Monday, March 01, 2004

In Debate, No More Mr. Nice Guys (
I saw three quarters of this debate (see my comments here). They were as subdued and boring as ever. The only one who ever seemed to go on attack and say "I'm the only feasible candidate for the presidency," was Dennis Kucinich. And he usually followed that up with "And that's why we need a Department of Peace. So that when the rest of my people arrive here from outer space, they can easily overwhelm us and we put daisies in their disruptor riffles."
If Bush loses this election, and I have to listen to any one of them for the next four years, I'm going to be one unhappy camper. I'd much rather hear from people like Dick Armey, who said the following in his recent book, Armey's Axioms: "Our love for peace is one of our most decent and honorable characteristics. It is also one of our most dangerous traits. There is probably nothing of greater comfort to despots than the love of peace when it is greater than the love of freedom. Churchill understood this. Chamberlain did not."

UPDATE: Sullivan links to the same Wonkette article I did earlier and weighs in on the decreasing likelihood that Kerry will put Edwards on his ticket. I had a meeting with my professor who is in the middle of doing an analysis on the very subject of a Democratic running mate. He began by asking the question "if the election is close, where will the Dems wish they had spent a little more money?" Since, in a state where he's favorably viewed, a veep candidate can account for a couple of percentage points, this is a logical way of looking at things. Surprise, surprise, the Dems can (though they shouldn't for the sake of Congress and the Senate) win without a single state in the South. And, winning the Carolinas (which they likely wouldn't anyway) wouldn't gain enough electoral votes if the election is close anyway. So, to ask the big question: who did preliminary analysis determine should be the veep candidate? Dick Gephardt.

No comments: