Romney in ’12?

If the pro-Romney faction of the McCain campaign is the one leaking (or making up?) the anti-Palin stories, which is quite possible, it may take down Palin, if she hasn’t taken herself out already (which I tend to think), it will be all for naught because Mitt Romney is not going to be president of the United States.

UNLESS.…and this is a huge unless.  Unless the economic situation turns depressionary and holds throughout Obama’s entire term and he totally f’s up.  Then Romney could run as Mr. Fix It.

Other than that scenario it’s Mitt Romney we’re talking about here.  Romney, however perfectly coiffed his full head of hair is, is cringe-inducing through the television.  This folks is the media age and the introverted, phony, East Coast Brahman Romeny can not pass the test.

Remember my mantra:  Reagan beat Mondale.  Clinton beat HW Bush and Dore.  W Bush beat Gore (the previously shackled introverted Gore btw) and Kerry.

He is just not comfortable in his skin around people.  And that makes others uncomfortable. If anyone needed a reminder as to exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about, uh….the following:

Of the current crew of Republicans, the charismatic, forward looking, optimistic, extraverted, able to talk freely about his personal life in a way that connects with people is Mike Huckabee.  Whatever else you (or I) think of his politics or his worldview.  He’s engaging and he can draw you in, make you feel like you are in conversation with him.  Mitt Romney—not so much.

We’ve had two introverted styles run against one another in ’88 (Bush Senior and Dukkakis).  We have not had two of the extroverted styles (arguably since Carter-Reagan, although Carter was still pretty stick in the mud).

What would be interesting is two of the more extraverted/media friendly candidates in a general election in ’12.  Then the election would actually be unpredictable.  Palin could have been that person in some fashion–she’s got the evangelical cred and background–but I think she has been far too damaged by her less than preparedness let’s say on the campaign trail.

Minus that scenario, say a Romney v. Obama in ’12 (minus the total meltdown scenario above), then Obama wins.

Obviously the who will run for the GOP in four years stuff is rank speculation of the highest order.  But it’s fun nonetheless.  But the forward looking charismatic emotional connector always beats the opposite.  Romney is in the latter column by a LONG SHOT.

Published in: on November 7, 2008 at 9:05 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , ,

She Was Robbed???

Sarah Palin:

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.” (my italics)

Sullivan thinks its a sign of her non-intelligence.  Cole says someone needs to get her a Constitution. But John asks, “Does this make any damned sense to anyone?”

Let me give it a shot because while the not so smart Sullivanian interpretation has other pieces of evidence to suggest it, I think actually something else is going on.

Obviously the future of any such attacks would not be hindered en toto by the MSM calling such attacks negative.  And negative here meaning something like “out of bounds”, “in poor taste”, “pathetic”, etc.  Not negative in the purely factual sense of negating or criticizing Obama.  But negative in a committing a foul sense.  Of course such attacks can always be made through right-wing radio, the internet, blogs, anonymous email chains, whatever.

So in that sense, the First Amendment charge is ludicrous.  I mean if The First Amendment is preventing freedom of speech, she can certainly still say these things in public in all kinds of formats.  She’s not going to jail for saying what she has said about Obama and his associations and what she thinks that says about him.

But I think on another (deeper?) level what is being said–or perhaps left implied–is that free speech constitutionally for the GOP is to be able to say that Democrats are un-American.  I think she knows she is saying that–or at least that certain people can catch the hint–of course I can’t know that for sure, but I think that’s a more plausible read than her being a total airhead.

I hear it as much more part of a attack against liberal media and certain forms of discourse being shut off through (from this pov) the bullying tactics of the left media.  Not a literal or legal censorship but a kind of moral or political censorship.  Not de jure but de facto. It’s part of the culture war battle–something like the war on Christmas.

And if that is what Palin means then I actually agree with her in the sense that that is what the media is doing BUT I think the media should do that.  I think they should be in some sense calling out the BS of a campaign.  And one of the prime BS charges for me is this guilt by association stuff.  Particularly when the other campaign is not engaged in such a process.  It’s not like McCain doesn’t have some negative associative history.

I know this will out me as some elitist “real hard-workin” America-hater but has it ever occurred to the VRWC that constantly attacking the media you know might turn them against you?  And then that would you reap what you sow to a certain extent?  It’s one thing if you can keep the media in abject fear, but one day they might grow a pair (even a small set) and call you out, you’re bluff has been called, you got a nothingburger hand which is exposed, and you look like a chump.

