PDA

View Full Version : Obama knows what he is talking about.



Pages : [1] 2

George.
04-14-2008, 10:43 AM
Religion is, indeed, the opium of the masses. And religion is heavily abused by populist US politicians, who get people to vote on non-issues like school prayer or the teaching of evolution rather than on practical economic issues where they are getting screwed.

Once again, a US politician's need to play the devout Christian comes back to bite him. Pretending to be on God's side is one field where W is better than O... :D

elf
04-14-2008, 11:05 AM
Hmm. Who do you think is pretending here?

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 11:10 AM
He sure does. Here's a book you might be interested in, George.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Matter_with_Kansas

The coalition is showing cracks, however. All of the people some of the time . . . .

elf
04-14-2008, 12:44 PM
And the voters know he knows.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106504/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Numbers-Holding-Strong.aspx

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 12:51 PM
Another interesting statistic:

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/040908DemSupport1_adfaeghpc350cgs2.gif

Chris Ostlind
04-14-2008, 01:00 PM
Ultimately, this is a sad statement as to where America might be going in the future. With huge differences in academic testing from around the world for science and technological issues, the United States is clearly headed for an economic drubbing, Internationally, that will make the Industrial Revolution look like child's play.

George.
04-14-2008, 01:20 PM
No, the US is not going to take an economic or intellectual drubbing. It will, however, be a two-standard country. For some, education, innovation, and income. For the rest, ecclesia et circenses.

Kaa
04-14-2008, 01:46 PM
No, the US is not going to take an economic or intellectual drubbing. It will, however, be a two-standard country. For some, education, innovation, and income. For the rest, ecclesia et circenses.

LOL. Don't you mean panem et circenses? It's not a bad deal for many, too.

Besides, your two groups are to a certain degree self-selected.

Kaa

peb
04-14-2008, 01:55 PM
LOL. Don't you mean panem et circenses? It's not a bad deal for many, too.

Besides, your two groups are to a certain degree self-selected.

Kaa
I am pretty sure that George. said exactly the patin phrase he meant.

Kaa
04-14-2008, 02:07 PM
I am pretty sure that George. said exactly the patin phrase he meant.

If so, culti et circenses might have been a better word choice, or one might classify religions as a subtype of circuses anyway :-)

I still think that the panem part is kinda an important one...

Kaa

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 02:18 PM
And the voters know he knows.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106504/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Numbers-Holding-Strong.aspx

Selective, biased listening as usual. Two polls are tracking the national election and to quote Gallup requires you also quote Rasmussen.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain leading Barack Obama, 49% to 42%. The presumptive Republican nominee also leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 43%.

Obama's arrogance I understand, but y'all are also an unikely group of elitists to poormouth working people.

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 02:34 PM
From The Huffington Post's David Kuhn:


April 13, 2008
Obama's Great Mistake, The "San Francisco Democrat"

By David Paul Kuhn

It's difficult to underestimate the enduring impact of Barack Obama's "bitter" remark. The day after John Kerry blurted that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" Vice President Dick Cheney ripped into the Democratic nominee and GOP strategists were already envisioning a new ad featuring the gaffe, intent on undercutting Kerry's character as a flip-flopper.

That week, four years ago, there were no banner headlines in major American newspapers declaring a turning point in the presidential race. Soon after the remark Kerry took a break from the campaign and skied at a resort in Idaho, a trip that added the air of elitism to Kerry's already sundered grit.

The Bush campaign had effectively won the campaign. It was only mid March.

In time we will know the gravity of Obama's recent comment that many Americans in the small towns across the Midwest "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment" because they are "bitter" over economic anxiety....

Manufactured disgust, all too prevalent in our politics today, should not be mistaken for the legitimate disgust. Obama has caused some legitimate disgust. And he should heed that disgust, and heed it fast.

But so far he is not. Instead Obama stays true to character, tepidly combative and totally cool. Obama has stood by the remark. He has said that he could have been more rhetorically tactful -- a defense reminiscent of Kerry's explanation.

Political attacks work when they reinforce real perceptions. They become narratives when built on enough anecdotes. And those attacks can become critical when they seem to confirm long-held partisan stereotypes.

Obama has just provided what may prove to be the keystone in the arc of Republican attacks. Obama expounded Saturday on his remark. "Everybody knows" that his comment "is true," Obama stated. There are "a whole bunch of folks in small towns" who "feel like they have been left behind."

That is true. But that's not the issue now haunting his bid for the presidency.

Obama inferred that rural Americans stance on religion, guns, or immigration is an outcome of economic determinism. The line of thought: Middle American Joe struggles to make his bills, Democrats don't offer economic answers, Republicans con Joe to care more about cultural issues than answers, and GOP dominants the White House for four decades.

What's The Matter With Obama's Words, Not Kansas

"They don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them," Obama said, in an attempt to contextualize his remark. "So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns" or "gay marriage" or "take refuge in their faith."

To many liberals this all makes perfect sense. Indeed Obama's perspective is the prevailing viewpoint in Democratic circles. And this is what's the matter with a party that has accepted "What's the Matter with Kansas" as gospel.

No book has more influenced Democratic thought in recent years. The premise is that because Democrats stopped representing working and middle class voters' economic concerns, "dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans they have left themselves vulnerable to wedge issues."

Obama has merely reiterated the lesson Democrats have taken from Republicans victories in seven of the last ten presidential elections. The crux of the argument is that American liberals should become more like European liberals in order to win back America. The book was a case for Democrats to convince voters to think more in terms of cash than culture. Frank argued Democrats should emulate the economic populism that failed to win any of William Jennings Bryan's three bids for the presidency.

But that's merely poor tactics. What is always so offensive to regular Americans is the presumption that if she is offered better tax policies she won't care any longer about abortion. And the viewpoint holds from one issue to the next: offer rural white men rhetoric that reminds them that they are working class and he'll accept that the Second Amendment only referred to militias.

