Category Archives: presidential politics

This is the impression I got from the debate. Click on the video here for a wonderful remix of the debate. Continue reading →

Julian complains that he can’t find a copy of the debate on any p2p network he’s looked for. Does anyone know of one?
Here’s an eDonkey link:2004
Presidential Debate (John Kerry and George Bush).avi Continue reading →

I saw only part of the debate last night, but the part I saw was consistent with this Gallop poll indicating Kerry won the debate, 53% to 37%. Yet according to “US Press”: the debate was a tie.
Was it a tie? Or is it just impossible for the press to appear anything but “neutral”?
Update: Here’s a report from The Times (UK) with a nice summary of different views, some neutral, others not. Continue reading →

So CBS thought it was appropriate to run a stupidly irrelevant story about what the President did 30 years ago. It got busted by the bloggers when it turned out that its sources were bad.
Now CBS has decided that it is inappropriate to run a story about the Iraq War so close to the election.
So let’s see what CBS believes the word “appropriate” means:
It is appropriate to run a story that has nothing to do with the President’s current ability to run the nation, and that offers nothing at all helpful or informative about policy decisions we Americans are supposed to make.
But it is inappropriate to run a story about perhaps the most important policy decision the President made, which, if people understood more, would directly affect their judgment about the President’s ability to run the nation.
Why CBS thought the guard story appropriate, I have no idea. But they could only think it inappropriate to run a real and relevant news story if it is as false and ridiculous as the guard story.
If it is a false story, then they should never run it. But if the story is true, then the failure to run it is the purest act of cowardice. Just the sort of “news” we get when the media is controlled by a few suck-up giants. So CBS thought it was appropriate to run a stupidly irrelevant story about what the President did 30 years ago. It got busted by the bloggers when it turned out that its sources were bad.
Now CBS has decided that it is inappropriate to run a story about the Iraq War so close to the election.
So let’s see what CBS believes the word “appropriate” means. It is appropriate to run a story that has nothing to do with the President’s current ability to run the nation, and that offers nothing at all helpful or informative about policy decisions we Americans are supposed to make.
But it is inappropriate to run a story about perhaps the most important policy decision the President made, which, if people understood more about, would directly affect their judgment about the President’s current ability to run the nation, and that would help people think about our policy decisions.
Why the former is true, I have no idea. The latter could be true only if the story CBS intends to run is as false and ridiculous as the one it did run. If it is a false story, then they should never run it.
But if the story is true, then the failure to run it is the purest act of cowardice. Again, shame on CBS. Continue reading →

Sorry about the slow posting this week. But just so you don’t think I’m lazy: I spent the week debating William Tucker in the Legal Affairs debate club. Continue reading →

According to an article in the National Journal Tech Daily (9/23), Bruce Lehman claims he is on the Kerry Technology Committee, but is “playing a relatively minor role.” The article quotes an unnamed source that he “is not part of Kerry’s core group of tech advisers.”
But whether core or fringe, why is he part of “tech” advisers at all? Lehman’s policies did more to encourage the war on technology that these past 8 years have seen than anyone else in DC. Let him serve on the “last century protectionists” committee. Indeed, make him the chair.
Lehman says he finds it “really sad — pretty sad” that I had criticized him on this blog. (No confirmation which.) And just to show how effective I’ve been in getting my point across, Lehman is quoted as saying: “[Lessig] seems to believe you can have a post-industrial economy without any copyrights.” Oh yes. That’s exactly what I believe. I’m also a Marxist, and commune regularly with Chairman Mao. With insight such as this, I can see why he’d be such a valuable member of the Kerry team. Continue reading →

So as I reported earlier, two people whose integrity I would not question told me that Bruce Lehman had told them that he, Lehman, was now advising the Kerry Campaign on IP policy. Now two people, whose integrity I would not question and who have direct connections to the campaign, tell me that is not correct. Let’s hope. Continue reading →

Making Torture Legal, a story by Anthony Lewis about an issue that ought to be an issue in this issueless campaign, is the best of its kind that I’ve seen. It was referred to me by an Israeli friend. As he said to me, “of course there is torture in Israeli prisons, but there is nothing remotely as bad as this.”
Truth, and justice. May it again be the American way. Continue reading →

So, shamefully, I’ve contributed to this irrelevant question blog (“Mr. President, how many times have you been arrested?”), but I can’t begin to describe fully how depressing this presidential campaign has been.
Why do we waste attention on these ridiculous questions?
I’m sure Mr. Bush’s record was nothing to be proud of — his drinking problem is well documented, and these things go together. But I’m also sure he is no longer that man — and for anyone who has seen someone overcome that demon, you know the courage this requires. So I really don’t care how many times he was arrested, I don’t care if he used power to escape his obligations in the Reserve — whether he should be our President depends only upon whether the policies he will pursue are good for this nation.
Likewise, re Mr. Kerry: I am sure he demonstrated unimaginable courage in volunteering to serve his country in an unpopular war, and then mustering the courage to articulate brilliantly the reasons why that war was wrong. But we’re not electing a captain for a military unit — if shots are fired, he will follow orders, not give them — and while it would be great if he could find a way to articulate why this war was wrong, the presidency is not a reward for great Senate testimony. Whether he should be our President depends upon whether the policies he will pursue are good for the nation.
So why can’t we actually talk about the conflict in these policies? I’m confident about that choice, but I would love my view to be challenged by real arguments, and a focus on real issues. CBS almost seems proud of their idiotic story. Shame on CBS. Shame on us. Continue reading →

That‘s certainly how the GOP convention seemed to me, though maybe I’m just too “sensitive.” But this certainly was a different convention from the GOP convention at which I was a member of the Pennsylvania delegation (indeed, the youngest member of any delegation) in 1980. That the was the Party of Jack Kemp. This is the Party of Zel Miller (!). Continue reading →