As a smaller subset of this same phenomenon has been Jewish folks on the left tired of right-wing American Jews creating litmus tests for who are the real lovers of Israel.  Especially when the majority of Jews keep voting Democrat.

One of the main issues that has come up in this recent election is whether the media’s job is supposed to be to just be this (so-called) neutral almost deistic figure and simply create a space where both sides get equal time.  Or are they suppose to referee.  Are they supposed to call it like they see it when one side is undoubtedly doing this kind of thing much more than the other.  When one side, is simply sleazier, much sleazier than the other?

The kind of thing Palin sees as a threat to her constitutional right is the media no longer kowtowing to the GOP in its recent history of character assassination politics. Obviously she doesn’t have a constitutional right to have her criticisms of another politician be presented a certain way (to her liking) on cable news.   Unless she wants to control the media say by what the government?  Well that wouldn’t really work now would it?

But the invocation of constitutional rights I think is out of fear that the media (as well as other realities) will no longer go for the kinds of Pat Buchanan/Lee Atwater/Karl Rove style of campaigning. To be fair, those cats all had candidates who actually had platforms in addition to the character attacks on the left. This cycle, for the first time that vaunted Republican discipline was blown up by the incompetence of the Bush administration and the corruption of the Republican Congress (esp prior to ’06).

To the degree the MSM cut McCain off on this front (and again has she heard of Fox News?  How many ACORN stories did they run?) it is because McCain had nothing else then Obama attacks. Once that media advantage is gone, the political faction that Palin represents is only something like 20-25% of the country and is decreasing over time.  And that is a recipe for electoral disaster unless they can control the media sphere.  They lose that they are in big trouble long term politically–if they are going to continue to hold on to the remaining and ever shrinking hard-right base and whatever is left of the Reaganite coalition that is.

you betcha

Saw some footage (can’t find it on youtube) of Sarah Palin bringing up the newest Obama hangs out with scary terrorists canard about Rashid Khalidi (here’s Khalidi on Charlie Rose–Charlie Rose is now a terrorist fellow traveler?).

Of course Palin mispronounced his name–wouldn’t want to sound too elitist with proper pronunciation and what not–she said “KA-LA-DI” (Is are usually not pronounced like As Governor) and of course it’s a (oh no) scary Arab name so immediately the crowd starts booing. All that matters is Obama is somehow connected to an Arab–hence it must be some nefarious reality.

And then she says “He was in the PLO”. Jesus Mary and Joseph, God, and the Baby Jesus No!!!

Never mind that as Juan Cole points out:

Khalidi was not, as the schlock rightwing press charges, a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He was an adviser at the Madrid peace talks, but would that not have been, like, a good thing?

More importantly someone might want to tell Sarah Palin that the PLO is now called Fatah and they are the US’ main ally among the Palestinians. Memo to the lady running for VP, slamming Fatah will not exactly help them in their struggle against Hamas. Slurring your allies isn’t exactly a smart move. Unless McCain is still secretly angling for Hamas and this is part of a subtle diplomatic outreach to the Palestinian branch of The Muslim Brotherhood. [Let’s say I’m doubting that latter theory].

Update I: Since the question will inevitably come up and/or lest I get charged with being anti-Semitic or something, (though a hard charge to make against Khalidi given he is a Semite). Khalidi is anti-Zionist that is true. I think it’s fair to say he thinks the Israeli state should never have come into being. An essay of his here. Obviously Obama does not support that view. Neither do I for that matter. But I can understand from a Palestinian perspective that the invocations of the creation of the state of Israel as purely positive would ring very hollow.  But disagreeing with the state of Israel does not mean one hates worldwide Jewry, I mean come on.

I agree with Khalidi that a two state solution is not going to happen so long as the occupation continues and the whole penumbra of repression that goes along with the occupation (psychological, legal, political, economic, etc.) persists and because the Palestinians have been led by corrupt vile morons (as Khalidi freely admits btw) lo these sixty years. And continue to be (mis)lead. I agree with Khalidi that the Palestinians had other options less than ideal though they may have been (like taking the deal on 2 states from the get go). I’m as pessimistic as he is of any chance of real peace with justice after two intifadahs and the failure of the 90s Peace Process.

Update II: Khalidi has done some very good work on the background history of the Palestinians but is otherwise I find a typical sorta anti-imperialist leftist. Like a Noam Chomsky. Not much new or interesting there frankly, but not some evil guy.

