Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Politics and Poker’ Category

What is to be done?

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 25, 2007

One thing Al Gore has achieved is to transform himself from a stiff, programmed, unquestionably smart, genetically engineered, second-generation, silver-spoon-in-mouth blueblood U.S. Senator — a favorite of moderate liberal guys like Marty Peretz and appealing enough to someone like me that I voted for him in 1992 — to a sincere, passionate and, of course, hypocritcal extremist.

That’s a sort of progress, isn’t it?

Well, his true predilections are not entirely a surprise, actually: All the way back in 2000, Business Week wrote:

It seems undeniable that Gore’s views on energy and the environment are extreme relative to the opinions of average Americans. One therefore has to wonder why voters are seriously considering him for the Presidency. I think people either doubt Gore’s belief in his own extreme statements or expect the U.S. Congress to impose restraint. Unfortunately, the President has a lot of power to enact energy and environmental policies on his own. Therefore, it seems prudent to take Gore at his word and regard him as a serious threat to carry out the mission described in his book Earth in the Balance.

In 2007, Robert Tracinski is even less sanguine:

Al Gore is trying to dragoon science in an attempt to win over converts who don’t share his sense of personal spiritual crisis and don’t find his anti-industrial moral vision compelling. But the moment people see through his charade–and realize that what Gore is really pushing is a not a scientific campaign against “pollution” but a quasi-religious crusade against industrial civilization–his campaign will collapse.

(Hat tip to Tom Elia.) This, of course, is the “point” of the Manbearpig joke, which is so funny that it may make the whole thing worth it.

The problem isn’t whether “people” will see through Al Gore, of course. People do. But in a world where there is virtually no consensus on anything, polarization is pretty much a plus, especially on the political left. The real question is what “people” who are running for President as Democrats, which I don’t believe Al Gore will be one of, are going to say and do about him and his message… when they will do it… and how the Republican candidate will play the Al Gore card.

Posted in Politics and Poker | 5 Comments »

Life still unfair

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 22, 2007

Well, Bill Clinton always did fancy himself the redneck JFK. Here’s his beef:

He said he had re-read the Iraq resolution last week, and that his wife had voted only for “coercive inspections.” Clinton justified his wife’s refusal to apologize for her vote by explaining that she was acting out of concern that future presidents might need similar language authorizing “coercive inspections to avoid conflict.”

“It’s just not fair to say that people who voted for the resolution wanted war,” Clinton said.

But it is fair to say that people who agreed with your take on WMD were “lying,” right? And it’s fair that you signed the law making regime change U.S. policy and your wife now campaigns against it? Was the fate of the White House travel office fair? Is it fair that someone who never served in public office or lived in the State of New York walks into the job of Senator of that state?

Life’s been pretty fair for President and Senator Clinton, don’t you think?

Posted in Politics and Poker | 4 Comments »

Edwards resolves key political question

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 22, 2007

John Edwards’s priorities:

Democrat John Edwards is forging ahead with his second bid for the presidency despite the sobering news that his wife, Elizabeth, is battling an incurable reappearance of cancer.. . .

Putting to rest speculation about his political future, Edwards told reporters: “The campaign goes on. The campaign goes on strongly.”

. . .

“From our perspective, there was no reason to stop,” Edwards said. “I don’t think we seriously thought about it.”

“I don’t think we seriously thought about it.” So what does this resolve? It tells us that John Edwards — whom, I will admit, I never liked politically, though of course our sympathy must go out to him and his family on a personal level — is one of two things:

Either merely an inveterate liar, or a complete moral retard. Democrats are certainly used to having one or the other of those as their candidate, but chances are there’s at least one better one in this year’s field.

One what — liar or idiot? Pick ’em.

UPDATE: Characterizations softened — see the comments. On the other hand, excuse me while I call out what I think are cheap shots from the other side of this issue. (Yes, I think there are two sides.)

Posted in O Mores!, Politics and Poker | 67 Comments »

An inch of time

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 21, 2007

Now that you’ve, perhaps, read the next-to-last word, prepare to read the last word on the Iraq war. First read this (sweet) story and this (God-awful) story to put you in the mood.  But that’s the last word whether anyone else’s mouth ever moves again or not. Gerard Van der Leun, who does happen to be something of a not-so-old friend, just wrote the best thing ever about the war. I don’t even know where to excerpt from it, it’s so good. But I’ll try if it there’s any chance it gets one more person to read this essay (emphasis added):

Four years in. An inch of time. Four years in and the foolish and credulous among us yearn to get out. Their feelings require it. The power of their Holy Gospel of “Imagine” compels them. Their overflowing pools of compassion for the enslavers of women, the killers of homosexuals, the beheaders of reporters, and the incinerators of men and women working quietly at their desks, rise and flood their minds until their eyes flow with crocodile tears while their mouths emit slogans made of cardboard. They believe the world is run on wishes and that they will always have three more.

