Comments on: Campaign Shocker! Times Endorses Democrat!

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:55:45 +0000

Pawn Shop, Sublime.
Empty Arms, SRV.
Little Bit of Sympathy, Robin Trower.
Ball and Biscuit, White Stripes.

I had best stop there…

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:28:30 +0000

re: #13 – Where the Streets Have No Name, U2
How Soon is Now, the Smiths

By: peter

peter — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:40:13 +0000

Switching gears from the sublime back to the ridiculous (politics): this week’s Economist reports that at least 27 newspapers which endorsed Bush in 2004 have endorsed Obama. So the Times endorsement, while entirely predictable, is simply part of a consensus.

By: peter

peter — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:28:50 +0000

It was available yesterday without subscribing.

However, enough of politics and time to shamelessly hijack this thread. I was thinking this morning of which songs have the best opening chords. I came up with the following list:

Satisfaction
Light My Fire
Sunshine of Your Love
Piece of My Heart
Layla
Pinball Wizard
the reprise version of Sargeant Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band

I picked the last one as my personal favorite. Ringo’s drumming: you just can’t beat it.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:12:55 +0000

And you know what kind of argument Krauthammer makes even though you can’t access the piece?…

By: peter

peter — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:30:21 +0000

I can’t access the Krauthammer piece because it requires signing up to their site — and I get enough spam as it is — however I would answer your question this way:

A cogent argument would look at the problems we face and show why John McCain has solutions to them. Since McCain’s positions are largely indistinguishable from Bush’s positions — shown not only in 90% of his Senate votes but also in his frequent remarks that “in the great issues of our time” he is in agreement with Bush — then logically speaking a cogent argument would have to posit either that a) a continuation of Bush’s programs will somehow solve the problems which they created or b) McCain had one or several epiphanies and is now a completely different person. I don’t think that either argument could be made.

I would be interested in seeing a strong argument for McCain — if one could be made — but Krauthammer does not do this. His argument is based largely on personal preference rather than reasoned argument. He ignores the obvious problems with a McCain Presidency – most notably a Palin Vice Presidency – and he seems to make his case reluctantly rather than out of genuine conviction. If his is the strongest case Republicans can make for McCain, it seems pretty thin to me.

By: steve

steve — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:30:11 +0000

Thinking about this some more, you asked for an example of a “cogent argument” for McCain, the implication being that such a thing does not exist. Well, I say that is what Krauthammer makes in the referenced column. How do you define “cogent”? You don’t accept his argument, fine, (I suspect there is no argument for McCain that would be made that you would accept) but it is an argument for McCain that I say meets the standard definition of “cogent”. Your quibbles with the points of his argument are irrelevant to the question.

So, I restate my position: you were looking for someone to offer a pro-McCain argument as an excuse to make your case against McCain, not because you sought knowledge or dialogue. Right?

By: steve

steve — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:53:45 +0000

Haha, fair enough!

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:55:41 +0000

Not really — but you did ask if I agreed with Krauthammer & I didn’t want to wimp out –

By: steve

steve — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:38:29 +0000

oh, i see, you just wanted an invitation to tell us why you won’t vote for mccain! jeez, why didn’t you just say that?