Then there is the exhibited ignorance. Families who struggle financially care more about moral values because they are more likely to experience the breakdown of the family. In other words, cultural issues are not a substitute for economic concerns, as Obama argues, but inseparable from folks economic struggle.

All of this is exactly the sort of mistake Democrats have been making for decades. How many times can some leading liberals live up to the culturally elitist charge without considering that perhaps there is some electricity behind the charge?...

Obama's base among white voters is disproportionately from liberals and those who have at least a college education. His Ivy League biography, even his professional manner, personifies his largest bloc of white support....

To boot, Obama already had problems with small town voters. In the Appalachia region of Ohio, Clinton won over 65 percent of the vote. Obama has put out advertising in Pennsylvania to emphasize that his values are the same as regular folks' values. But then this comes out. It appears Obama misunderstands how regular Americans arrive at their values.

History Does Not Repeat, But Liberals Ensure it Rhymes

That Obama's bitter remark occurred before a crowd of wealthy San Francisco Democrats made his gaffe all the more sophomoric. The progressive party never seems to look back enough.

It was not the first time Obama lived up to Jeane Kirkpatrick's branding of "San Francisco Democrats." Reminiscent of Michael Dukakis and the pledge of allegiance, Obama stopped wearing a flag on his lapel because it "became a substitute for" what is "true patriotism." Michelle Obama's aside about her newfound pride as an American, watching this race, didn't help matters. Neither did the video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The patriotism mistakes will matter. He is not doing much to refute Kirkpatrick's other zinger from that same 1984 speech: that Democrats are supposedly the "blame America first" party. But I'm not sure any of those mistakes, even Wright, will matter as much as the bitter remark. After all, it came from Obama.

At some point Democratic intellectuals need to come to the consensus that they did not get defeated in recent decades simply because Republicans "framed" issues better, or appealed better to voters emotions, or because Democrats have not found their inner Bryan. Every cycle there is an "it theory" popular within the Democratic chattering class.

Now there is some truth to each thesis. But not the great truth: Democrats lost their majority because they lost touch with that "silent majority." Richard Nixon may have been paranoid but paranoids are not always dumb. Some of this "silent majority's" concerns were not sexist, or racist, but wholly real and as Obama himself has said, based in authentic distress.

"So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time," Obama said in his race speech.

Indeed, Obama was explaining that sometimes Democrats mistake the color of the issue for the issue. We are a nation defined by our original sin of slavery and therefore, slaves to that racial worldview. We so often see race where class exists. Similarly, many liberals misperceive values politics. They so often see cultural stances for their worst manifestations while ignoring their best.

Guns become tools for murder rather than occasions for fathers and sons to hunt. Abortion is always about limiting a woman's autonomy rather than differing views on life. Concerns over illegal immigration are based in xenophobia rather than, at least sometimes, a valid desire to expect future immigrants to abide by the same rules as those immigrants from the century before.

Now there was some truth to Obama's argument. A recent Democratic administration did not sufficiently stand up "for those who work hard and play by the rules." NAFTA ended up making life much worse for so many of those hard workers, the bulk of which were the white working class men that Democrats needed to win back -- Bruce Springsteen voters.

It is also true that people struggling economically care more about the competition born of labor-class immigration, just as the Irish were concerned about the competition from freed slaves following Reconstruction. It is why today many blacks are equally concerned about competition from Hispanic immigrants.

Those who are struggling know the brutality of the bottom, as John Updike describes it, and therefore they will take almost any stance and most any step to keep one step ahead of that bottom.

But that does not mean that there are not valid law and order concerns over illegal immigration, or that it is not advantageous to emphasize English immersion for cultural cohesion and to empower immigrants to rise up the economic ladder.

Where Obama and many Democrats go wrong is describing cultural stances as outcomes of hard times, rather than principled, joyful, well-intentioned, or long treasured family traditions. Reality lingers in both theories. But Democrats too often mention the worst and forget the best, as Obama did....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/obamas_great_mistake_the_san_f.html

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 02:55 PM
Some of this "silent majority's" concerns were not sexist, or racist, but wholly real and as Obama himself has said, based in authentic distress. "So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time," Obama said in his race speech.

Indeed, Obama was explaining that sometimes Democrats mistake the color of the issue for the issue. We are a nation defined by our original sin of slavery and therefore, slaves to that racial worldview. We so often see race where class exists. Similarly, many liberals misperceive values politics. They so often see cultural stances for their worst manifestations while ignoring their best. Good point. Don't worry, Obama can handle this. He knows exactly what's going on, and will be able to use this to widen the fault lines in the coalition begun by Nixon. Folks are starting to catch on.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 03:43 PM
. . .there is only a very limited amount of truth that a presidential candidate can utter in a national election. Perhaps. I think we underestimate how much, although the average has been pretty low lately. It appears that Obama can sometimes say fairly complex things clearly enough that people listen and think, rather than stringing together eight-second slogans.

elf
04-14-2008, 03:51 PM
The Presidential debates will destroy McCain.

carioca1232001
04-14-2008, 03:57 PM
.......Obama's arrogance I understand, but y'all are also an unikely group of elitists to poormouth working people.

If there is something about a person that turns me off, it is arrogance ! Obama arrogant ? Don´t think so, but I could be wrong.

These last few days I have been in the company of US friends of mine from 30 years ago, the gent a late 40´s Stanford-educated lawyer and the lady, a Berkeley-educated odontologist.

Low-key, soft-spoken types. Sensible lot, not the sort to be judging others in reckless fashion.

They were pro-Obama.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 04:03 PM
The problem, of course, is that the opposition needs only an eight second clip, out of context, to fire back.That's how it's been done for quite a while. I dont think that tactic works as well any more.

Obama will wipe the floor with McCain in the debates. McCain will stammer and stumble and wander and contradict himself and sound like Herbert Hoover on a bad day.

skuthorp
04-14-2008, 04:03 PM
It's gonna be interesting, it may be that Obama is too good for the US electorate, in which case the country will get the Pres it deserves no matter who wins, and I'd reckon McCain, and therefore the status quo, looks like they might crack it from here. Especially whilst the Dems destroy themselves.

carioca1232001
04-14-2008, 04:08 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. Obama is a superb orator.... but actually not all that good in a debate context. ........

