July 27, 2004

More On That Panel

The aformentioned bookstore event was a panel with Salon's Joe Conason, Toni Morrison, Sidney Blumenthal, Al Franken and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

They all said their pieces about how books can change the world (well - more or less about that), but RFKJr, to me, stole the show. With a righteous, barely-contained fury, he spoke about the environmental evils of the Bush regime (I like to think I follow things pretty closely, and I was blown away - I'm definitely going to buy his book). Then, on Bush, he said (and I paraphrase a bit): "I toured Europe with my father and President Kennedy. The goodwill towards America...all the European capitals had streets named after Teddy Roosevelt and George Washington...the US was a respected, admired leader. It took 300 years to build up that good will, but in 3-1/2 years...."

He didn't get to finish; the room erupted in a standing ovation. I was clapping before I was even conscious of doing so. I haven't seen a crowd swept up like that since the Celtics put on the afterburners and buried Philly in Game 5 two years ago.

Of course, that was in a room full of Cantabrigians and Democrats. But I think RFKJr. needs a spot in prime time this week; the man can take over a room.

(Meegz has more.)

Comments

In describing Bush's enviormental policies as "evil", you are rhetorically, and emotionally, reducing Bush to a one dimensional cartoon villian. Ive noticed that in this current election the Democrats have tended to minimize and/or demonize Bush. In doing so, the party is allowing emotion, and resentment, to overide logic and reasoned debate. John Kerry has even realized this, and taken steps to eliminate than anti-Bush sentiment. Al Gore's sour grapes diatribe was bad enough, but to see the worst president in American history Jimmy Carter lecture about strong leadership, and national defense was not only a misfire, but a laughable one at that. Given the fact that, when polled, 95% of the convention delegates were in favor of an immeadiate pullout of troops in Iraq, a position John Kerry doesn't even hold, shows that the convention is comprised of extremists. Seeing Mr Peanut sitting with lying crackpot Michael Moore took the cake.

Posted by: Rudolfo at July 28, 2004 04:11 AM

Of course Kerry isn't just going to rip into Bush, the way I'd like him to. I understand the concept of hedging your bets in a national election.

But "logic and reasoned debate" against Bush is a fool's errand. Al Gore could have destroyed him in the 2000 debates, but tried to play fair. Look where that got him.

Posted by: michael at July 28, 2004 11:01 AM

It's not about hedging bets. It's about articulating something that's better than Bush that goes beyond simply saying "Bush is awful, and anything is better." Regardless of what Michael Moore may think, Americans are smarter than to accept that kind of simplistic angle. Frankly, if Kerry doesn't articulate better exactly what his vision is besides not being Bush, he'll probably lose. And if that's the best he can do, he probably should.

Let's face it -- very few people actually like Bush. But should he lose, we then have four years of Kerry, and he'd better start talking about exactly what his intentions for those four years are. Unless, of course, the Democrats plan to spend four years gloating. In which case, given the way they've been absolutely spanked by the GOP at the local, state, and Congress levels in the past ten years, expect a Republican blowout in 2008.

Posted by: Pete at July 28, 2004 01:02 PM

And yes, RFK2 is the most promising of the "young" Kennedys, I think. I always found it odd how his playboy cousin John-John had so much more spotlight than he, the hard-working activist (though I hate that word -- it implies he does a lot of yelling rather than actual work), ever did.

Posted by: Pete at July 28, 2004 01:38 PM

I don't believe that Gore could have ripped Bush apart in a debate. Bush is nervous, tounge-tied, and jarringly innarticulate. Gore was, and continues to be wonkish, unlikable, condescending, and easily exasperated. Gore never had the political skill to best anyone, with the possible exception of the even more lackluster Bill Bradley, in a debate. Don't waste our time purple crayoning reality by stating Gore was trying to be civil. Keep in mind that it was Al Gore in 1988 who first played the Willie Horton race card. Al Gore lied constantly about how he was a champion against "big tobbaco" because his sister succumed to lung cancer. Al Gore was making money off the Gore family tobbacco farms, and taking government subsidies as well. This is a man who attempted to steal the election of 2000 using lawsuits, class warfare, and racial baiting. His bizzare, rambling appearances before the far-left moveon.org crowd only prove his ineptness. You are quick to point out the Republican's hypocrisy, but become a partisan hack when someone calls you on the Democrat's basic dishonesty, and sleaziness. Do you truly believe the Republicans are simply war-mongering, greedy opportunists, and Democrats are these pure white knights whose only motivation is fighting oppression, and injustice? I am hoping you don't actually see things that way. I can buy the lesser of 2 evils argument.

Posted by: Rudolfo at July 28, 2004 11:48 PM

Not so much "lesser of 2 evils", as "somewhat conflicted, but basically in the right place vs. evil". I freely admit I'd support a hamster if it was running against Bush.

This is a man who attempted to steal the election of 2000 using lawsuits, class warfare, and racial baiting.

I guess if Gore's friends were running the election in Florida, he masy not have had to. And what exactly do you consider "class warfare and racial baiting"? Go read Greg Palast, who's spent every minute since 2000 documenting the disenfranchisement and coverup of African-American voters in Fla. And "class warfare" is the most ridiculous term the right has ever come up with. The class war is going on all the time; it just becomes "warfare" when someone speaks up about it.

But I suppose if Gore had won a razor-sharp victory under suspicious-at-best circumstances, you'd have cheerfully accepted it.

Posted by: michael at July 29, 2004 09:11 AM

If, after a complete re-count, Al Gore narrowly won Florida, and thus the presidency, he would become my president, and my hope would be that he would live up to the occassion. If your inference is that I would be engaging in self deception, and putting forth conspiracy theories, I can assure you I would not.

If you could choose the Democratic candidate this year, would it be John Kerry? If you could decide who the nominee would be, who would you choose? If John Kerry was not running, do you think anyone would be asking him to? As for my 'class warfare' observation are you saying the Democrats do not at least attempt to exploit racial tensions? I see the Democrats taking minorities for granted. That is not to say the Republicans offer much to them, if anything at all. Do you truly believe that Kerry is not re-inventing himself for mass consumption? If you believe he is, is that not dishonest? Why does Kerry refuse to call himself a 'liberal'? Why was that word never mentioned during the DNC? You rally against Bush as a corporate tool. Do you believe that Kerry is not one? By supporting him are you not stifiling real change? Are you just enpowering an antiquated, and special interest controlled, 2 party system? You don't need to write a response to my questions. I would just want you to honestly ask yourself these questions.

As for the hamster, I think he would likely be a more dynamic and likable candidate than Kerry. Whats more, the hamster would probably have a better attendance record in the senate.

Posted by: Rudolfo at July 30, 2004 05:13 PM

Post a comment