the opposite.

Zizka-

That's why I make a habit of trying to avoid those warbloggers. They give me indigestion.

"A long way round to get to my point -- there sure are a lot of pure, stubborn, reflexive anti-conservatives around, who never do more thinking than to figure out the conservative position and say the opposite."

Zizka describes himself perfectly, being that he's a type of guy who can't fathom that people who hold some opinions that differ from his (even slightly, he doesn't care much for moderates either) actually have come to them through reasoning and thinking. Obviously they're all either morons or in the pay of the powers that be.

This is why a good portion of the left does not get taken seriously, even if they happen to be correct on the underlying issue.

Lee A. wrote:

"...Mubarak, he's the one who told that terrorism is almost entirely caused by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and when that is resolved the world will be better. Let's hope he stays in office, at least until somebody in our government listens to him."

Kindly explain how Israel defending herself from being driven into the sea caused Chechens blowing up Russian grandmas.

Myself, I always thought it was Hallyburton (sp?) and Ashcroft who made Chechens do it.

Elaine, the intelligence wasn't just crappy, so was the interpretation. The other night on PBS, Hans Blix referred to failure to recognize forgery in the yellow cake purchase order as scandalous. Jim Lehrer about fell out of his chair over the word when Blix first used it, and then Blix supported it with the yellow cake doc.

See http://www.samueljohnson.com/blog/archives/0403c.html#17e

I'm not even sure you can count Blair in the Bush re-election camp these days. His top advisors are looking at under-the-table ways to boost Kerry's campaign; Kerry met with Gordon Brown before starting his run, and Brown is on close terms with Bob Shrum; indeed, Brown might be one of the 'more leaders' to whom Kerry alluded.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1163985,00.html

My guess is that Blair will only go and collect his Congressional Medal in... say, late November or December, when Bush is a lame duck? That said, I'd be glad to see a Kerry-Brown 'special relationship' blossom.

"According to Patrick, since the KKK endorsed Reagan in 1980, that proves by itself that Carter should have won. "

Uh, Bruce, Jean-Phillippe has an excuse for his humor-impairment; English as a second language. Is it also so with you?

"Zizka describes himself perfectly..."

Yes, which is why I love this place. The Self-Awareness Quotient (SAQ?) of the usual numbskulls being about the same as the Celsius freezing point.

Frank, you and Elaine are in violent agreement. Her reference wasn't to capital-I intelligence, but Bush Admin brainpower. Personally, I think she slanders crap with such talk.

But, your pointer to Blix's Lehrer quote is much appreciated.

Ignore this advice, please:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/

------------quote------------
I heard four speeches this week – one by Carville before some firefighters, screaming like cat that had been dipped in turpentine; one from Kerry about something or other (it’s hard to stick with it; he sounds like a 45 RPM record played at 33 1/, and you keep making revolving-hand motions in the hopes you can somehow, like a butterfly that flutters its wings in Brazil and causes typhoons in Tahiti, cause him to pick up the pace a little); one from Dick Cheney, and one from Bush. Cheney’s speech was tailor-made for his speaking style, which consists of pressing the point of the sword into the opponant’s arguments and slowly pushing the entire blade in with steady force. Bush’s speech had many thick sheets of boilerplate, but it had economy and optimism.

People like optimism. Yes, I know, the people are a mass of sheep numbed by that lying corporate media and Clear Channel mind-control beams. But people generally like optimistic candidates. Bill Clinton managed to transmute all the pessimistic strains of 1992 into an optimistic persona, because he seemed to be a cheerful guy. I think you nominated a lemon-sucker this time. Plus, the whole “foreign-leaders-like-us-better” angle tells me you’re not getting out much these days. See all those people in the stands watching NASCAR races? Hard to believe, but they would rather the President did what they considered to be the right thing, and did it alone, than did the wrong thing with the full support of Le Monde’s editorial board, including the cartoonist.
----------endquote-----------

It's interesting how the usual desire from the American electorate for optimism has given way to a demand for rigtheous anger. I agree that over time optimism generally wins but this time around it's clearly a non-starter. Calling Bush Pollyannish or deluded doesn't really explain it. I think it has a lot more to do with the Adminstration's overwhelming deceit and a fear of its consequences. Optimism in the face of such corruption is really unseemly.

A lot of Americans used to feel that they could read between the lines and find truth behind Republican lies but even for them it's becoming an exhausting endeavor. After the next six months and given their already depleted state I expect they'll be wasted and resigned come November.

The 45 rpm allusion is funny, though not as funny as Bush-family English, yet despite Kerry's ponderous style on the stump its winning.

Odd that anyone would bring up Cheney in one breath than optimism in the next. Aside from his perpetual snarl he gave the clear impression of a cat pouncing on a strand of yarn. His challenge to Kerry to name names, as if Mr. Secret deserved such a courtesy, brought back to mind everyone arguing last week whether Kerry was referring to this group of lying Republicans or that group of lying Republicans.

Republicans to Kerry: stop commiting these gaffes, they're killing us.

As I said. Keep ignoring the obvious.

Here's more from Das Wunderkinder from today's NY Times:

" But Mr. Beers added that Mr. Kerry would shun as inappropriate the endorsement of any foreign leader at all."

