New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | October 1, 2004

Julian Sanchez gives a post-fight wrap on the Charade In Dade.

Comments

|10.1.04 @ 5:23PM|#

Wow. I followed Julian's Hugh Hewitt link, and he really is kooky. I'm especially amazed that he thought Lehrer's question to Bush about whether the election of Kerry would increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack was a cheap shot; it seems like a pretty reasonable question to me since Team W has been stating or implying it on the campaign trail. And I also find it comical that he thought Bush's answer - that Kerry's election "isn't going to happen" - was a good one. But I guess if you start with the premise that it's an unfair question, why would you care that Bush didn't make any effort to actually answer it?

|10.1.04 @ 5:31PM|#

The biggest thing this gave to the D's is heart. They saw their guy whip Bush in public and will now work a little harder or respond instead of staying silent when the R's mock Kerry. Likewise, the media may get some stones after seeing their emperor naked. Big Mo is a strange and important thing. It's possible it changed last night.

|10.1.04 @ 5:51PM|#

Maybe I'm just channeling Jean Bart, but I read that as CharAHD in DAHD, not Charayd in Dayd. I say tomayto, you say tomahto, no?

|10.1.04 @ 5:54PM|#

To be fair to Bush, Polish troops actually were involved in the initial invasion in a very limited capacity: http://users.erols.com/mietek/test/show_news.php?id=news030304.html (scroll down to "Saddam's sea of fire foiled by Polish SAS").

|10.1.04 @ 6:11PM|#

I can't believe Bush let Kerry get away with using Gulf War 1 as an example, when he knows Kerry voted against authorizing use of American forces in that conflict!

|10.1.04 @ 6:39PM|#

Is this an editing error, or did I miss something?

"And, to borrow a phrase, Even the Conservative Jay Nordlinger , Richard Brookhiser, and Janice Shaw Crouse are conceding, over at National Review, that the Boston Brahmin took this one."

|10.1.04 @ 7:30PM|#

"The Charade in Dade"?

I like that. Did you come up with that, or is it from someplace else?

|10.1.04 @ 7:51PM|#

trainwreck sez,

"I can't believe Bush let Kerry get away with using Gulf War 1 as an example, when he knows Kerry voted against authorizing use of American forces in that conflict!"

That would require Bush to a be able to think on his feetz. (I'm not so sure he can think off his feetz)

Ya know, eventually there comes a time when you realize that guy who represents the party you usually vote for is a cockup and needs to go.

We gave you Gray Davis. Your ball.

Gibbon

|10.1.04 @ 8:01PM|#

We gave you Gray Davis. Your ball.

Gray Davis was dragged kicking and screaming from office over the hysterical objections (and flagrantly unconstitutional legal tactics) of the state and national Democratic establishment, who predicted that the recall would lead to the complete collapse of government in the state.

So don't for a minute think you can get away with claiming that you "gave us" Gray Davis. It took a lot of effort to scrape that waste of sperm out of the governor's office, and the Democratic Party was on the wrong side of the effort every step of the way.

|10.1.04 @ 8:19PM|#

The capitals were deliberate; it's a play on the well worn construction "Even the liberal X agrees that..." you sometimes see from conservative writers.

|10.1.04 @ 8:35PM|#

But when Republicans use that trick, they pick people who aren't actually liberal. "Even the liberal New Republic..," "Even the liberal Daniel Patrick Moynihan," "Even the liberal Bill Clinton."

Jay Nordlinger's pretty conservative.

|10.1.04 @ 8:52PM|#

But when Republicans use that trick, they pick people who aren't actually liberal. "Even the liberal New Republic..," "Even the liberal Daniel Patrick Moynihan," "Even the liberal Bill Clinton."

Obligatory snarky remark: maybe the Republicans have a hard time finding "actual liberals" willing to admit obvious-but-unpleasant truths?

Anyway, people who call Bush a conservative shouldn't complain about Clinton and Moynihan being called liberals.

|10.1.04 @ 8:53PM|#

The real story is that this domain wasn't already being used for porn:

http://www.youforgotpoland.com/

|10.1.04 @ 9:58PM|#

Dan, Gray Davis was fairly elected - twice. Have you got a problem with democracy or are you one of those guys that just want to keep voting til they get it "right"?

|10.1.04 @ 10:18PM|#

Gadfly,

I'd guess that Dan supports democracy and the rule of law. The recall of Gray Davis was both democratic and legal. Democrats that say differently are just sore losers.

|10.2.04 @ 1:28AM|#

"Ya know, eventually there comes a time when you realize that guy who represents the party you usually vote for is a cockup and needs to go."