I always thought it was so funny that the right-wing bloggers started a meme that Obama would betray his friends/acquaintances and throw them under the bus the second they were a liability and yet he had all these evil guys from his past. But even if you assume those true are both true, then clearly all these guys are electoral liabilities so Obama is going to dump them according to this theory right? So shouldn’t the right-wingers be happy that Obama is (in their minds) a power-hungry narcissist who only is doing what he needs to do to get power?

Update III [Day After]:  On the whole Joe Klein Khalidi can’t be an anti-Semite because he’s a Semite semi-defense.  Obviously the terminology here gets in the way.  There are undoubtedly Arabs (who are Semitic people) who are racistly prejudiced against all Jews (also Semites).  And so in the reverse, which would be a Jewish form of anti-Semitism is you catch my meaning.  I don’t think Khalidi fits that definition anyway, so the Klein defense may simply muddy.  But anti-Semitic in practice means anti-Jewish or problematically anti-Israeli.  In the latter case, it can be tough to distinguish between Israelis as citizens and Israel as the state. For people who racist against Arabs, we typically use anti-Arab or more incorrectly Islamophobic.  Many Arabs aren’t Muslims and the majority of the world’s Muslims are not Arab.  

While I have a theoretical issue (I think) with anti-Semitism meaning only anti-Jewish (since not all Semites are Jewish, linguistically this is a problematic usage), in practice that reality is basically set, and we need a different term (I guess anti-Arab???) for being racist/prejudiced towards Arabs or Arab-Americans.  


John Heilemann: Coming GOP/Conservative Civil War

Following up on my interest in the future of the conservative party in America and where it will head (and the possibility of a new reformist conservatism/GOP taking hold over the long haul), great piece by one of my favorite politicos John H in the New York Mag. Link here.

The sides are laid out perfectly here:

But Brooks, like Frum, sees the internecine fight over McCain’s No. 2 as reflecting a deeper set of ideological fissures in the party. “Basically, the people who are down on Palin and the campaign McCain is running think that it’s time to move beyond Reagan and that we’ve got to go off and do something new,” he explains. “A lot of the people who are defending the campaign and Palin think that we got out of touch with Goldwater and Reagan and we’ve gotta get back to that.”

Not surprisingly I’m on the Brooks, Frum, Friedersdorf, Douthat/Salam, Larison (down on Palin) side of that tussle. The latter are represented by the last holdouts at the National Review and its increasing wingnuttery. Christopher Buckley ought to be glad he got fatwa-hed out by them. How long can Frum hold out there I wonder?

Speaking of Frum:

“One thing that will certainly happen is a fundamentalist response,” says Frum. “ ‘If only we had been more consistently conservative, none of this would have happened; there’s still a conservative voting majority out there, and Bush alienated them with his too-centrist policies and various deviations from conservative orthodoxy; McCain was obviously unacceptable; and if the voters turned down ham and eggs, it’s because they wanted double ham and double eggs.’ That will be one view. How fast, how dramatically, and what form the alternative will take—that, no, we have a deeper problem—I can’t predict. But it will come.”

This is undoubtedly coming, but weirdly it has been fused both with the language of small government but the reality of big government spending, but yet embrace of Bush because of his evangelical/identity politics brand. Palin will undoubtedly be at the center of that fight, and Huckabee undoubtedly is part of that as well. [I would take Huck as Prez over Palin any day of the week].

My fear is that this reaction is going to insane after the coming devastation for the GOP in t-minus 15 days. And I unlike say Daily Kos types, will not be taking any great pleasure in the intra-GOP bloodletting and mania that will no doubt come as a result of all this. What Brooks calls the potential for a pseudo-Stalinism I think is very much in play. Weekly Standard, Commentary, Townhall, HotAir, National Review, Powerline–if they continue to dominate the right-wing o’sphere, good God almighty is it going to be a continued descent into hacktastic oblivion.

I’m generally a guy who finds myself veering towards the opposition. I’ve spent years condemning Bush every which way to Wednesday, but now that the Dems are coming–and trust me I’m no big fan of Pelosi and Harry Reid, I dig a number of the Dem Governors like Schweitzer, Sebelius, Richardson, but the Congressional Dems not so much–it is time for me to be shifting back more to the conservatives. Also, a party in exile is always more fun intellectually to be a part of because they are the ones who are going to be having the First Principles discussion. The left will be dominated by process, messaging, political/media strategy, etc. now that they have the reins of power.