I feel the same way. Unimpressive performance during the Hillary-Obama debates.

peb
04-14-2008, 04:31 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. Obama is a superb orator.... but actually not all that good in a debate context. The thing which is in his favor is the fact that he's got relatively little history to be used as fodder, while McCain has a boatload of history.

I agree with Norman for once. Obama may beat McCain, but I would be surprised if it is because of any debate performance.

Gonzalo
04-14-2008, 04:32 PM
Best not underestimate McCain. He isn't the greatest debater in the world but he landed some good ones during the Republican primary debates. He is a smart man, and he has been around a long time. He did win the Republican nomination after the conventional wisdom counted him out several times.

For McCain the debate expectations will be low, so all he has to do is act tough on national defense and not trip over himself to give people confidence that they can safely vote for him. That is what W. had to do in his first debate with Gore in 2000--not sound too stupid. Many skeptical people took that to mean he wouldn't make a terrible president even if he wouldn't be a brilliant one. (They were wrong, but that is another story--debates can be deceptive.)

Obama, on the other hand, will have high expectations against him simply because he is so articulate. One stumble, one mistaken fact, one trip over his tongue, or one McCain zinger could seriously count against him in a way that the same kind of thing would not count against McCain.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 04:42 PM
Hmm. You may be right. I generally don't listen to debates because they're so truncated and stupid, and I get very irritated, so I don't have much to go on here. John's point about expectations is, alas, probably right.

elf
04-14-2008, 05:10 PM
Obama is young. If we don't get him this time, he will have left a trail of young Americans of all colors fired up about making an impact once whoever wins has a single term.

I predict that he will do a whole set of things to keep that enthusiasm going and get it focussed. Already he's taking some of his money and establishing an Organizing Fellows program. He is not intending to be a flash in the pan, and he is intending to win the presidency twice.

In addition, I predict that he will use his even tempered personality to help those young people work for the other Democrat and keep their faith with him.

My sense of him is that he is not short sighted and he does actually care about his country in a different way than our usual politicians.

At this point my only wish is that he could manoeuvre this final primary debate into dealing with substantive topics.

George Roberts
04-14-2008, 05:22 PM
"Obama is a superb orator"

A good speaker can support either side of an issue with the same ease.

One would like a speaker who supports the "right" side of the issues. They need not be a great speaker. Not even a good speaker.

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 05:52 PM
If there is something about a person that turns me off, it is arrogance ! Obama arrogant ? Don´t think so, but I could be wrong.

These last few days I have been in the company of US friends of mine from 30 years ago, the gent a late 40´s Stanford-educated lawyer and the lady, a Berkeley-educated odontologist.

Low-key, soft-spoken types. Sensible lot, not the sort to be judging others in reckless fashion.

They were pro-Obama.

They sound exactly like Obama types. Well-educated white elites.

But fortunately that's not who he needs to get elected. He needs the people he's been insulting when he thinks he's out of earshot spouting his Marxist drivel to other elites.

“Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people." Or, “Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes.”

With Rasmussen showing McCain ahead 49 to 42 against a tighter Obama Gallup margin of 46 to 44, Obama can't continue to piss off the political center if he expects to win in November. Wright is #1, God and Guns are #2....what's next?

And I'm the one who's reckless? LOL Y'all are thinking like smitten teenagers.

carioca1232001
04-14-2008, 06:11 PM
Rasmussen reports and Gallup poll findings are the real tangibles for the candidates running in the upcoming US Presiential election. No question about that.

In my larger family, which is meant to include not only my parents but all my uncles and aunts, the whole ging-bang if you prefer, one notable member was discreetly (for obvious reasons) non-religious.

He was of the finest sort, though. No one ever doubted that, in the family or out.

I am not viscerally opposed to people who point out some rather striking observations about the role of religion in our lives.

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 06:14 PM
Don´t think so, but I could be wrong.


Here's how national elections really work:


John McCain is in very good shape for the general election run. The Republicans have landed on the one candidate in their party
ideally suited for the race this year, with broad appeal among Democrats and independents, a veteran and war hero during a time
of war, a candidate with a reputation for being a straight talker (and not talking down to voters, or outright lying to them), and with real strength in larger swing states. McCain is also benefiting from the fact that the Democrats continue to snipe at each other rather than at him, and each candidate has exposed weaknesses in the other, which become ammunition for McCain in the fall campaign.

McCain opens up the map to a broader Electoral College victory than George Bush achieved in 2000 and 2004, particularly against Barack Obama. Though Bush won 30 states in 2000 and 31 states 4 years later, the loss of any state Bush won in 2000 would have given the election to Al Gore, and the shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have resulted in a John Kerry victory.

The polls

Though there are more polls being generated this year than ever before, only two organizations are currently tracking national head-to-head matchups between McCain and either Obama or Clinton: Rasmussen and Gallup. My preferred poll is the Rasmussen survey, even though the Gallup survey has a larger daily sample, because Rasmussen also frequently conducts state polls, and has the tightest likely voter screen. The latest four day results from Rasmussen give McCain an 8 point lead nationally over either Clinton or Obama.

Putting together a win

The goal of a party is first and foremost to win, which means getting to 270 Electoral college votes. The popular vote margin is a secondary issue (though bigger margins give the winner more of a national mandate, and help the party's candidates down ballot). Al Gore won the popular vote by 0.5% in 2000, Bush by 2.4% in 2004. In the Electoral College, George Bush won 271 in 2000 and 286 in 2004. Only three states: Iowa, New Mexico and New Hampshire shifted from 2000 to 2004, the first two moving to the GOP, New Hampshire to the Democrats.

At the start of this seemingly interminable Presidential campaign, Democrats saw a very favorable Electoral College map. With Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, Democrats believed they could turn many states from red to blue, including Ohio (20), Florida (27), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Colorado (9), and possibly Arizona (11), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), and Missouri (11). But Clinton is unlikely to get the nomination.