So we should give up our gun rights, our income, and our sovereignty to the UN because our guy doesn't debate well?

|10.2.04 @ 1:37AM|#

These programs are (as philosopher Robert Nozick famously noted in his essay "The Zig-Zag of Politics") a way of signaling a kind of collective caring about the plight of the badly off.

What a sad subject you bring up, Julian. After Anarchy, State, and Utopia enriched my libertarian outlook, Nozick's, at least, partial recanting of libertarianism in the essay "The Zig-Zag of Politics" was disappointing. I am heartened though, that it singularly stands out among his writings as lacking cogency and rigor. The disparity is so large as to be bizarre.

In the essay, without justification, he invokes a "solemn marking of our human solidarity" to sanction government welfare state coercion. As you point out, it is the process of giving shared value that gives sanction to these coercive activities for Nozick in "Zig Zag". He only allows one to opt out of being taxed (but only if he/she agrees to contribute 5% more than the tax to some private charity!) if they have a moral objection to the GOALS (his emphasis) of the programs. Can't come up with any moral objections to poor folks eating? Then pay up.

In the Zig Zag essay, Nozick also sees it fit for the government to limit 1st amendment rights of assembly if folks exercising those rights prove too offensive to some. And, also in the essay, Nozick specifically says that it's not just this symbolic consideration that may justify extended state action. The liberty not to associate may be justly voided in the form of anti-discrimination laws he claims. No reasoning is provided.

I do not think that this silly essay diminishes the powerful arguments in Anarchy, State, and Utopia one iota. It certainly doesn't refute them, or even attempt to do so. In other books, Nozick has essays both germane to libertarian theory and also speculative subjects, which are strong as well.

I don't want to conjecture how it might in any manner be related to this errant essay, but there was an episode in Nozick's life that I have wondered about, where he seemed to lack fealty to libertarian principle, involving his use of rent control laws to his advantage. It seems to me rather more serious than going to grad school on government loans or some such. About this episode, I think that he said, "Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do". Oh well, people whose work we admire tremendously needn't be without foibles.

|10.2.04 @ 1:47AM|#

kwais:

So we should give up our gun rights, our income, and our sovereignty to the UN because our guy doesn't debate well?

Hell no! Not even if we don't have good cause to condider him, "Our guy" and not even if Kerry,
left to his own devices, would be even worse.

|10.2.04 @ 1:51AM|#

...consider him...

I promise to quit ignoring the Preview button.

|10.2.04 @ 1:52AM|#

Rick:
He said that ("you gotta do what you gotta do") to me, in an interview I conducted with him in the summer of 2001. But he said a little more than that later as we were editing the transcript, which didn't make it in. As I recall, his account was something like this: As part of some dispute or other over the aparment, the landlord (author Erich Segal) had send "representatives" (presumably lawyers) to negotiate on his behalf. I don't know exactly what went down, but Nozick felt they were trying to beat him up with highly legalistic readings of either their contract or the relevant law instead of dealing in good faith. So in a fit of pique, he decided he would out-lawyer the lawyers, though If memory serves, he did indicate that in retrospect he realized he probably shouldn't have done it.

As for his purported apostasy, the impression I've pulled together from both my conversation with him and what I've heard from others who knew him is something like this: He was playing with some intriguing ideas, as he often did, without necessarily being wholly committed to them. And when people in the academic community stopped treating him as the Scary Libertarian (this part is secondhand, from David Schmidtz) he figured that since he had moved on to other topics anyway, there was no reason to disabuse them of the notion.

I don't think Nozick comes out of that smelling of roses, exactly, but they're human enough reactions and I'm inclined to agree with Rick's final sentiment there--nobody's perfect, and the guy was still a freaking genius.

|10.2.04 @ 4:08AM|#

Dan, Gray Davis was fairly elected - twice.

And fairly, legally, and democratically recalled once.

Have you got a problem with democracy

No, I like democracy. Which is why it makes me especially happy that more people voted to recall him -- and voted to replace him with Schwarzenegger -- than even voted to elect him in the first place.

or are you one of those guys that just want to keep voting til they get it "right"?

You obviously have me confused with Al Gore. :)

|10.2.04 @ 6:42AM|#

I listened to the debate on the radio; content over form.

Watching TV on mute would be form over content.

