Powered by TypePad

« Too Perfect A Moment | Main | Safire On Fitzgerald, The "Runaway Prosecutor" »

September 29, 2004


Patrick R. Sullivan

"Bradford Snell"?

THIS Bradford Snell:


"The activities of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler prior to and during World War II, for example are instructive."

"these firms retained the economic and political power to affect the shape of governmental relations both within and between these nations in a manner which
maximized corporate global profits. In short, they were private governments unaccountable to the citizens of any country yet possessing tremendous influence over the course of war and peace in the world."

"Less well known are the simultaneous contributions of their foreign subsidiaries to the Axis Powers. In sum, they maximized profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war."

"the Big Three inevitably became major factors in the preparations and progress of the war. General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the
Nazi war efforts. GM’s plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe."

"GM supplied the Wehrmacht with Opel ‘Blitz’ trucks."

"[the Big Three] had the power to influence the course of World War II. They could determine, for example, which belligerent would benefit from their latest
advances in war-related technology."

"they were able to shape the conflict to their own private corporate advantage."

"It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both
political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi,
as Hitler lost, these companies were able to reemerge impeccable American."


Two things. First, Kerry has shown the ability to assess his situation and change course if necessary. As Austin Powers taught us, "The first step to solving your problem is admitting that you have one." When his primary campaign was tanking, he saw that he needed help, so he went out and got it. Bush has yet to display these qualities for the most part. Advantage? Kerry.

As for his race against Weld, I'm not sure if Mr. Kaus notes that Mr. Weld was a very popular governor who was the type of Republican that could win a Senate seat in Massachusetts. (There doesn't seem to be anything on the page that you linked to about the Kerry/Weld race.) Mr. Weld was to the left of Bush by quite a bit. That almost certainly made a big difference.

Les Nessman

"Two things. First, Kerry has shown the ability to assess his situation and change course if necessary."

Ah, so that's why he voted for it before he voted against it.

So Kerry lets things drift until they reach crisis level, then puts everything into a desperate hail-mary pass. Sounds bipolar. Advantage: Mental Healthcare workers.


Exactly, Brian. Had Kerry run against Bob Dole he would've probably beat him by 50 points. This 'Mickey' guy is either an idiot or a hack extraordinaire. Or both.

It doesn't mean I believe in this "strong finisher" crap.

OTOH, it's quite impossible for me to believe that after these four years Bush can be elected a dog-catcher, let alone The Ruler of The World. Which means that he'll lose.


I was amused the other day when somebody pointed to his win over Howard Dean as evidence of him being a "closer". Nevermind that Howard Dean simultaneously exploded and imploded........

Dean Esmay

One of the things that's continually being overlooked in all these discussions of how Kerry is a "strong closer" is that this is exactly what George W. Bush is too.

He's run every one of his successful political campaigns the same way: his opponents bash him and he says very little in response. He just takes it and takes it and takes it and only lightly or feebly hits back. Then, when election season finally is upon him, he comes roaring out in defense of his record--and meanwhile, most of his opponents' attacks look feeble and week and stale.

It's how he beat Ann Richards. It's how he won re-election in Texas. It's how he beat Al Gore.

His opponents almost always wind up overconfident because Bush goes long, LONG stretches without answering their attacks. Then once he does start answering, if he does it effectively, they're devastated.

You know: "Rope A Dope?"

Why do people keep forgetting this? It's been pointed out a thousand times and yet people then seem to instantly forget it again.

Kerry's a "strong finisher" but so is Bush. And right now, Bush is counting on just two things: His record, which is nowhere near the mess his opponents make out, and the fact that his opponent has had to twist himself into a pretzel just to get where he is right now.

The debates may well finish the campaign.


Only in a world where Austin Powers is a philosopher-king do people pose such inanities as "John Kerry is a closer." Boxing metaphors make even less sense--unless he's facing the same opponent, and last I checked, Bill Weld isn't running. Those aren't arguments, they're fantasies.


"Ah, so that's why he voted for it before he voted against it."

Well, thanks for twisting my words so much.

You know damn well that "no" vote was over funding. Don't pretend like you weren't aware.


Okay, I will try to save a little space, since I would otherwise post a few times.

"It doesn't mean I believe in this 'strong finisher' crap."

I'm not saying it's certain, but there's a very good chance for it to happen.

"One of the things that's continually being overlooked in all these discussions of how Kerry is a "strong closer" is that this is exactly what George W. Bush is too."

I don't know if Kerry's closing abilities, for lack of a better phrase, are really all that similiar to Bush's closing abilities. I'd suggest that Bush's strengths are in continously having expectations set very low and depending on people not paying attention.

"Only in a world where Austin Powers is a philosopher"

Oh, please!

"unless he's facing the same opponent, and last I checked, Bill Weld isn't running. Those aren't arguments, they're fantasies"

Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious. Nobody is saying that it's going to happen; we are merely saying there's a decent chance that it will happen. And there is.


what could possibly happen? I don't think Bush is going to burst in tears or proclaim Satan his master. Absent that, the Dems will say Kerry's won, the Reps will say Bush's won and the press will blow smoke out of their ass. It's not so significant.

Meanwhile we'll have the last unemployment report next Friday and a bunch of people will be killed in Iraq. We'll find out soon enough how it all plays out.

Mitch H.

Brian, I'm curious - what's it like to be a shameless blogroach?

I mean, I say one nasty thing on somebody's comments section, and I feel like hell about it for days afterwards. I even tend to avoid that blog for a while, until the shame of abusing a writer in his own parlor subsides.

What's it like to go to a fellow's site, day after day, and defecate in his virtual living room? Are you proud of your shit? Do you think it improves the decor, or that it matches the color scheme?

I ask you, because you seem somewhat more rational than ab1, who can do nothing but fling dung. You seem capable of putting together coherent arguments which aren't completely dependent on indifferently digested talking-points.

Were you raised in a deliberately "high-esteem" environment or something?

Cecil Turner

"You know damn well that "no" vote was over funding. Don't pretend like you weren't aware."

The problem with such a "nuanced" position is that it's hard to understand. In fact, no less an estimable judge of political punditry than our honorable host concluded the position would eventually evolve to one supportive of the Iraq war. Kerry's latest position appears to be the opposite--but I freely admit I'm guessing here.

The Senator's position is incoherent. And it doesn't help that he doesn't appear to want to explain it. I suspect the reason is because his party has a few hawks, a few isolationists, and a good number of peaceniks--so any clear position he takes might lose him some votes. What he fails to consider is that taking no position makes him look like a waffling incompetent . . . and will lose him a lot more. He has an opportunity tomorrow to try to bring some order out of chaos--but I bet he doesn't.


No Bush doesn't work for me.

Carville on the other hand ....

abb1, your record is looking pretty good to me right now.


Also, don't forget: Kerry convinced Mass. voters who liked Bill Weld as Governor . . . that they should vote to leave Bill Weld as Governor.

Thomas J. Jackson

Kerry's record running as a Democrat in Massachusetts means little or nothing on a national scale. A Republican has about as much chance in Massachusetts as a klansman has being elected in Harlem. What history does show us is that leftists from New England don't win presidential elections regardless of how strongly they finish. They still lose.


Ever heard about John F. Kennedy?


Mitch H,

You just called Brian a Blogroach, and berrated him for doing all sorts of things that he doesn't seem to have done. In fact, YOU are only person on this forum who's actually adding shit to the mix of what's otherwise been a pretty mild discussion. Hello, Pot? If you really feel guilty about trolling blogs, perhaps you should stay off this one...

The comments to this entry are closed.