_


  • Marccooper5_1

Back To Home Page

« Tribal Scamming...er Gaming | Main | Tortured Explanations »

Friday, April 30, 2004

Comments

steve

So, what you're saying is - If Gore had listened to Joe, he wouldn't be President right now.

--yup. ironic, eh?

yfb

A reason to support Kerry: John Paul Stevens.
Another: the environment.
Also: domestic policies -- any and all of them.

Marc Cooper was relevant once. Now he's a comfortable
elitist who criticizes "the left" while castigating
those who claim he's moved to the right; his biggest
supporters are right wingers like "Dave" above who
wish that all leftists were like Marc -- a professional
bloviator who says that his crackpot idea that "the Democrats"
(who are they, exactly? Is Kerry himself included?)
should, or might (he can't even distinguish between
suggestions aimed at vague collective nouns and
prophesies about specific persons and actions) "not
actively contest the election" is "no more far out than
imagining that Kerry is going to win [etc]".

Oh Lord, please make us free of such buffoonery.

steve

But keep in mind, Marc also takes on those radical extremist left wing loony tune kim ilsong lovers like Rosa Parks, who thought we shouldn't bomb Afghanistan in revenge for 911....
I mean, at least we have people like Marc around to keep those Rosa Parks and 911 Peaceful Tomorrows types in line!!!

Marc Cooper

Steve.. excuse me.,. but ur getting really boring. Call me all the names u wish. But why dont u have a single idea?

yfb

"Steve.. excuse me.,. but ur getting really boring. Call me all the names u wish. But why dont u have a single idea?"

Marc Cooper really knows how to be a self-referential hypocrite.
Not only does he accuse Steve of calling him names in the very
process of launching an ad hominem that avoids all the issues,
but Steve called him no names.

Call me all the names u wish.

--uhm, ok marc, let's see, can you name one 'name' that i've called you? or do you mean i made light of the way you attacked people like Rosa Parks for opposing the revenge bombing of Afghanistan for 911?
--------------------------------
But why dont u have a single idea?


--actually i have, i've consistently offered ideas and alternatives to the readings you suggest are so enlightening. you offer a superficial essay by mr. galbraith, i offer Juan Cole's far more historically informed rebuttal of his main plan for partition (or as the PC crowd calls it 'tri-state solution'), you ignore it. Maybe it's embarrassing that the Nation has an article that so solidly refutes your pal Mr. Galbraith. You offer Samantha Power on important questions like Rwanda, I offer Stephen Shalom, you ignore Shalom's article and claim that I haven't read Power, strange argumentation.
You claim that people like me have no sympathy for 911 victims, I suggest that my positions are not any different from Peaceful Tomorrows or Rosa Parks...you ignore that and moan that I have 'no new ideas'...
I offer the challenges of China critics like Barry Sautman to your thesis of 'genocide' in China...you ignore it...I'm not sure they problem really is that I'm not 'offering any new ideas'...I think what frustrates you is that i'm making arguments you don't agree with...

BTW, your little slogan about 'stop being ideologically narrow...' Odd, I have no problem with juan cole, though he and i would disagree on quite a number of issues and he's no leftie... But for you Cole is just way out there...much less reliable a source of information than a Galbraith or Hitchens...

Philly

Kerry ain't no prize, but if a Supreme Court Justice, or two, drops and plops, I'd rather have Kerry appoint the next one(s), thanks all the same.

It's my No. 1 reason for supporting Kerry, and I'm not alone....

Originally posted at Roger L. Simon's site:

"Shouldn’t the Democrats ponder this? Provided that John Kerry could actually win, do his supporters really want to inherit Bush’s deficits, rising interest rates, slumping Wall Street, anemic job market and deepening quagmire in Iraq? They want to try to manage that mess?"

Roger-

I realize Marc Cooper is your friend, so please take it personally when I say this is exactly the kind of brainless twaddle I have come to expect from what passes for "The Left" these days. This is not discourse. This is not analysis. It is immature, unserious, mind-numbing twaddle.

The whole idea of governing, at least to the 'serious' is to attempt to protect and defend the citizenry while helping that same citizenry lead more prosperous lives through the improvement of society, is it not? The idea that "perhaps we Democrats should sit this one out because everything's all fucked up and fixing it will be reaaally hard" is just the kind of breezy whine of a brain fart I'd expect from those who haven't the faintest idea of what governing actually encompasses. It is an expression of fundamental unseriousness.