Saddly, that would reflect Americans best.

|10.2.04 @ 7:46PM|#

Dan, you'll just LOVE the upcoming elections in Iraq.

|10.2.04 @ 8:33PM|#

Rick Barton,

I was a little confused by your answer. I think you said something to the effect of "right on no we wont elect someone who will take away those rights, just because that person is a good debater".

And maybe I shouldn't have said "our guy" because he falls short on many issues not including debating skills (the patriot act, drug entitlements ect)

And despite Kerry's exceptional debating skills, he would probalby be even worse than Bush even where Bush is wrong.

|10.2.04 @ 8:38PM|#

Also on Bush, he cut taxes, and let the the 'assault weapons' ban expire. I know they are two very small steps in the right direction, but they are so symbolically important to me.

|10.2.04 @ 9:35PM|#

kwais:

(Kerry)would probalby be even worse than Bush even where Bush is wrong.

With the exceptions of the war and the Patriot Act, I tend to mostly agree.

Bush cut taxes and let the 'assault weapons' ban expire.

True, and those are good things, but I think that for this election liberty is best served by not worrying about the presidential race too much, voting for Badnarik and trying to elect a more fiscally conservative congress.

|10.2.04 @ 11:52PM|#

Dan, you'll just LOVE the upcoming elections in Iraq

I understand that that's probably a sarcastic remark, but I'm afraid that, being that I lack your left-wing delusions, I am unable to determine why I shouldn't be happy with the upcoming elections. Could you be more specific?

|10.3.04 @ 4:57PM|#

Rick Barton;

"With the exceptions of the war and the Patriot Act, I tend to mostly agree."

Kerry voted for the Patriot act, and didn't seem to argue against it when the Prez brough tit up during the debate. And the only thing I really hear clearly from him about the war is that the Prez is conducting the war incompetently. Which I believe is disingenuous at best, unless he has a solution he is championing. And I haven't heard one.

So I guess you could say in those instances that Kerry wouldn't be 'worse' than the president, but would he be better?

|10.3.04 @ 5:04PM|#

I am registered in Nevada, which is a swing state, and judging from all the Kerry/Edwards stickers I see, is closer than the polls show.

I will be voting for Bush, I believe that he will try and pass more tax cuts in his presidency, and I think he will try to get more constitutionalists in the Supreme court. I don't think he will actively try to repeal any gun laws, but he will make it easier on gun owners in other ways.

I won't be voting for any of the Republican NV senators, because to the best of my knowlege they voted to increase taxes. Therefore, I will vote republican for president, and Libertarian locally.

And I will be voting for the guy who is running against Harry Reid, he is pro gun, and I don't know much else about him. I will have to do more research on that issue.

|10.3.04 @ 6:34PM|#

kwais writes:
Kerry voted for the Patriot act, and didn't seem to argue against it when the Prez brough tit up during the debate.

Kerry wants to strike down some portions of the Patriot Act. It's not perfect, but it's better than what Bush is offering.

And the only thing I really hear clearly from him about the war is that the Prez is conducting the war incompetently.

Plainly true and just about worth firing Bush over in itself. A Kerry administration might just be as frightfully incompetent as the Bush administration, but at least there's a chance of an improvement. Kerry did show better judgement than Bush in the run up to the war when he talked about how he'd like Bush handling the situation. If Bush had taken Kerry's advice of using the powers invested on him by the Congress to force weapons inspections and then waited for the inspections to play out, the US might not be in this mess.

P.S. The latest Gallup poll shows the race tied. That's the second national poll showing an eight point bounce for Kerry.

|10.3.04 @ 7:15PM|#

I don't think that it is plainly true that it is plainly true that he is conducting the war the wrong way.

I think in some ways the way the war has been conducted has been wrong and in some ways it has been genius.

The thing I most hear about how the war is going wrong is that he did not put enough troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that he took opinions from generals on both sides of that issue, and the ones that told him "fewer is better" were right.
Using the National guard was the right decision, both tactically, and as a matter of principle.

Sending the Marines into Falluja, then calling them back before the mission was accomplished was wrong, but I really don't know how much of that was the Presidents decision. And I guess being the commander in chief he is responsible.

But I have seen so many things that have been done right, and so many things done during the Clinton era done wrong. And as I compare and contrast Clinton and Kerry. I really thing that for all Bush's mistakes, Kerry would be tenfold worse.

|10.3.04 @ 7:18PM|#

Also Kerry sais to the troops:
"Hey you are in the wrong war that I voted for, at the wrong time for the wrong reason, but keep on fighting"