Barack Obama is a far weaker candidate in many of these targeted states, but in particular in Ohio, Florida., Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia. McCain takes Arizona off the table against either nominee. Obama is polling better than Clinton in the competitive southwestern states and Iowa, as well as in Oregon, but trails badly in Virginia, which has elected a string of Democrats in recent years to statewide office. Some Democratic Party officials have written off Florida if Obama is the nominee (in some surveys he trails in the state by 10% or more, though he only trails by 4% in the Rasmussen survey). The Rasmussen survey shows McCain with a 7% lead over Obama in Ohio. Obama lost badly in that state's Democratic primary (by 10% to Clinton) winning only 5 of 88 counties. Now having insulted rural voters for their attachment to guns and God, the state has become even less friendly turf for him.

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.

It is worth noting that many of Rasmussen's state surveys were conducted before the collapse in Obama's national numbers this week. Rasmussen now shows Clinton 1% ahead of Obama in the Democratic race, after being 10% behind Obama a week ago, after her Bosnia lie became the story of the prior week. Obama led McCain by 1% five days ago, and now trails by 8%. That is equivalent to a shift of 5 million votes from Democrat to Republican (a ten million vote margin shift), in part to be sure attributable to Obama's well-publicized statement on rural voters at a San Francisco fundraiser.

Obama's Electoral College problem is that his strongest states, where he runs better than Clinton, are states where the Democrats are still likely to lose, though maybe a bit less decisively with Obama at the top of the ticket. These states include deep South states with high African American percentages of the population: Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and some central and western states with very few black voters: Nebraska, Kansas, Montana, Alaska, and the Dakotas. Losing a state by 10% rather than 20% still collects zero Electoral College votes. On the other hand, Obama is running ahead of Clinton in some states the Democrats have been winning regularly of late: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, and Maryland, which adds no Electoral College votes to the Party's count. In general, Obama is running better among white voters in states with few black voters, and worse than Clinton among white voters in states with higher percentages of blacks.

It is a long way 'til November, and the Arizona Senator could be hurt if the economic downturn is deeper and longer than most economists expect it to be, or if the Iraq situation starts to unravel again. The Democrats are likely to have a large money advantage in the fall campaign. But they may also have a candidate tied to Reverend Jeremiah Wright ,and his anti-American rants, and a candidate and his wife who can't seem to escape appearing to be condescending to those not of their social/economic/educational class.

None of this will matter to those on the left, or to young people who are buying Obama's content-free but well delivered messages on hope and change. But to many Americans in the "flyover zone" who do not live for politics, but still vote every four years, John McCain may appear to be more tested, and a safer choice in troubled times than his young, and untested opponent. At least that is what the polls now show.

Bill Clinton, hardly a novice at politics, said last year that John McCain was the GOP's best candidate for the general election this year. In November we will know if best is good enough for the GOP this year.
Richard Baehr is the chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/mccains_electoral_college_math.html

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 06:17 PM
. . . spouting his Marxist drivel . . . Marxist drivel? :rolleyes: This could only be written by either a fool or a propagandist. Come on, Bob, don't hold back; pull out the stops, heat up the rhetoric some more. Obama hates America! Obama's a North Korean agent! Obama sold nuclear weapons to Al-Qaeda! Obama stomps on hamsters! Obama peed in my coffee! Obama's the Antichrist!

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 06:26 PM
Marxist drivel? :rolleyes:

Marxist drivel. With racism thrown in for added insult.

".... they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

“... Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people."

And true to form, Obama borrowed the idea from Thomas Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas, who borrowed it from Karl Marx.

The notion that hard times cause rural Red staters to cling to guns and religion is also completely, hopelessly and incredibly stupid. Of course we've all noticed that when times are good, Pennsylvanians and Kansans abandon both their deer rifles and their religion.

I find it difficult to believe you are buying into this crap.

Joe (SoCal)
04-14-2008, 06:45 PM
Ummmmmmmmmmmm Bob ya ummm ya dont like Obama do ya ?

Duncan Gibbs
04-14-2008, 07:01 PM
Joseph MacCarthy is dead Bob. Move on...

Saltiguy
04-14-2008, 07:14 PM
A-B-C
ANYBODY but Clinton

abbyj
04-14-2008, 09:09 PM
I find it difficult to believe you are buying into this crap.

Thank God they do, and will continue to do so. It's time to start planning McCains inauguration, and I am already making space on the fridge for the White House Christmas cards from John and Cindy :D:D:D:D:D:D

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 09:38 PM
By Obama logic, when times are good the sale of hunting licenses and the weight of weekly collection plates drops dramatically in rural America. State Game Departments and supporting state agencies experience massive layoffs and churches fold by the hundreds. What's most amazing is how he gets his supporters IQs to drop sufficiently to believe this kind of nonsense.


Obama doesn't understand a great deal of America. He has no experience with it other than as a politician looking for votes, and even that experience outside of Chicago has been accumulated only since he began his run for the U.S. Senate in 2003. His life has made him keenly aware of urban dysfunction and of African-American issues even as it has exposed him to the Third World in a way that very few American officials have been.

But he is blind to what makes most American communities work. His family experiences and his work experiences have never immersed him in the majority of America that not only functions but indeed thrives. His projection on to that America of his own beliefs -- that odd mix of the beliefs assembled during his very unusual childhood, in Hawaii's most privileged school, on Chicago's south side, and at Columbia and Harvard Law School and Trinity's congregation-- has opened a lot of eyes to just how different Obama's vision of America is.....

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/476297ad-3801-43d7-a670-bb68b3f58741


In the mean time Obama's participation keeps coming up in the Rezko trial testimony and Jeremiah Wright continues to sermonize his brand of divisiveness. Gifts that keep on giving.

http://weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6437

Stevenson, Hart, Dukakis, Kerry...."critics rather than a celebrators of middle-class American culture....liberal Democrats who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting"........what they have most in common is they all lost.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/988uusqe.asp?pg=2

Woxbox
04-14-2008, 09:53 PM
The notion that hard times cause rural Red staters to cling to guns and religion is also completely, hopelessly and incredibly stupid. Of course we've all noticed that when times are good, Pennsylvanians and Kansans abandon both their deer rifles and their religion.