Were Cooper either serious or thoughtful, if he actually believed what he has written above, the answer as to whether Democrats should be fighting for the Presidency would be self-evident. These are not the kind of questions a serious man would ask. The serious man, actually facing such problems would redouble his determination and effort without thinking twice. That he does not see it as such simply confirms that in the final analysis the horrors of his Iraqi "quagmire", deficits, and the rest of his Ted Kennedy talking points mean not a jot to him.

What it does demonstrate, once again, is to what extent intellectual rot has enervated The Left. I make no pretence as to my party affiliation, or to my presidential preference, and there is nothing a Marc Cooper could say that would convince me to change that affiliation or that vote. But I do take the idea of intellectual examiniation and reflection on the positions I adopt with unmost seriousness...Which is why my anger and frustration boils over into bitter sarcasm at the multitude of Liberals and Leftist who cannot or will not articulate policy positions above the Britney Spears level of intellectual sophistication.

So ultimately just why is Marc Cooper dissaffected with Senator Kerry? Based on Cooper's comments, he and the Senator appear rather evenly matched in the areas of intellect and thoughtfulness. Kerry articulates at a level Cooper understands, doesn't he? Or is this coming down, as I am starting to suspect with some of The Left's disaffection with Kerry, to a matter of style, as opposed to substance?

Inquiring minds want to know.

End of original post.

If this was all just a "stray idea" posted because you, despite opposing Bush and his policies, cannot imagine "that Kerry is going to win, that he's going to solve the war, fix the economy, raise wages and make the earth a better place...", just what is your point in making it? Filling space?

When Krugman copped to receiving something more than $60 grand from Enron, I decided not to read another word he ever wrote. Same as with the "Primary Colors" guy, who denied (ie, lied) about writing it for so long.

Michael J. Totten

Wow, Marc, you're really taking it from all sides. I can relate...

Graham

Cooper's article seems to echo the Nader sentiment for running for Pres. in 2000. IE, "It has to get worse before it gets better". I didn't buy that argument in 2000. That argument can't be sold in 2004 either. The reason.... can you imagine what America would be like if George W. Bush DIDN'T have to run for re-election as a lame duck? He was a bastard for the first 4 years, what could come in a second four? I shudder to think about that.

yfb

"When Krugman copped to receiving something more than $60 grand from Enron, I decided not to read another word he ever wrote."

Perhaps you would like to trumpet your low IQ, too.
Since you've decided to be an ignoramus, I guess you won't read this:
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/enron.html

"Same as with the "Primary Colors" guy, who denied (ie, lied) about writing it for so long."

Joe Klein lies, Paul Krugman tells the truth, and you treat them as equivalent. Brilliant.

the other steve

I'm not sure, but did someone on this thread suggest or imply that Kerry would do well to follow the lead of the Humphrey, Dukakis, and Gore presidential campaigns? Perhaps the fact that they all LOST was missed somewhere along the way? And Humphrey lost multiple times!

steve

I'm not sure, but did someone on this thread suggest or imply that Kerry would do well to follow the lead of the Humphrey, Dukakis, and Gore presidential campaigns? Perhaps the fact that they all LOST was missed somewhere along the way?

--hmmm, well since marc would agree with you, i guess it would be improper of me to talk about reading skills....but I recall that I stated clearly enough that Humphrey and Dukakis lost because they waited until the tail end of their campaigns to finally reject their advisors' counsel and go ahead with a populist message. Ditto Gore, but of course he did win the election because he went ahead with a populist strategy that went against his advisors' focus group based analysis.
Many many fine articles have been written about this fact in magazines like the far left kim ilsung extremist un-PC Nation...

steve

Maybe Kerry needs to have a talk with this kim ilsung loving leftist extremist who likes to spit on soldiers and 911 victims?

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2004/04/untenable.html

Andrew

If the Dems throw in the towel in 2004, they don't deserve to win a Presidential election ever again.

Sick Of It All

As the parent of two draft age sons, to say that I am a little less than enthusiastic about your little thought experiment is putting it mildly.