Like savages shambling about some campfire where all there is to eat are a few singed tubers, they paint their faces with the tatterdemalion symbols of a summer long sent down to riot with the worms. They clasp hands and sing songs whose lyrics are ash. “We shall… over… come.” Overcome what, overcome who? Overcome their nation? Is that their dream? It is the lifelong dream of those that lead them that much is certain.

Four years in and we see these old rotting rituals trotted out in the streets like some pagan procession of idols and shibboleths, like some furred and feathered fetish shaken against the sky by hunkering witch-doctors, to hold back the dark, to frighten off the evil spirits and graven images that trouble the sleep of the dreamers.

Four years into the most gentle war ever fought, a war fought on the cheap at every level, a war fought to avoid civilian harm rather than maximize it. Picnic on the grass at Shiloh. Walk the Western Front. Speak to the smoke of Dresden. Kneel down and peek into the ovens of Auschwitz. Sit on the stones near ground zero at Hiroshima and converse with the shadows singed into the wall. Listen to those ghost whisperers of war.

Four years in and the people of the Perfect World ramble through the avenues of Washington, stamping their feet and holding their breath, having their tantrums, and telling all who cannot avoid listening that “War is bad for children and other living things.” They have flowers painted on their cheeks. For emphasis. Just in case you thought that war was good for children and other living things.

There were children and other living things on the planes that flew into the towers. They all went into the fire and the ash just the same. But they, now, are not important. Nor is the message their deaths still send us when we listen. That message is to be silenced. The rising brand new message is “All we are say-ing is give….” And it is always off-key.

Four years in and they are upset that their party of the 90s has been so long interrupted; that their raves are foreshortened; that their sleep is persistently shaken by car bombs beyond the far horizon; that their time at the mall can not be entirely, completely, and utterly without guilt. . . .

Four years in and the fools in the streets multiply. They are tired of the war, but full of themselves. . . .

It is in patience alone that our enemies outstrip us. After all, when you look at what they have made of their “civilization” what indeed do they have to lose?

Posted in O Mores!, Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | Leave a Comment »

Defiant, I guess

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 21, 2007

That’s how I am about the Iraq war. So much executed so poorly — perhaps. I’m not even convinced of that; all alternative scenarios posit perfect execution and all the other things 20-20 hindsight makes so magical. Some things, yes, are inexcusable, such as Abu Grab. But it’s absurd to postulate that because soldiers died and Arabs are killing each other, as they’re known to do when there are no Jews around, that the war was “lost” — how can you “lose” when the other side leaves the field and its commander in chief is hanged by the government you put in to power?

But not only that: In concept, I cannot bring myself around to believing it was a mistake. I’m not the only one. Though it is pretty lonely.

The only big mistake was and is the Administration’s poor handling of the marketing of the whole situation, exacerbated by the White House’s unfortunate cronyish style. That’s a huger error, because (as I have said before), you can’t put on a war in a democracy unless you’re prepared to sell it, and follow through with the sale. This government was not prepared for that, and if we didn’t learn that from Vietnam, shame on us.  (UPDATE:  Oy.)

Defiance, however — for that, GWB gets credit. He believes in this policy, and all the conventional wisdom and smirking second guessing in the world have not swayed him. It has cost his party plenty to do the right thing, and at the end of the day I don’t know just how much a good PR strategy would have helped. War is hell, after all. But the right thing, it was, and Bush gets credit here for his defiance of … just about everyone.

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety | 15 Comments »

Soros wants his money’s worth

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 21, 2007

And not in shekels, either. Captain’s Quarters calls George Soros “underwriter” of the Democratic party. With a little luck, aided by the force of his magnificent, warbucks-enriched and hypocrisy-proof ego, he may end up being its undertaker — at least in terms of separating the men (including Senator Clinton) from the boys on the issue of Israel.

Regarding which, it’s safe to say, Soros is fundamentally “anti.”

That works out great come a-primary time, because so is the Democratic left-wing “base.” The hard left and black voters, though utterly beyond any risk of bolting the plantation now that the Nader distraction is apparently gone, still needs the occasional bone. Policies and pronouncements counseling “balance” and Palestinian self-determination always play well here and keep clowns such as Jimmy Carter in the thick of things. Hence the only Democratic candidate to condemn Soros’s most recent anti-Israel remarks — his claim that Israel ought to be forced to negotiate with Hamas, an entity that does not grant it the moral or political right to exist — is Barak Obama, who despite qualms to the contrary is actually black and not, like Hillary Clinton, merely married to the First Black President.