Agreed.

But it's also true that even if those ivory tower types from other states do speak the truth about our private lives here in rural Pennsylvania, we are offended. If anyone's gonna open the doors to our closets, it's gonna be us. Keep your hand off that knob!

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-14-2008, 09:54 PM
By Obama logic, when times are good the sale of hunting licenses and the weight of weekly collection plates drops dramatically in rural America. State Game Departments and supporting state agencies experience massive layoffs and churches fold by the hundreds. What's most amazing is how he gets his supporters IQs to drop sufficiently to believe this kind of nonsense.

In the mean time Obama's participation keeps coming up in the Rezko trial testimony and Jeremiah Wright continues to sermonize his brand of divisiveness. Gifts that keep on giving.

http://weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#6437

Stevenson, Hart, Dukakis, Kerry...."critics rather than a celebrators of middle-class American culture....liberal Democrats who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting"........what they have most in common is they all lost.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/988uusqe.asp?pg=2

The Weekly Standard is Bill Krystol's right-wing rag. A newspaper of record it ain't. Krystol was one of the Neocons that tried, unsuccessfully, to get Bill Clinton to invade Iraq. Krystol and Pearle and the rest of that mob aren't playing with a full deck.
If you keep reading cheezie stuff like TWS you may start to imagine GW Bush deserves to get his moosh on Mt. Rushmore.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 10:05 PM
By Obama logic, when times are good the sale of hunting licenses and the weight of weekly collection plates drops dramatically in rural America. State Game Departments and supporting state agencies experience massive layoffs and churches fold by the hundreds. What's most amazing is how he gets his supporters IQs to drop sufficiently to believe this kind of nonsense.LOL! :D Bob, you should go into comedy, really. You don't write for The Onion, do you? You construct a fantasy which only vaguely resembles anything Obama has ever said, and then criticize his supporters for believing such nonsense. Well, you're right, it's nonsense, but it's your nonsense, not Obama's.

Nope, your boys have had the run of the place for a while now, and the results are becoming clear to more people all the time. "More of the same, only not quite so stupid" is probably not the most effective campaign slogan, but McCain's got nothing else. And the days are past when you can spin one remark into an effective smear campaign; people have caught on.

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 10:05 PM
Bill Krystol's right-wing rag. A newspaper of record it ain't...

....If you keep reading cheezie stuff like TWS you may start to imagine GW Bush deserves to get his moosh on Mt. Rushmore.

Kristol is regularly published in the NYT's, which I also take.

And by all means join the lightweights who when they can't think of an argument on the subject at hand, they attack the poster. I like the tantrums best.

CGrant
04-14-2008, 10:08 PM
Joseph MacCarthy is dead Bob. Move on...

Hi Duncan,

You can't do any better than accuse Bob Smalser of being a McCarthyite because he recognizes a Marxist point of view?

It surely seems that you leftists allow your arrogance to supercede anything that passes for intellect.

Very boring and so predictable.

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 10:09 PM
LOL! Bob, you should go into comedy, really.

More lightweight drivel as a distraction. Here's the subject matter. Pretty frigging close for a century of separation.


Marxist drivel. With racism thrown in for added insult.

".... they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

“... Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people."

Michael Beckman
04-14-2008, 10:12 PM
I can't wait till this damned election is over and you people get sensible again. This forums gone downhill as the election gets closer.

C. Ross
04-14-2008, 10:18 PM
OK, let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt, assuming that small town midwesterners are perfectly right to be bitter. (Presumably for all the nasty things the Republicans have done to them, and because Sen. Clinton insists on playing to their worst instincts.)

This was just bad political communications. It's shocking because he's been running such a disciplined, high-road campaign. Here's why I think it'll stick. He talks about the people whose vote he wants, instead of to them. Strike one. He tags them as bitter gods n' guns anti-immigrant racists. Ouch! What was he thinking?! Strike two. And consider how this exactly positions himself as an opposite: small town (Chicago/Harvard), guns (a ten year old questionnaire where he favors gun control just surfaced), god (Rev. Wright), immigrant/not-like-me (hello? Mission control to Mr African American Hawaiian funny name candidate.). Strike three.

I honestly think that Obama is ticked that he can't put Clinton away and blurted stuff thinking about her. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, even though I disagree with him on a bunch of issues. Maybe he can turn this gracefully into a case for revival of the rust belt towns whose residents he (unintentionally) insulted. That might play in Shaker Heights, but not in Youngstown. He's got a lot of work to do. If he doesn't campaign hard in less-educated, white, blue collar, traditional, religious communities he loses in the primaries or general election.

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 10:34 PM
Ooooooh - "lightweight drivel"! I cringe in abject terror! :D

I really suggest you learn a couple of new insults, Bob, "drivel" is getting old.

Are you actually claiming that the portion of the Republican party that represents monied interests has NOT exploited religion to get people to vote for them? Or that anti-immigrant sentiment has not been exploited in exactly the same way? And that "He'll take away your guns!", despite being completely false, has not been used against every Democrat in living memory? And that there's no bitterness and no misdirected search for scapegoats? Oh, no - it's all wonderful and God Bless America! Look at how cheerful and satisfied all the right-wingers in the bilge are!

Vote for McCain! More of the same only not so stupid! We'll get it right this time, really!

One point: Small-town and rural folks mostly won't vote Democratic anyway. Here are the 2004 election results by county (shades of puple indicating the percentage of the vote). Note that you can identify every major city by the blue blob.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinear.png

And if you make area proportional to population, you get this. About 58% of the US population lives in cities over 200,000 according to the last census, and 69% in cities of 50,000 and up. Rural population is abut 20%.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

pcford
04-14-2008, 10:41 PM
And that "He'll take away your guns!",



Excuse me, it's not just a gun......They are GOING TO STEAL THE LITTLE COLONEL!!!