No kidding?

And later in the same article, for The Department of, 'They said you were high class':

-------------quote------------
The image-conscious candidate and his aides prevailed upon reporters and photographers to let him have a first run down the mountain solo, except for two agents and Marvin Nicholson, his omnipresent right-hand man.

His next trip down, a reporter and a camera crew were allowed to follow along on skis — just in time to see Mr. Kerry taken out by one of the Secret Service men, who had inadvertently moved into his path, sending him into the snow.

When asked about the mishap a moment later, he said sharply, "I don't fall down," then used an expletive to describe the agent who "knocked me over."
-------------endquote------------

What are you talking about!?

Kerry can't take an economist's joke? No wait. I'm mixing things up now. That was somebody else showing class. Thank god he didn't fall off a Segway.

We goat-getters are getting no where.

Let's trade ideas on something not so obvious. Does it seem to you, like it does to me, that the whole notion of when it's appropriate for foreigners to express a view on internal elections has just changed? Everybody seems to be getting in on it. And, I don't think we'll ever go back.

dennisS, I never would have connected Cheney w/ optimism either. But I can't say how his base responds... I was surprised that in his speech the other day he brought up 1984 seeing as how that year has other associations than just Reagan over Mondale. If people think too hard about them they might get scared.

See http://www.samueljohnson.com/blog/archives/0403c.html#17d

So that was really a joke when you originally mentioned that Mahathir endorsed Kerry, Patrick? Sorry. It's very hard to tell when you're joking.

As for Lileks' predictably gooey and brainless praise of Cheney for "pressing the point of the sword into the opponent’s arguments and slowly pushing the entire blade in with steady force": does that include Cheney's continuing barefaced lies about Iraq's possession of WMDs and its ties with Al Qaeda, even after Bush publicly disagreed with him? Well, maybe if Lileks is talking about using that sword to stab truth in the back.

As for Bush being right because "people like optimistic candidates": Chamberlain was plenty optimistic when he came back from Munich. And as for Lileks' confident belief that most Americans think Bush did "the right thing" in invading Iraq: see the polls. But then, anyone who's reduced to quoting Lileks for intelligent analysis has already admittted his desperation.

Really, the most relevant questions are what kind of shape the US will be after: (1) Iran develops its Bomb; (2) Iraq disintegrates into gory civil war; and (3) the federal deficit expands to the size of the Crab Nebula.

And now, in the interests of equal time, some anti-Kerry news which is considerably more important than him saying Nasty Things about a fellow skier who knocked him down:

Kerry apparently attended a VVAW meeting at which assassination of US senators was proposed by some members.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/03/19&ID=Ar00101

Six witnesses -- apparently including FBI informants -- say he got into a furious argument with the VVAW official who proposed this, and that he and three of the VVAW's other founders resigned and stormed out before the end of the meeting; but one would still think he might have mentioned this little fact to the FBI -- even Nixon's FBI. Meanwhile, Kerry, so help me God, says he can't remember whether or not he attended that meeeting.

To quote Leo Durocher during the Mets' nadir: can't ANYONE play this game right?

Under the Bush boilerplate, there is economy?

Is this the Lileks version of "The Emperor's New Clothes"

I would like to stress that when I wrote "more eager than Tony Blair to see President Kerry's inauguration than Tony Blair" I was espressing my own personal views and not the official position of the department of redundancy department.

Homer Pile:

Since no one else here so readily misconstrued Mubarak's remark, perhaps your purpose was to question his premise?

"So that was really a joke when you originally mentioned that Mahathir endorsed Kerry, Patrick? Sorry. It's very hard to tell when you're joking."

It's hard to tell that a foreigner can't be a candidate for VP? Wow!

But, my actual point, which I forgot to draw a picture for you, was that, as far as I know, there is no instance of Reagan saying: "I've met with leaders of fraternal organizations who wear white sheets, and they just look at you through the slits in their hoods, and they say...."

I doubt that Shroeder is that keen on a Bush redux, he seems to genuinely loathe Bush with a passion. Schroeder would probably much rather see a centrist Democrat as President, then the loony right in Germany would look even further isolated.

As for Blair, not much good having being a poodle to an ex-President. Blair has a major downside either way. His party, base and for that matter most of the opposition and the country at large consider Bush a liar, idiot and failure (not necessarily in that order).

Er, Patrick. When I said I had no idea you were joking, I meant that I had no idea you were joking when you implied that the fact that Mahathir endorsed Kerry proves by itself that Kerry is a worse candidate than Bush. And, of course, you weren't joking when you implied that. Which was the whole point of my Reagan-KKK analogy.

And as for your implication that Mahathir must have been the "foreign leader" Kerry was talking about when he said that lots of foreign leaders prefer him to Bush: puh-leeze. You CAN'T be that stupid, even given how desperately you work at it. In this connection, let me quote the notorious leftist Jim Hoagland in his Post column yesterday:

"If Kerry didn't hear what he said he heard, then he is out of touch. It is no secret that President Bush is massively unpopular with overseas electorates and those who represent them. Not since Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War has an American politician's ouster been wished for so openly abroad."