“That boy’s thin .. he’s thinner than piss on a rock.”

Are you not glad that he isn’t reliving the Watch scene played by Christopher Walken in Pulp Fiction?

Greenfield was saying the Dems don’t stand FOR anything, only against Bush. Oh, if you ask what they stand for they’ll recite a list of supposed ‘issues’.

Woodruff responded in disbelief: ‘Environment!!?’

Nope, Bush doesn’t care at all for our environment, Judy. Go back to your broom closet and weep. (Do the grim witches weep?)

Which reminds me of Andrea Mitchell the other night. Basically she believes Bush has a character flaw because he doesn’t agree with her. Sweet Andrea (who is as grim as Judy) complained that Bush is incapable of admitting he was wrong about Iraq.

Andrea, my dear, you have a difference of OPINION with Bush. Accept that that is all it is.

Oh, we here know we know this about folks like Judy and Andrea, but for me to recognize it when I see it is a new experience. I’ve learned a lot (maybe too much) in the last two years.

I can’t go back.

Hey you guys,

I was your age when you went off to war in the 60′s, guess I still am. Thanks for stepping up and keeping this country & world at least 51% sane, at great cost to yourselves and loved ones.

I echo this comment from the Beldar Blog.

Bush seems to have made it. Congratulations to my countrymen on {y}our good sense. And, in my strong opinion, the protection of Divine Providence.

By the way, Viet Vets, welcome home. And thank you.

Good work, warriors! You saved our bacon again.

There’s more I want to comment on, but “later,” you good guys, you. We will have our policy and culture differences, but from a ground of national integrity and security better than it might have been.

You said

“It is a strange mix, isn’t it, when you think about it? I don’t quite follow why group identity tracks with a belief in international law, international governance, and a softening of sovereignty.”

Actually, I don’t think that it is strange at all. The transnational socialists (tranazis?)

Want to break down national sovereignty so they can in effect “rule the world”. They are sort of the ultimate elitist utopians.

To break down the national identity you have to have something to substitute, voila group identity!! This is especially helpful if you can concentrate on groups that span nations. Such things as race and religion are perfectly suited to that. The Soviets tried the alternative with their “new Soviet Man”. That was an attempt to give the individual a new group to identify with that would cement the power of the state.

Tranazis are trying to use existing group identities to breakdown the nation state, and it wouldn’t surprise me that they have something in mind to then break down the group identities. At that point all hell will break loose because, as the USSR proved so pointedly, that just ain’t gonna work.

Here’s a comment on Kevin Drum’s blog:

I find myself wondering if, in fact, the “liberal media” didn’t, actually, defeat Kerry. After the third debate, all the TV & radio sound bites I heard, and most of the newspaper coverage I read, focused on Kerry’s criticisms of Bush’s leadership in Iraq. The audio made him sound harsh and not nearly as presidential as he did in the debates. Nothing (much) empahsized the positive–what Kerry would do–aspects of his message. The Bush soun bites made hom sound more positive, more presidential. I wonder if, finally, people hear that, and react to it. Regardless of the merits of what either man was saying.

Here’s a comment on Kevin Drum’s blog:

I find myself wondering if, in fact, the “liberal media” didn’t, actually, defeat Kerry. After the third debate, all the TV & radio sound bites I heard, and most of the newspaper coverage I read, focused on Kerry’s criticisms of Bush’s leadership in Iraq. The audio made him sound harsh and not nearly as presidential as he did in the debates. Nothing (much) empahsized the positive–what Kerry would do–aspects of his message. The Bush soun bites made hom sound more positive, more presidential. I wonder if, finally, people hear that, and react to it. Regardless of the merits of what either man was saying.

I think it is the Europhile liberals — the ones who embrace that strange mix of group identity at a subnational level with governing at a transnational/NGO level — that are causing such problems for the Democrats.

Agree, absolutely. I see this in my circles.

It is a strange mix, isn’t it, when you think about it? I don’t quite follow why group identity tracks with a belief in international law, international governance, and a softening of sovereignty.

The tremendous problem for the Dems is, as you say, the fact that this vision does not attract more than a stubborn minority of Americans–and probably never will, given American exceptionalism.

Amity Shlaes, my favorite columnist at the FT, had a terrific column on another fact of this problem. I’ll post the link, but it’s probably subscription only.

She argues that Republicans can run on a platform of their core values and beliefs, while Democrats have to run against some of their core values and beliefs. This leads logically to a Kerry campaign focused on bashing George Bush instead of offering a vision for the future.

Here are some excerpts:

If George W. Bush wins the election, his victory will come in part because his party has a strong domestic agenda. If John Kerry loses, it will be because of his party’s lack of one.

[snip]

. . . the Republicans’ rehearsal of the American success story [at the convention] reflected a consistent policy message. We are microeconomists, they were saying, we focus on property ownership and shareholding and our model is Ronald Reagan. “Faith in the free market,” rumbled Arnold Schwarzenegger. “The key to a richer culture is a strong family,” intoned Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania senator. Democrats accuse Republicans of using conventions to hide their radical agendas. Madison Square Garden belied that accusation. After all, Mr Schwarzenegger did not gently peddle compassionate conservatism. He commanded: “Don’t be economic girlie-men!”

Boston: the Democratic Convention by contrast offered – what? The rebuttal to reliance on the private sector is to stress the importance of the public sector. The reply to the argument for individual ownership and control is the argument for the good of the collective. But Democrats instead nervously advocated the free market. At times they were indistinguishable from Republicans. “We believe the private sector, not government, is the engine of economic growth and job creation” – the phrase comes not from Mr Schwarzenegger but from the Democrats’ 2004 platform. “We can strengthen and lift up your families” – the line is from John Edwards, the vice-presidential candidate, in Boston, not Mr Santorum in New York. . . . The policy conclusion: Republican inconsistencies exist but Democrats’ inconsistencies are greater.

[snip]

But while “triangulating”, as it is known, may be good for the individual candidate, it is not good for the party in the longer run unless both leadership and base are committed to a philosophical change. And many Democrats – indeed many Americans – still believe that rights are about entitlement, not the chance to compete. The result is that the party comes off as cynical and loses support. The Democrats can probably resolve this, but they have not yet.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/781aa5cc-fd46-11d8-ab9f-00000e2511c8.html

Jeff Greenfield, however, had a great line, a concession speech a friend of his supposedly actually gave:

The people have spoken, the bastards.

Kerry’s was terrific; Edwards, awful. Still peddling the two-Americas, Republicans are racist theme.

The Dems have to ditch this guy.