These guys....they could be a little less obvious.

pcford
04-14-2008, 10:42 PM
I can't wait till this damned election is over and you people get sensible again. This forums gone downhill as the election gets closer.

Yes.....let's bring back some teenage sexual angst!!!

C. Ross
04-14-2008, 10:51 PM
Look at how cheerful and satisfied all the right-wingers in the bilge are!

One point: Small-town and rural folks mostly won't vote Democratic anyway. Here are the 2004 election results by county (shades of puple indicating the percentage of the vote). Note that you can identify every major city by the blue blob.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countymaplinear.png

And if you make area proportional to population, you get this:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/countycartlinear.png

Actually, I'm pretty happy Keith. Thanks for noticing! :)

That map is incredible. (I think it might be a horsie, or a goldfish...) The truth is that not many people live in small towns or rural areas anymore. But there are a lot of big small towns in the midwest, or people who identify with smaller town. I'll stick by my earlier post -- people don't like to be insulted, and the words read as an insult regardless of the intent or the good will of the speaker. I also think Obama is too smart not to take action.

Michael Beckman
04-14-2008, 10:53 PM
beats repetitive squabbling

Keith Wilson
04-14-2008, 11:00 PM
Actually, I'm pretty happy Keith. Thanks for noticing! But I wouldn't call you a right-winger; center-right at most, quite moderate, really. If the Republic party was run by folks like you I would probably vote Republican sometimes.

I agree that Obama will take action. The flap over Wright resulted in one of the best speeches I've ever heard on a very difficult subject, so I'm looking forward to seeing how he'll handle it. (Bob will call it "Marxist drivel", no doubt.)

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 11:02 PM
Are you actually claiming that the portion of the Republican party that represents monied interests has NOT exploited religion to get people to vote for them? Or that anti-immigrant sentiment has not been exploited in exactly the same way? And that "He'll take away your guns!", despite being completely false, has not been used against every Democrat in living memory? And that there's no bitterness and no misdirected search for scapegoats? Oh, no - it's all wonderful and God Bless America! Look at how cheerful and satisfied all the right-wingers in the bilge are!

And of course you are suggesting Democrats also don't exploit the minorities, the immigrants, the illegals, name scapegoats et al? C'mon. And you think I'm one sided?

If you think Obama gets either rattled or cocky and says things he doesn't really mean against Hillary, just wait til he meets the real tough guys. Watch him follow the path of other elitists like Stevenson, Hart, Dukakis and Kerry and lose because he pisses off the middle. Like Kerry, fielding candidates likely to lose is a disservice to the country.

Here's the bottom line: If you can’t beat a 71-year-old with funding problems and a fractured base in a year like this, with a vastly unpopular Republican war still ongoing and a Republican recession looming, what precisely is the point of you?


Among independent voters, according to Gallup, McCain leads Obama by a spread of 42-29 and Clinton by 48-23.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/45997/index1.html

Duncan Gibbs
04-14-2008, 11:08 PM
I think the answer to this debate is somewhere between what Chris and Keith have both just posted.

As far as Marx being misquoted (again:rolleyes:) here's the full version so that his REAL meaning can be understood:


Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

To derive from this that Marx was against religion is just nuts. One has to remember that at the time Marx wrote this opium was not seen the same way as it is today. It's use as a medicine for those in pain was widespead, as laudenum was before opium. Far from being anti-religious Marx is actually advocating religion as a way of binding a community together and improving its chances of seeing its way through hardship and oppression.

Bob is correct in so far as saying that religion will more than likely not be dropped once hardship passes by. This is not to say that people on the right of politics have not, are not and will not use scapegoats, wedge issues and general fear-monggering to whip up a little agro hysteria to direct at their political opponents as a means of landing blows in a popularity contest, such as elections are.

Say it isn't so Bob! :p;)

This is also not to say Hillary hasn't used such techniques either: She obviously has. Obama seems NOT to have used the wedge and the wedge directed at him seems to have not worked as initially hoped for so far. We will find out soon enough!

Paul Girouard
04-14-2008, 11:08 PM
I see the Reverend gave a nice eulogy the other day :rolleyes: Can't Obama shut that guy up ?

Bob S. good point:eek: About the beatin the old guy with little funding thing :D

pcford
04-14-2008, 11:15 PM
As far as Marx being misquoted (again:rolleyes:) here's the full version so that his REAL meaning can be understood:


Hey!! Quit trying to confuse these guys with the facts!!

Duncan Gibbs
04-14-2008, 11:18 PM
I'm sorry!! It won't happen agin Mr Ford!!! :D:p:D;):D

pcford
04-14-2008, 11:22 PM
Here's the bottom line: If you can’t beat a 71-year-old with funding problems and a fractured base in a year like this, with a vastly unpopular Republican war still ongoing and a Republican recession looming, what precisely is the point of you?

An average of the last few polls shows McCain to be up .04. One poll shows Obama up by 2 another by 5.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

And....it's not general election time yet.

Always check out the sources that the Colonel uses. He is a slippery devil. He must think we are not too bright.

C. Ross
04-14-2008, 11:36 PM
Watch him follow the path of other elitists like Stevenson, Hart, Dukakis and Kerry and lose because he pisses off the middle. Like Kerry, fielding candidates likely to lose is a disservice to the country.

Here's the bottom line: If you can’t beat a 71-year-old with funding problems and a fractured base in a year like this, with a vastly unpopular Republican war still ongoing and a Republican recession looming, what precisely is the point of you?

Bookmark this one. The "better than you" path is poisonous. Doesn't matter if it's Obama taking on poor white trash, or a guy on the right saying he's on god's side. By all rights and leading indicators McCain should lose, but he's even or ahead depending on the poll or the day.

This ain't over yet.

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 11:44 PM
....He must think we are not too bright.

Not at all. It's your listening skills I'm concerned with.

The poll I quoted was of Independent voters. The middle Obama isn't doing so well with.