But it will be a chance to get in at the ground floor on the conservative side. That is, if they space is open, i.e. not trashed by the purity doctrine/loyalty tests and working class political conservative correctness.

I’ll leave you with Buckley the Younger, who has clearly not lost his wit (whatever else some on the right may think he has lost). Here’s Christopher, re: Palin:

“I will readily confess that I was one of many who swooned the day after the announcement,” he says. “But it’s kind of like dating a supermodel. There comes a moment, unfortunately, where they start talking.”

double heh.

Published in: on October 19, 2008 at 11:30 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Generally Incorrect

Gen. George McClellan early leader of the Union Army in the Civil War later sacked by Lincoln, whom if I’m not mistaken, Sarah Palin referred to as the Commander of US troops in Afghanistan.

McClellan’s wiki here.

Published in: on October 2, 2008 at 8:42 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

VP Debate Final Thoughts

Mr. (T.) Coates writes:

9:49 I’m finding this really hard to gauge. She’s basically bullshitting her way through much of this. I think it all depends how effective the deception is.

Asking basically the same question I had.  I won’t pretend to judge how “regular Americans” will find this.  But she clearly had no substantial inner grasp of the policy workings (outside of Alaska).  Which I wasn’t expecting.  It just doesn’t come that fast unless you have been thinking about these issues in conjunction with say a Gubernatioral position.  [i.e. You know a Supreme Court case other than Roe, remember what newspapers you read, think torture when you think Dick Cheney’s mistakes and not hunting accidents, etc.]

But like I said, VP Debates really matter naught in the scheme of things.

Palin didn’t look as bad as the Katie Couric interviews.  She could as Coates said, bullshit her way through it.  With references to change is coming to Washington, get on the Reform Express (Choo choo!!!), cutting taxes, getting government off our backs.  She got demolished, unsurprisingly, on foreign policy.  No questions about Russia interestingly.  But whoever was on her side, will find what they want to be reassured.  Those who are unsure/undecided, I don’t know.  We’ll see.

Like others, I think Gwen Ifill did a pretty poor job.  The format didn’t help her.  And she asked some interesting questions you wouldn’t otherwise hear (like about the sub-prime).

Biden did fine imo.  He got better towards the end.  What maybe looked like boring-ness at the beginning compared to the Sugar Picky Routine of Palin by the end look like seriousness, thoughtfulness, critical engagement.

Nothing happens is that is going to fundamentally change the nature of the race.

The real issue is that the final McCain Negative Onslaught will commence soon.  This beast that is the Republican Attack Machine is not going to give up its ghost without vomiting forth (I fear) filthy dregs in its last gasps.

Published in: on October 2, 2008 at 8:04 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

VP Debate Live Thread

I’m also Twittering. [All times PST]

[6:05] Strong first answer from Biden. Brought up economic philosophy and a push to the middle class. Looks relaxed.

[6:06] She brought up the suspension of the campaign? But her first her was well delivered, though on the points it was very unspecific. I imagine pretty much of the same all night.

[6:09] She just said “darn right.” I’m waiting for “darn skippy”. She just used the Holocaust Line (“Never Again”) so that we don’t get screwed on sub prime loans.

[6:12] She talks about Joe Six Pack. Joe Biden actually quotes an actual guy named Joe.

[6:15] Oh yeah, tax time. Start drinking. She’s citing McCain-Feingold?

[6:21] Wow. He just threw out the “bridge to nowhere”. Yikes. Before that, his numbers on the health care plan was spot on.

[6:23] It’s getting a little testy. Palin gets her glancing shot in on bitter gun-gate.

[6:25] Biden has good responses in hand to Palin. He just pegged Palin to a windfall tas while at the same time saying McCain wants to cut taxes. No follow up.

[6:26] Interesting question on bankruptcy. She says she will not vote for regulatory bankruptcy laws and then says we need more reform. WTF?

[6:29] She gives an answer but with no evidence to support it on the bankruptcy/foreclosure issue. She wants to go back to energy. The question is about foreclosure and she is talking about drilling off shore.

[6:32] She says she doesn’t want to talk about the causes of climate change. And then says she wants to reduce emissions. Sentences after she said we need off shore oil drilling. We will reduce emissions by off shore drilling.

[6:34] ugh. clean coal from biden.