The problem with this strategy in the long run is not so much us Jews, including the ones on the coasts with all that money that goes to support the Democrats. Jews as a political force, notwithstanding the effectiveness of AIPAC in particular, are not one-issue voters; certainly not any more. They need only a bare minimum of pro-Israel noises from their candidates and then move on to their liberal political religious obligations. These liberal Jews happily believe that the policies of Bill Clinton, such as propping up the likes of Yassir Arafat and making constant feel-good investments of blood and gold in “peace processes,” are the good strong medicine Israel needs to take. These are the children and grandchildren of the Red Diaper Babies and presidents of the Eleanor Roosevelt Fan Clubs of the Grand Concourse and Morningside Heights. They were raised in self-deception and cultural and religious confusion. Seen in their best light they, like Soros, are big on the rights of Oppressed People, the limitless advantages of concessions, negotiation and appeasement, and, of course, guilt over anything that smacks either of an excess of zeal in self-defense or a lessening of their esteem in the eyes of the goyim world opinion. In this regard they are not to be blamed — they are no worse, and no more contemptuous of their heritage and identity, than the ruling clique in Israel itself.

No, the problem for Democrats is that in Red America — in flyover country, the only states not already in one column or another — Israel is on the Good Side. In the general election, not only will all candidates have to tack to the center compared to their nomination run-ups, but they will have to satisfy audiences among the undecideds that they are not selling the Israelis down the river. GOP candidates, besides George W. Bush, don’t usually have that problem, and if the Democratic candidates cave on Israel — well, it is a only a matter of when; but if it happens now — count on the Republicans to exploit this in 2008. Will Soros’s selection have a response?

Posted in Orient, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

Crusade against neocons

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 20, 2007

Martin Kramer says at his Sandbox blog (and I paraphrase) that Jacob Weisberg must be dizzy after his dervish-like rotations in Slate on Bernard Lewis, in which Weisberg claims Professor Lewis soft-pedals the Crusades — anything to bury neoconservatism, which Weisberg pronounces very dead. Weisberg is so giddy over how the ocean of spilled Moorish blood has led to this development that, in his own turn at revisionist history, he pronounces that the”less principled, more effective pragmatism associated with Bush 41, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker” was… “more effective.”

Kramer demonstrates (hat tip to Soccer Dad!) that Weisberg is wrong on the first count. Is it really necessary to demonstrate that he’s wrong on the second? (Because if it is, I respectfully submit that it’s been done.)

Posted in Medialites, Orient, Past is prologue, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Big Fred

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 20, 2007

Mickey Kaus asks the question I’ve been asking:

Wherein lies the greatness of Sen. Fred Thompson? Just asking!

Me too. He’s being pumped like crazy by, for what it’s worth, some of my favorite bloggers. (Others are being characteristically skeptical — via IMAO!) But is this another case of mistaking the TV character for the person? Mickey continues:

All I remember is he was given custody of an important set of hearings–into China and campaign finance — and screwed them up. … He sounds good–in his John Fund interview he says lots of sensible things (especially about civil service protections). But ideally a presidential candidate has accomplished something–even if it’s only governing a state without steering it conspicuously into disaster. Obama hasn’t accomplished much [link added by me — RDC], but he’s only been in the Senate for two years. Thompson didn’t accomplish much in two years plus a full six-year term, no?. … I’d love to be wrong on this. Please tell me why. …

Big Fred

I can’t. But I can explain the interest: Conservatives are in the dumps because there isn’t a Reagan, or even the version of George W. Bush they thought they were buying, in this race. But what exactly it is that they see in Thompson is not clear unless, as I said, they are actually voting for a rich baritone voice, six-and-a-half-feet of USDA Grade A beef, and — here’s the kicker — his role as a fair but firm, if a little politicized, urban crime-fighter. And there are two problems with that. Kaus identified one:

P.S.: He’s a bad actor! I never believe he’s the character he’s playing (even when the character is essentially Fred Thompson). … 1:53 P.M

That’s not Fred’s fault. It’s the producers’ fault, for the absurd casting of a giant Tennessean in the role of Manhattan District Attorney. It’s like casting me in the title role of The Wilt Chamberlain Story. And the other problem?

It’s only make believe.

UPDATE: What’d I tell ya?:  “He might prove to be our Ronald Reagan Candidate.”

Posted in Americana, Blogophilia, Medialites, Politics and Poker | 11 Comments »

Surber channels ManBearPig

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 19, 2007

Don Surber gives Al Gore every benefit of the doubt and assumes that Al Gore will stick to his script, in which case, says Don, there’s nothing new — or particularly encouraging — to hear.

Posted in Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Running dog of success

Posted by Ron Coleman on March 15, 2007

I just wrote this at Likelihood of Confusion:

A website called the Great Firewall of China tests websites to see if they’re being censored in China.

To my disappointment, I don’t rate. And it’s not as if I haven’t tried to offend. More than once. A lot more.

Hat tip to Roland Dodds.

Yes, disappointing… but the good news is: This blog — featuring all of ten days’ worth of blogging, and none about China — is blocked!

What did I do right?

Thing is, in half an hour I’ll probably be uncensored again.

Posted in Blogophilia, Oppression, Politics and Poker | 5 Comments »