Bob Smalser
04-14-2008, 11:57 PM
As far as Marx being misquoted (again:rolleyes:) here's the full version so that his REAL meaning can be understood:



And who is it that omits sources? C'mon. There are 50 more exactly like this if you want to see them. The pith of Obama's statement to the pith of Marx's statement. Religion is something peasants cling to because they need illusions. Whether Marx or Obama approved of religion is moot....it's still demeaning, elitist thinking.


Marxist drivel. With racism thrown in for added insult.

".... they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

“... Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of a soulless condition. It is the opium of the people."


Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/marx01.htm

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people [Emphasis added]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_People

Duncan Gibbs
04-15-2008, 12:27 AM
Bob, It matters not a tinker's cuss where you find the FULL quote of Marx's: From the net of from worn pages of an original edition in German. It matters more that one uses the FULL quote, and understands what Marx is actually saying. To call it drivel is only opening yourself up to the same accusation. And to nit pick between translations is only opening yourself up to being accused of mindless pedantry.

Read the quote again and you will notice Marx ALSO calls religion "the heart in a heartless world," and "soul/spirit of a soulless/spiritless condition/situation/nation." Also note the differences in how opium was thought of at the time Marx wrote the words and how it is viewed now. Also note the word "needs" as in necessary or required.

And don't confuse Marxism (which is a form of social and economic analysis, many elements of which are still used by market place capitalists as an invaluable tool to judge form and outcome) with communism which Marx and Engels set out as a manifesto, or with phenomenology, (which is the philosphical stream Marx was wading into with this, his most famous "quote.")

At any rate you're doing eactly what Obama suggested happens with the statement you're contending: Setting up religion as a bastion from which any comment you disagee with appears to be bunkum.

Bob Smalser
04-15-2008, 12:46 AM
At any rate you're doing eactly what Obama suggested happens with the statement you're contending: Setting up religion as a bastion from which any comment you disagee with appears to be bunkum.

And you still don't understand. What's important isn't your doctoral dissertation on how Marx is misunderstood or my opinion of it, but how middle-of-the-road voters view Obama's elitism when his and other leftist quotes line up so nicely. Obama is vulnerable here and he's digging himself deeper.

This comes form an anti-McCain article written by a Democrat:


....Similarly, by calling Obama a liberal, the Republicans are impugning his character by calling him a phony. In his recent speech in Washington, Rove, after pummeling Obama as a liar (for what he sees as various biographical embellishments), a would-be tax raiser, and a surrender primate on Iraq, lit into him as a fraud for his pretenses of post-partisan leadership. “During the three years he’s been in the Senate, anytime there has been a big bi-partisan effort”—on judges, terrorist surveillance, war funding, immigration—“where was Senator Obama on any of those big fights? I’ll tell you where he was. He was over there up against the wall, ironically watching everything go on and voting ‘no.’ ”

Naturally, the Republicans’ attempts to define Obama as too liberal will extend to the cultural realm. They will portray him as elitist, effete—highlighting Harvard, Hyde Park, and his gutter balls on the bowling lanes of Pennsylvania. They will tar him as arrogant, pointing to the helpful comment once coughed up by his wife: “Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics.” (Deign to enter?) And, no doubt, they will slam him as insufficiently patriotic, calling attention to everything from his eschewal of an American-flag lapel pin to his failure to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem at a campaign event in Iowa.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/45997/index3.html

pcford
04-15-2008, 12:50 AM
Not at all. It's your listening skills I'm concerned with.

The poll I quoted was of Independent voters. The middle Obama isn't doing so well with.

But isn't the more important fact that the total number of voters have no clear preference over several polls at this date....with the fray not having been joined between McCain and Obama yet.

Or do only independents vote in the general?

Bob Smalser
04-15-2008, 12:55 AM
But isn't the more important fact that the total number of voters have no clear preference over several polls at this date....with the fray not having been joined between McCain and Obama yet.


Not as important as it'll be when the primaries are complete. It's the middle where Obama is vulnerable....moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats and Independents. It'll be real interesting how many Hillary supporters switch to McCain after Obama wins.


The pollster Scott Rasmussen tells me that Obama is already trailing McCain among white male voters by a whopping margin of 57-33—and that in both swing states and others, such as Virginia, that Democrats hope to capture, there has been “significant deterioration for Obama” and “a dramatic change in McCain’s favor” since the Wright imbroglio erupted.

What makes these developments all the more disconcerting, of course, is that they’re taking place even before the GOP has sunk its teeth into Obama. Not long ago, I’m told, Bill Clinton was talking to a friend about his wife’s rival and made an interesting observation. The way Republicans beat Democrats, he said, is by turning them into caricatures—citing John Kerry, Al Gore, and Dukakis as examples. The reason that he, WJC, had survived is that he’d aggressively labored to deny them the opportunity. He’d been able to say, wait a minute, I don’t fit in the box you’re trying to stick me in. The problem with Obama, Clinton went on, is that he’s tailor-made for the container that the Republicans are devising in which to bury him.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/45997/index3.html

pcford
04-15-2008, 01:35 AM
Not as important as it'll be when the primaries are complete. It's the middle where Obama is vulnerable....moderate Republicans, conservative Democrats and Independents. It'll be real interesting how many Hillary supporters switch to McCain after Obama wins.


By the way, you do realize that NY Magazine is an opinion journal? Your above C&Ps are one guy's opinions, no more no less. I do understand that you think that the WSJ editorial board gains credibility because of its aggregative view. You said several guys are smarter than one or something like that.
This gnores the divergence between the excellent reporting in the Journal and its highly suspect editorial board.

The final fact will appear next Novermber. In the meantime the best we have are polls...the rest is just bloviating by you, me, some guy in NY Magazine or the WSJ editorial board.

And these polls are not supporting your point of view.

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2008, 03:30 AM
Ehhhhhhm Bob ya dont like that Obama none do ya ?

