On Thu, 8 May 2008, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Specifically this part of your previous post, which you didn't quote:
> that the Cousin Pookie ploy was meant to promote "...his ability to pass
> stru[c]tural programs to help the ghetto." That's the part that is not
> going to happen. And you know that, so why say it?
"Meant" refers to intention. I'm making a case for what I believe he intends, and why it's a plausible interpretation of his intentions, and why it's a plausible strategy on his part.
That's not the same as saying he has the skilz to pull it off, or that the conjuncture is promising. He's got no proven skills at wielding power and the conjunction sucks and he's a Democrat fer crissakes.
The argument is whether the line of talk is itself inherently poison -- which a fair objection to make since it always has been in the past going back to the days of Queen Victoria. I'm arguing there's another way to interpret this time, as a new tack, at a new time, by a new guy, with different constellation of pluses and minuses. I'm not saying the new tack will succeed. I'm saying it's as plausible as any other tack. And all the rest of failed, so why not give this a shot. The worst that will happen is zip.
>> You saying "See, he's just like every other Democrat -- no worse no
>> better?" Because that wouldn't actually amount to an I-told-you so
>> moment. That's what I'm expecting too.
>
> So why twist yourself around trying to deny that he said what he said?
I'm not. You're just not listening. And if two guys like us -- old friends, and very smart, and very broad minded -- can't get to first base about this, who can?
I rest my case that there is something inherent in this debate that clouds people's minds on both sides. I think its the NOSD, but maybe there's some better way to explain it.
At any rate, I've given it my best shot and gotten absolutely nowhere. I'm giving up until I come up with a better idea.
Michael