No longer a November 7th election

And I just wish people would remember that this is the election before us.
I was astonished at fellow bloggers who wrote about yesterday’s debate: “a clear win for Cheney" (here) or “a quintessential draw” (here).

Were we listening to the same debate? We are not confusing it with the Lieberman-Cheney discussion of four years back, are we?

Because really, you’ll have to explain to me what you mean by that. A “win” (or “draw”) means different things for different parties. From the Democrat standpoint, a “win” for their party would happen if the debate did not derail the momentum from the last debate – a tough standard because Cheney appears knowledgeable (how he can have credibility at this point is beyond me, but for many voters, he does), much more in control, indeed more “presidential” than Bush. Nothing was derailed. Indeed, many news sources today applauded Edwards’ command of the facts, his seriousness, his attempts at setting straight the wild record that Cheney was flaunting. As a side note, even on the “let’s have another peek at our true blue (or red in this case) Cheney” front, Cheney lost points. So much has been written this morning about his petulance and disgruntlement. We now have George and Dick, the two angry boys who cannot believe that the country, indeed, the world would question their command of the playground.

To me, there was no doubt, then, that Democrats “won” what they needed to win last night.

A “win” for the Republicans would have happened if Cheney had managed to say something that hadn’t already been said by the GOP that would freshly cause one to feel enthusiastic about the same old same old stuff, both in terms of the economy or the war. It would happen if Cheney presented compelling evidence that would discredit Edwards’ or Kerry’s strong allegations. It would also happen if Edwards, the novice in the campaign, would appear stupid, uninformed, weak, etc. We know all about Cheney and his command of (illegitimate) facts. The spot light was on Edwards. The so-called ‘most embarrassing moment’ of Cheney stating “I am meeting you for the first time” turns out to be incorrect, foolish and not responsive to anything voters are worried about (remembering, too, that many many voters were happy to put Edwards on the presidential ticket).

The Republicans lost because they did not undo any of the damage from last Thursday, nor did they manage to let Edwards look bad. Their mission failed.

A draw would happen if both parities gained something or gained nothing. How can you think that this was the result? The Democrats gained by solidifying their momentum. They lost nothing. The Republicans, on the other hand, only rubber stamped a Cheney that we already know all too well, and they failed to get out of the swamp that GWB put them in. Even if you love Cheney (oh dear!), he is not running for president. His work was to make Bush’s lackluster performance look good after all. True, it, too, was an almost impossible assignment. I dare say, Kerry is skilled enough to have pulled it off, but Cheney could not (boost his running mate).

So where is the draw or the Cheney win? I must have been watching a different channel. I just called Charter and purchased upgraded cable. Maybe that’ll help for Friday’s debate – we’ll all be on the same page. Or screen.

Twenty-eighth street pre-election diary*

at 1 East 28th, you'll find plenty of pickles 

This post is all about pickles. How ever did the cucumber in brine come to depict “a jam,” as in “I am in a pickle”? Or “a muddle”? Or “a plight”?

I should imagine a brine bath would be restorative more than muddling. You know, in the spirit of preserving and rejuvenating, in the way that salt baths typically are. Thus perhaps a brine bath would be in order for a Vice President who, as the NYT today said, appeared “dyspeptic.” I know the references is to “disgruntlement,” but for me, it connotes a man with severe indigestion. I flashed back and imagined Cheney squirming with the kind of heartburn you experience from eating too many pickles. It is maybe in anticipation of this uncomfortable digestive issue that the Republicans, in negotiating the terms of the debate, insisted that the two men remain seated at a table.

As to who is the better “preserved” candidate? It is no secret that Edwards looks far younger than his 51 years. But if we stay with the pickle metaphor as implying a muddle or a plight, I would think that the older gentleman last night found himself in one time and time again. It is hard, after all, to stand in support of a platform which has put this country in the pickle that it finds itself in at the moment – here and abroad. Thus, if you actually listened (or read this morning, as I did) to the substance, I think the brine is swirling around the older one. Um, we all do listen to the substance, don’t we? Don’t we?

On 28th street there is a pickle shop, run by a man who moved to NY from Turkey some while back. He loves New York, he loves his pickles. I found the place by chance, but now I am a complete fan. Yes, it reminds me of pickles I used to buy from barrels in Polish grocery stores. Poles are fussy pickle eaters. None of this sweet vinegary stuff you buy in jars here for your burgers. We like ‘em brined and seasoned with fresh dill. But in this NY place of pickles you can get something I have never tried before: chocolate-covered pickles. It is amazing how many ways you can get into a pickle and how many ways you can get at a pickle.

(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post)

a pickle for every occasion 

Tango

Wow, that was an interesting debate, wasn’t it?
I watched couples practicing tango at Union South.

Excuse me? You see yourself as a serious observer of the political process and you are telling me you watched tango dancers tonight?
Isn’t that the same thing? Do you understand tango at all? It’s intricate, improvisational, fluid, one leads, another follows, it requires skill and a straight face.

But you saw no politicians tonight?
You might say Fred Risser and I dined together. Both he and I ate at L’Etoile. (He sat at a different table.)

Okay – point blank: did you watch the debate?
Yes. A portion of it. Nothing that I saw changed my mind about the capabilities of those who were debating. You have to remember, in the primaries, I voted for Edwards.

Twenty-ninth street pre-election diary*

29th and 5th: think positive! think good outcome 4 weeks from today! 

