This article is almost a complete waste of space.
"[V]eterans have shown even less interest in protesting the war than has the public at large. This is largely the legacy of the end of the draft."
Ya think?
(The best part of all is that when he finally gets around to the one sentence that should have been his entire article, he casts it as the answer to a loaded rhetorical question rather than to the real question. ("shunted aside"?!).)
Oh, and people aren't generally "interested in protesting" things they don't actually oppose. To answer my own question (as posed in this post title), you can write two pages instead of one sentence if you're begging the question (taking for granted that the Iraq war should be universally opposed) through your whole piece.
BONUS SLATE VAPIDITY (this time the vacuity is actually by a reader):
"A reader of my Election Law Blog asked me whether anything could be done to stop [Rush] Limbaugh's [pro-Hillary] comments, which have the potential to distort the outcome of the nomination process. The short answer is no. Much as many people would like Rush Limbaugh to be quiet, the First Amendment certainly bars any attempts to prevent him or anyone else from urging a vote for or against a candidate for virtually any reason."
--piece about the Democratic primary
So we have freedom of speech in this country? Sweet. Good to know.
Even though I flatly disagree with Rush's premise that we'd be better off with Clinton as the Democratic nominee (even at that, the second guessing is pretty strong), I think it's hilarious that these liberal journalists think that Republicans are crossing over solely because some talk show host told them to.
Posted by Matt Bruce at March 10, 2008 11:53 AMI can't speak for those journalists, but a lot of Obama supporters seem to believe it because it's in their interest to do so. Particularly on sites like Daily Kos, where Obama supporters outnumber Hillary supporters 10:1 and so people can't imagine there are large numbers of Democrats who prefer her for non-bad reasons.
Crossover voters have affected elections in the past, though, most notably the 2000 Michigan primary where Detroit leaders campaigned for people to vote for McCain purely to spite John Engler.
Posted by: M.S. at March 10, 2008 12:05 PMEven though I flatly disagree with Rush's premise that we'd be better off with Clinton as the Democratic nominee
Actually, here I agree with Rush, at least in he conclusion. My thoughts about who I want the Democratic nominee to be boil down to two questions:
1. Who will be easier to best?
2. Who will, in the event they win, make the better president? Note that, in my view, the least liberal one has an advantage here.
In my mind, #2 points very strongly to wanting Clinton; I think if elected she would be both more centrist and competent than Obama.
I am less sure about #1, but I really think the answer to my question is either "Clinton" or "it doesn't matter". I just cant get over the feeling that Obama would be pretty weak general election candidate. Clinton has those strong pre-existing negative vibe to deal with as well, so this might be a tie, but I dont feel she would be demonstrably weaker than Obama.
Posted by: Kubi at March 10, 2008 08:47 PMRe Kubi, the specific issues on which I'd much prefer Obama to Clinton seem to be perpendicular to a left-right axis: His health care plan is better than hers, and more importantly her proposal to put a freeze on home foreclosures would annihilate the lending market and make it harder (if not impossible?) for us to buy our first home any time soon.
Foreign policy is the one arena where I think I'd strongly prefer Clinton's ideology, yet the manner in which she touts her supposed experience is laughable.
(But I do think the Children ad (better known as "3 a.m.") was a highly effective campaign ad in that it correctly identified the best reason to vote for her over him. Over-the-top, and easy to mock, but highly effective all the same.)
"Easy to beat" is far less of a factor for me than it seems to be for other party loyalists. Lyndon LaRouche would be incredibly easy to beat, but if god forbid he won...
I will say that if Obama would turn out to be a horrible president then the most likely reasons for it (inexperience, poor judgment) are things that would probably become a lot more clear in the election process. Conversely, if he campaigns well enough to win the general election then it's highly likely that he'd also govern well.
(Clintons, on the other hand, show an unusual penchant for highly effective campaigns coupled with spotty governance.)
Posted by: me at March 11, 2008 03:21 PM