Comments on: Cynicism doesn’t mean a damn thing

By: Unfogged

Unfogged — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:54:27 +0000

Dean and Electability
There’s a lot of smart commentary on John Judis’ Salon piece about Howard Dean in the Salon letters section. Two points were especially good. Javier Morillo-Alicea explains that many Dean supporters realize he’s not as far left as they are, but his pol…

By: chutney

chutney — Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:49:19 +0000

A pundit a day keeps the thought police away…

By: Curtiss Leung

Curtiss Leung — Tue, 03 Jun 2003 00:27:35 +0000

Egad, you’re right. That must account for my ideological irregularity. And here I thought I just needed more amoral fibre in my intellectual diet (saomeone told me Carl Schmitt might be philosophical equivalent of Metamucil…)

By: chutney

chutney — Sat, 31 May 2003 22:00:30 +0000

Oh, but Curtiss, don’t you know that their positions solely derive from their power-mad political machinations? You, sir, have not had your daily dose of pundit.

By: Curtiss Leung

Curtiss Leung — Sat, 31 May 2003 07:44:19 +0000

For the life of me, I can’t figure out this "electability" crap. The way the term is used, it seems a candidate’s electability is an a priori given. Dean isn’t perfect, but he’s exciting and–Dog forgive me for writing this–he’s got buzz. Yet despite all that, he is not electable, and this is a given. Nobody I can think of gives a shit about John Edwards and Joe Lieberman is revolting, but the DLC has deemed them electable–or rather has determined their inherent electability. WTF?

We need more on the candidates’ positions and analysis thereof, and less handicapping the race. In fact, I’m thinking of buying a gun, just so I can reach for it the next time someone raises concerns about electability absent any consideration of a candidate’s positions.