[6:35] NUK-ULAR.

[6:37] The Format is not helpful.

[6:39] oooh.  she just blew that one.  She tried to deflect away from her stance of gay civil union and then went to the “neither of us want gay marriage” route.

[6:42] Did she just say that Iraq would affect Afghanistan?

[6:44]  She had a hiccup there.  Interesting phrase….Maliki and Talabani working with us.  Not us working with them?  It is their country right?

[6:46] Interesting Biden spin on his war vote (which not incorrect) is an interesting split.

[6:47] FP Dumbass Alert:  bin Laden said that Iraq was the central front in the War on Terror in order to GET US INTO IRAQ and Bleed Us Dry.  Which was his STRATEGY.

[6:49] F(@# They hate our freedoms is back.  Even W. does push that bullshit anymore.

[6:52] He just dropped the Spain Card.  Viva Aragon y Castila.

[6:53] Wow.  She just dropped the No Second Holocaust card.  [She alredy referenced the NEVER AGAIN–with regard to the housing market????!!].  She’s on a roll.

[6:54] Biden had a good point there on predicting the elections in Palestine were a mistake.

[6:56].  She just said one day we will have to get beyond the Bush adminstration.  Baby that day ain’t come yet.

[6:58] oh s–t.  she just said that Obama lied about the civilian air deaths in Afghanistan.  Sorry honey.

[6:59] Biden is taking her to town on this one.  He just blasted her “Surge in Afghanistan” Theory.

[7:01] Not a very good answer there by Joe.  Second round on Afghanistan.

[7:03} Did he just call Bosnians Bosniacs?

[7:04] eek.  She’s her “I”m an outsider”. Her trying to be cutesy is pretty annoying.  She is trying to goad Biden into him blowing up and shooting his mouth off.  He’s holding it together so far.  But that vein on the side of his head is starting to pulse a bit.

[7:07] She is stumbling a bit.  Oh yeah, “He knows what evil is.”  Solid.

[7:10] Biden with “Ladies and Gentleman” start drinking.  But nice finally someone say we get rid of the Bush Doctrine of “Pre-Emptive Regime Change”. The one Palin couldn’t remember with Charlie Gibson.  Biden is still too interventionist for me.  But compared to McCain, it ain’t even close.

[7:11] right-wing boilerplate.  And ponies for everyone (“winning the war”).  Says that Congress isn’t working.  Uh, it was the Republicans that voted against the Bailout Bill in the House yes?

[7:13] Biden missed a chance there to hit them on social security.

[7:14] Careful Sarah.  Talking about Joe’s wife (his current one) having her reward in heaven might bring up the wife of his who is in heaven.

[7:16].  oooh.  subtle snap (unintended? intended?).  Biden says, “I’m sure she had like I did a very long talk with her running partner.”  Some random education left-wing boiler plate from Joe.  But he does have a nice answer on his role as a kind of advisor/patriarch in the administration.

[7:17].  Uh oh, somebody don’t know the Constitution.  She is agreeing that the Vice Presidency is in the Legislative Branch.  Watch for the commerical for that one.  McCain=Bush, Palin=Cheney.

[7:19] Biden says the notion is “bizzare.”  Nice.

[7:21] “We are unapologetic even though we make mistakes.”  That says it all.

[7:23] America as the city shinning on the hill.  Is actually speaking as a Christian, totally heretical.  [Sorry Ronny R.]  Jesus was speaking about the followers of his way.  Not a country.  When John Winthrop quoted it in Mass Bay, he was talking about a theocracy.

[7:25].  Biden is hitting McCain qua Maverick theme.  This is smart and could be a sound-byte for commercial or the night.

[7:27] Biden manages to bring in his effort to stop Bork from being nominated while answering how he has changed his mind.  That was interesting.  Palin had a good answer on her budgets as a counterexample. Showing yet again pretty decent on small baseball insider-Alaska politics.  She just has no idea of national and esp. foreign policy.

[7:29] TalkingPoints Memo is going to fact check I bet that last statement about how she hired people not based on their political affiliation.

[7:30] Took all the way til the end, with a rambling discourse, for Palin to get in the “MSM”.  No Liberal Elitists Gov?  Takes a subtle shot at Michelle Obama (“I’ve always been proud of being an American.”)

