Friday, October 27, 2006

If You Could Choose

1 – Democrats win the House, or the Senate?

When I discussed this with my friend Sam (who responds to these regularly) a couple of weeks ago, we disagreed. He preferred the House for investigative purposes, I preferred the Senate for judicial appointments. Upon further review, I go with the House. The House under the GOP has been a right-wing extremist body, forcing all bill negotiations to the right. A Democratic House would change that, although not as much, since the Dems seem to be getting their victory with the aid of many very conservative candidates in the South and Midwest. Also, given that the Dems Senate majority would include the scummy Joe Lieberman, there would be little real control of the judicial vote process.

2- Which tossup Senate race would you like the Dems to win most?

As of this moment, there appear to be five Senate races that are tossups – from East to West: NJ, VA, TN, MO, MT. Late advertising has turned things around in NJ and Tester’s shrinking lead in MT have moved them into that category. From my viewpoint, the Missouri one is the biggest by a lot. This has been a clean race, mostly because these two candidates are clearly separated ideologically. This is a relatively liberal Democrat against an extremely conservative Republican and would be a huge pickup for the Dems, as well as a key border state win. Next on my list would be New Jersey, where a loss would be awful, undoing the turnover in Rhode Island and installing a fresh moderate Republican in a state where Dems should control. Virginia would be nice, since getting rid of the racist Allen would be a good thing for America. On a purely philosophical basis, I’d probably prefer Montana to Tennessee, as Ford is very conservative on social issues, but the Republican campaign in TN has been so scummy that a win for Ford would be a good lesson to them.

3. Jennifer Aniston or Angelina Jolie?

Okay, this is a fantasy question, since none of us will have this choice. Still, I’d go with Jen. I know Angelina is hotter, and certainly a good person, as her U.N. work indicates, along with her adoptions; but I find Jen more accessible, she certainly is funnier, and has far fewer tattoos. I also am not into visiting countries that require me to get anti-malaria vaccines. So Jen it is – next time, we can address the choice between Charlize Theron and Uma Thurman.

4. Win in Iraq or win in Afghanistan?

Okay, this is another fantasy question, since we each have a better chance with Jen that the U.S. does of winning in Iraq. But if we define winning down far enough, maybe we can make the choice. As the Taliban gradually retakes Afghanistan, we find ourselves in the embarrassing (and frustrating) position of losing back a country to the guys who supported Al Qaeda – who actually were responsible for 9/11, unlike Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, as Iraq descends into chaos, we find a failed state with the ability to destabilize the region and in the North, create a dangerous situation involving Turkey. As awful as the return of the Taliban would be, Iraq has oil and that sort of tips the balance. Hell, we can always blow up Afghanistan again – it’s only Afghanistan.

2 Comments:

Blogger samG said...

A thought provoking set of choices.
1. I thought I said the the Dems were more likely to win the House. I think I would prefer to win the Senate for the reason you mention as well as the fact that it has a higher profile (with less than 25% of the House membership) with recognizable and powerful names. On the other hand, I would fell very nervous about having a 51-49 advantage when our caucus includes Lieberman, Sanders, and Ben Nelson.
2. My first reaction is/was VA. First of all, Allen is a bigot with eyes on the presidency. Secondly, it would good if former military men thought the could win on the Dem ticket (unlike Wesley Clark and Paul Hackman). Finally, VA appears trending moderate thanks to immigration and migration to northern VA and a win here could turn a red state in to purple.
3. Since its all about fantasy, then its Angelina exactly because she is so inaccessible. On the othe hand Jen, is one of very few women who can pull off being funny and sexy.
4. The idea that we can 'win' either of these conflicts (I'm not sure 'war" applies) is not a concept I understand. I don't know what winning means. Installing, or propping up, a govt lasts as long as we have a military presence. Once we leave (a la Haiti), the govt stability is out of our control.

1:13 PM  
Blogger Barry Rubinowitz said...

1. Then we've switched positions -- which is what makes us such reasonable guys.
Sanders?? You're worried about Bernie? His only problem with the Dems is that they aren't liberal enough.
I'm actually going to write something in the next day or two about potentially fractious Senators -- look for it.
2. Allen's Presidential hopes are gone with the macaca. Wes Clark might have won something if he started a little lower. Paul Hackett might have beaten DeWine, but was screwed by the DSCC, as Shumer first recruited him, then dumped him in favor of Sherrod Brown. All in all, I'm less certain of Webb's positions other than Iraq than of McCaskill's and I'd really like to end up on the right side in MO.
3. I wouldn't have asked if the answer was obvious.
4. When you invade someplace and people are still getting blown up, it sounds like a war to me.

3:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home