All indications I have seen to date suggest that should GWB win in November, the never-ending war folks will still be at the helm and in all likelihood will expand their vision to Syria, Iran, et al.

So please understand that in addition to some of the articulately noted comments above about the real consequences of your suggestion there are many others as well.

To use my sons as cannon fodder just so we can follow Ralph Nader's strategy of it-has-to-get-worse-to-get-better...

Not with my kids, thanks.

the never-ending war folks will still be at the helm and in all likelihood will expand their vision to Syria, Iran, et al.

--i think, although this is probably a big disappointment to marc, the bush administration and/or kerry one will not be able to invade syria or iran in the coming 4-5 years. the resistance they've faced in iraq in the last year is already too much to handle, syria and iran would be even bigger headaches since both of those countries actually have armies, though weak but not as weak as Iraq's was. If we bomb Iran and Syria for about 10 years time, then we might be ready to invade....

and of course, with the recent (old) revelations of torture of iraqi prisoners hitting every TV in the mideast...we definitely won't be receiving the flowers that cheney expected in baghdad...

Sick Of It All

"...will not be able to invade syria or iran in the coming 4-5 years..."

Common sense would tell me that you are right.

However, given this administrations history of extradordinarily irresponsible actions in foreign policy, economics as well as in social and environmental policy...

steve

you have a point there...

> Perhaps you would like to trumpet your low IQ,
> too.
> Since you've decided to be an ignoramus...

Friend yfb, bitterness of that magnitude never persuades. Neither does the link: Krugman deserves to be judged by the company he keeps and the checks he cashes. (Did I miss the part where he returned the money to the widowed and orphaned shareholders?)

steve

Krugman deserves to be judged by the company he keeps and the checks he cashes.

--krugman's a great read, but for economics i prefer max sawicky, dean baker, or doug henwood...
all evil satanist krypto-kim ilsung loving economists who have spat on vietnam vets returning from Vietnam...

the other steve

Re: Humphrey, Dukakis, & Gore; are you saying that if they just had a little more time they coulda won? Yeah, and the Red Sox, with a few more outs, coulda been a dynasty.

As I recall Dukakis had a double digit lead in Sept/Oct, then lost it, then was surging just before election day.

If the Al Gore who gave the concession speech had been the Al Gore of the campaign he prolly would have won. If John Kerry had some ideas, some plans, an ideology that he believes in, can argue, and defend, then he could win.

Bush is emminently beatable, his domestic policies have alienated his base - who won't vote for Kerry but staying home is just as good - and his missteps on international policy, particularly Iraq, are a growing concern to his supporters.

Kerry can win if he comes on strong with a message that is something other than "I Am Not George Bush" or "Bring It On".

Marc Cooper

Ive been tied up at as USC journalism fellowship conference and this is the first chance I have had to respond to the many postings above. I will be very brief in making the following points:

1) Guess I assumed too much general knowledge but when I titled the post A Modest Proposal I assumed it would evoke a certain Swiftian association.. like.. um... this was tongue in cheek. I hardly believe things ever get better by getting worse.

2) There are three points of actual substance that undergird this satire. a) Kerry might as well NOT be running b) if he does get elected it's very dubious what he can or will do and c) I see no one rationally discussing what a second Bush admin would actually look like. His supporters claim he'll do just great. Poppycock. The poor guy has alreay shot his wad. The Neocons are in disrepute, the econ is flooded with red ink, and the military is depleted. What better symbol than turning Fallujah over to Saddam's thugs? Bush's detractors are equally off on this subject, able to say no more than his re-election will be like the Nazis taking over and shredding the constitution. They have trouble discerning between cowboy conservatives and fascists. They ain't the same thing. As to the two purer-than-thou revolutionary leftists trolls... well.. some commentators have emailed me urging me to squelch you off the blog.. but no need.. you're kinda reminding me od those two singing chipmunks from 40 years ago.. Alvin and ??? Who? anybody remember the second one's name?

David Warner

Steve,

I'm curious about why you choose the strategy you do to present your ideas. You're like Limbaugh - if you buy the worldview, you do make some sense, but the package is so asinine you turn off ten people for every one you convince.

I sure hope you're not right, because if you are you're actively making the rest of us stupider with each post. Ever tried something different?

The comments to this entry are closed.