[7:36] Pretty weak closing statements by both of them.  Biden landed awkwardly.  Further thoughts in a few minutes as I ponder.  But basically at worst (for Biden-Obama) a tie.  Biden certainly did no major damage.  We’ll see what the CW becomes and whether Palin’s shitick was considered preaky and fresh or nasty and unattractive.

Published in: on October 2, 2008 at 5:53 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Coates on Palin

I’ve been thinking a lot about this nomination and rewatching the videos of Palin’s interview. Honestly, it’s all made me tremendously sad. There are lot of us lefties who are guffawing right now and are happy to see Palin seemingly stumbling drunkenly from occasional interview to occasional interview. I may have been one of them. But I’m out of that group now.

The Palin pick was the most crassest, most bigoted decision that I’ve seen in national electoral politics, in my–admittedly short–lifetime. There can be no doubt that they picked Palin strictly as a stick to drum up the victimhood narrative–small town, hunters, big families and most importantly, women. Had Barack Obama picked Hillary Clinton, there simply is no way they would have picked Sarah Palin. To the McCain camp, Palin isn’t important as a politician, or even as a person. Her moose-hunting, her sprawling fam, her hockey momdom, her impending grandmother status are a symbol of some vague, possibly endangered American thing, one last chance to yell from the rafters “We wuz robbed.”

Read the full post here.

The video is tough to watch.  It’s not that she is dumb per se; it’s just that she hasn’t ever be interested in national or foreign policy.  And why would she?  She has no reason to have been.  She runs a state socialist archipelago way out in the boonies.  She’s essentially a mayor of a decent sized city (approximate pop. of Alaska 670,000 total). Which is no shot at her.  I’m sure she knows her backyard well and how to deal with it.  But there is no way you can watch these interviews and say she is ready to be VP.

I’ve always thought the fire should be directed at McCain for the pure cynicism and egocentricism of the pick.  He’s destroying her career for a one week media mini-surge.  Not to mention what it has done to her family/personal life.  If the McCain folk had clearly done their homework and interviewed/vetted her properly, this would have been patently obvious (i.e. she’s not up to snuff).  They would not have been through the circus of hiding her from interviews–and seeing the Couric one it’s pretty clear why they are doing so…yikes–and getting called out as sexists.

Here is just a snippet of the interview (on Russia).  Like I said, it’s rough.  And I’m with Coates (contra say the Andrew Sullivan’s and Daily Kos’ of the world who seem to be getting some glee from all this)–this is just sad and painful to watch.

Published in: on September 26, 2008 at 9:30 am  Comments (3)  
Tags: ,

The Theo-Politics of Witchcraft

This video is getting some circulation now.  The Pastor in the video is a man by the name of Thomas Muthee.  He has an interesting record to say the least.  Read about it here from CSMonitor. Muthee believes very strongly in the existence of demonic spirits and fighting against them.  He prays over Palin that the evil of witchcraft be driven.

Steven Benen at Political Animal has some thoughts/questions on the matter.

He writes:

Just to clarify, the pastor’s interest in witches and witch hunts is not metaphorical — he means it literally.

To muddy the waters for a second, while I obviously know what Steve means here, his understanding/use of metaphorical is less helpful not more.  Northrop Frye understood that the metaphorical is the literal meaning of the Bible.  In other words, metaphor is concrete.  Benen is using language (according to Frye’s schema) in its third paradigmatic form: representational (think modern, scientific language/discourse).  Truth is what can be precisely represented, really described.  Therefore in this pattern, metaphorical means something more like symbolic or abstract.  When applied to say demons/evil it would be something like Ricoeur’s Symbolism of Evil or Wink’s The Powers.    (more…)

Palin and Capitalism 3.0

In all the Palin-mania, I forgot to post that her ascension to national politics could hopefully bring more discussion of one of my favorite books/policy visions: Capitalism 3.0

Aka a Cap and Dividend System for dealing for carbon emissions.  The Cap is set, auctions are sold on the free market to set the value/number of permits for carbon emission, and then the funds from that venture do not go to the federal government but rather a trust that then disperses a check to every American worth an equal slice of the profits from the permit sales as a way to deal with the inevitable rise in the cost of gas, oil (cars, home heating, etc).

The plan behind Capitalism 3.0 is the Alaska Oil Trust which Palin as Governor of the State is instrumental in its functioning.  So perhaps discussion of this idea might filter through the noise.  But given the McCain Campaign/Republican Party is promoting her as a tax-cutting, small government con, don’t be on it.

Published in: on September 19, 2008 at 9:57 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,