I am about as unlikely as anyone to quote Norman Vincent Peale. I was, indeed somewhat surprised that the city honored Peale by “naming” a street after him, though given his influential “positive thinking” messages after World War II and his large following, I suppose one can find reason for the honor. Peale spent a great many years at the pulpit of the Marble Collegiate Church, seen in the background of the photo, at 29th and 5th. Who did his message appeal to? Well, Nixon was a fan (his daughter, Julie, then used the church for her wedding to Dwight), as was Trump, who married Ivana here back in the 70s.

(Across the avenue, btw, in a different league altogether is the Little Church Around the Corner, known to those who are Woody Allen fans at the time of Hannah and her Sisters)

Is there a Peale quote that one can pull for today's political landscape? Certainly. The man lived a long time and had a lot to say. Here’s one notable line:

Part of the happiness of life consists not in fighting battles, but in avoiding them. A masterly retreat is in itself a victory. (Norman Vincent Peale)

(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)

Greetings to you, too!

As I entered the Faculty Lounge this morning, a senior colleague greeted me with:
Hello, Swedish-born wily law prof!

I have the following Q: is there anyone in the entire law building who still does not know that I am Polish?? Wow. And I thought I mentioned it with every sentence.

As to the ‘wily’ bit:
Howe'er with wily freaks your heads be stored (La Fontaine), think wiry!

Or, if I am to be wily, let me recall Lord Byron here:

"Alas!" replies the wily child
In faltering accents sweetly mild;
"A hapless Infant here I roam,
Far from my dear maternal home.”

Which is in Poland. Not Sweden.

Thirtieth street pre-election diary*

30th: a simple, humble marking 

A quiet day, I hope. Early in the morning I read the NYT story about a quiet Republican from Rhode Island (here), Senator Chafee, who is NOT going to vote for Bush on November 2nd.

Quote of the day thus comes, for me, again from a Republican. First the backdrop then the quote itself:

Yet the Rhode Island senator said he was angry himself- at what he regards as broken campaign promises by the current occupant of the White House. He said Mr. Bush's promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" resonated with him, as did Mr. Bush's remark in a 2000 debate that the United States would have to be humble, not arrogant, to be respected in the world.

"As soon as victory was achieved came people with a completely different agenda than being humble," he said. Asked if he regretted supporting the president, he said, "I regret that some of the answers to important questions weren't more forthright and that there wasn't more adherence to campaign rhetoric."

(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)

For those who missed it…

No, I'm not referring to the debates this week. I'm thinking of the story that was circulating in the NY Sun (here) and the International Herald Tribune (here). Now that the name Kwasniewski is familiar to 61 million Americans (Bush mentioned the Polish president twice in the course of the debate), I want to note here that Kwasniewski is one of the front-runners to replace Kofi Annan when Annan’s term is up in two years.

What, you think it’s too soon to be mentioning a replacement? Hey, if Jay Leno could announce the new host for the Tonight Show five years hence, we may certainly speculate who the new leader will be at the UN.

Of course, many are denying that Kwasniewski is a real contender. They have to. The conventional wisdom is that early-mentioned front-runners are just a smoke screen for the real candidates. In reality though, Poland has a real shot at it. Why? The cynical reason that has been offered is that the United States has to agree to the selected person. The same United States that is tired of having Kofi Annan publicly state to the General Assembly that the US has violated international law. The same United States that loves loves loves Kwasniewski’s unwavering loyalty to American foreign policy (no matter what the policy is, or who articulates it). The less cynical explanation is that Eastern Europe has never had a turn at heading the international organization. The closest Poland itself came to leading the UN was in the 1970s when a Pole was selected to serve as under-secretary general. Yes, well, I’ll let it go at that. There’s obviously a juicy story there, but not one for this post.

Another frontrunner now, btw, is the Iranian President, Khatani. Is this ludicrous? According to the NYSun, an American diplomat commented: "We had a Nazi, why not a representative of a terrorist state?" (The reference here is to the Austrian Kurt Waldheim, secretary general during the 1970s).

Thirty-first street pre-election diary*

a simple sign on a quiet, I hope, Sunday 

Thirty-one days before the election and I am going to write a post about why I do not especially like cats. If you are a cat person, go ahead and get angry. I know people are really devoted to their animals. I was amused the other day when a cat owner said to me – “oh, my cat is different, he’s really more like a dog than a cat.”

That says it all, doesn’t it?

Several of my neighbors have cats and because I have many places where birds rest in my yard, the cats are often here, waiting. Look at this creepy animal, photographed by me just five minutes ago.

you're telling me that this is the face of a friend? 

Once, during some social gathering, I was complaining about the cats in my yard. I don’t want to alienate my neighbors, but I do wish that if carnage is to take place, it would not happen in my bird-populated yard. I understand the laws of nature, I just don’t always want to participate in the destruction of the weaker species. I eat meat occasionally, isn’t that enough of a bow toward Darwinism?

The hostess of said social gathering laughed and said yes, indeed, you can’t keep a cat from doing what nature imbued in him (she has a tomcat). Her cat cannot be restrained, she tells me. He goes out each night and preys. He is, she says, a predator.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thirty-one days before the election and I am very much aware of the role of predators in this presidential race. Webster on line says this about predators: “one that preys, destroys, or devours.” I think I’ve come across some this week-end. I am now using this post to announce again: I do not, for this reason, feel warmly about cats. It seems to me that harboring predators is unhealthy.

(If you have tamed your cat to diffuse –rather than encourage – his or her aggressive tendencies, you are forgiven. In fact, you have entered the realm of sainthood as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care if it flies in the face of nature. Aggression should be tamed.)

(*see “forty-second street pre-election diary” post, September 22, for explanation of post title)