Keith, Pcford, & Duncan are doing a fine job battling the "drivel" in the end its a horse race and Bob all your polls can tell you that "Dewey Wins" but I think, and A LOT of people think this Obama guy is gonna win, then what are ya gonna do with all your vaulted WSJ and whosiewhat polls? Day after the election those and your opinion won't mean squat.

Then most likley he will be in office for 8 years at the end of that I would like to hear your opinion. ;)

Duncan Gibbs
04-15-2008, 03:32 AM
And you still don't understand. What's important isn't your doctoral dissertation on how Marx is misunderstood or my opinion of it, but how middle-of-the-road voters view Obama's elitism when his and other leftist quotes line up so nicely. Obama is vulnerable here and he's digging himself deeper.

This comes form an anti-McCain article written by a Democrat:

But I do understand Bob! Look at the start of what I say in post #53.

I want to know how "elitism" manages to work its way into just about every critique of a Democratic candidate who puts their foot on the starting line?

"He said what? Hmmmm.... get out a number 23! Throw in a quote from Marx for good measure!!"
I could also say the the way America defines itself on the World stage as "Leader of the Free World" as the most elitist statement you could throw a rash of bacon at!

At the end of the day, when people's mortgages are sending them under, they know someone or have a family member who was killed or wounded in Iraq, when they see Busheney ponsing around and lying through their teeth about how "fantastic the surge is doin'," when the price of petrol and food is going up and up and up, and so on and so forth, you can bet your top and bottom dollars that whoever gets the Dem's nod will rip into McCain's "steady as she goes" policies and attitude with bared teeth and daggers affray.

Also, the fact that McCain is in his seventies WILL play against him. IMHO, all three candidates are better than the current crop by eleventy million miles, but that wouldn't be hard. Let's just see, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, how much of a millstone Bush et al will be to McCains bid. I mean if the Rev. Wright caused Obama some discomfort I can only hazard a guess at what McCain has in store for himself.

George.
04-15-2008, 06:02 AM
If so, culti et circenses might have been a better word choice, or one might classify religions as a subtype of circuses anyway :-)

I still think that the panem part is kinda an important one...



Panem et circenses would be the Democratic strategy. Republicans are for free markets and can't be spending tax money on panem anyway - they need it to pay for the circenses of wars on various things.

George.
04-15-2008, 06:13 AM
By Obama logic, when times are good the sale of hunting licenses and the weight of weekly collection plates drops dramatically in rural America. State Game Departments and supporting state agencies experience massive layoffs and churches fold by the hundreds. What's most amazing is how he gets his supporters IQs to drop sufficiently to believe this kind of nonsense.


You didn't quite get the logic. You got cause and effect backwards.

By Obama's actual logic, when people vote based on non-issues like "they are going to let fags get married" or "they are going to take away my guns" or "they are going to teach my kids that we came from monkeys" - you know, what you right-wingers call "moral values" (:D) - the result is people in power that distract them with this stuff while screwing them over while getting richer. To an extent, the process can be self-reinforcing.

When people wake up and don't vote based on religion and guns, they often get periods of prosperity.

It's not what people do on Sunday that matters. It's what they do on Tuesday. That's what Obama meant.

Bob Smalser
04-15-2008, 07:12 AM
By the way, you do realize that NY Magazine is an opinion journal?

Your above C&Ps are one guy's opinions, no more no less.

I do understand that you think that the WSJ editorial board gains credibility because of its aggregative view.

This gnores the divergence between the excellent reporting in the Journal and its highly suspect editorial board.

The final fact will appear next Novermber. In the meantime the best we have are polls...the rest is just bloviating by you, me, some guy in NY Magazine or the WSJ editorial board.




New York Magazine is a "lifestyle" magazine with a liberal bent. New York The Magazine is its on-line edition. It's mainstays are Tom Wolfe, Gloria Steinem, Gail Sheehy, Jimmy Breslin, Gael Greene and Woody Allen. Right-wing idiots all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_%28magazine%29
http://nymag.com/

Like the NYT's, its an excellent liberal counterpoint to the conservative WSJ, which hasn't changed one iota in the 20 years I've been taking it.

All articles are written by just one person. Then they pass through a series of editors, sometimes an entire editorial board. The editors who pass wonderful articles are usually the same ones who sit on the editorial board.

I'm also glad y'all think Obama is a shoe-in and you have nothing left to do but gloat. So you thought of Kerry not long ago as I recall. The polls show Obama is having trouble with the middle he needs to win. Don't complain to me if you have to bend over and grab your ankles before its over.

Because liberals are pissed at Obama, too:


It has been sickening over the years to watch Republicans, who always rally to the aid of the country's wealthiest citizens, successfully cast themselves as pork-rind-eating, NASCAR-watching, gun-toting populists. To have the current White House occupant (Yale, Harvard Business School, son of a president) run as a good old boy should have been the final straw.

But here are the two remaining Democratic candidates, Obama by speaking carelessly and Clinton by piling on shamelessly, doing all they can to make it easy for Republicans to pretend one more time that they are the salt of the earth.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/clinton_obama_are_helping_mcca.html

Keith Wilson
04-15-2008, 08:35 AM
I'm also glad y'all think Obama is a shoe-in and you have nothing left to do but gloat.I don't. The fighting between Clinton and Obama is not helping, but it's it's a very long time until the election, and lots can happen.

"Elitism" has been a standard Republican attack line since before I was born, at least since the 1952 election; it's almost as universal as "They're going to take away your guns", and just as false. Again, people are starting to catch on, depite your best efforts. This is not entirely a sentiment confined to the left any more:
It has been sickening over the years to watch Republicans, who always rally to the aid of the country's wealthiest citizens, successfully cast themselves as pork-rind-eating, NASCAR-watching, gun-toting populists. To have the current White House occupant (Yale, Harvard Business School, son of a president) run as a good old boy should have been the final straw.

High C
04-15-2008, 09:09 AM
...I'm also glad y'all think Obama is a shoe-in and you have nothing left to do but gloat...


I think few believe that any longer. Heck, it's right there in most of the polls...President McCain. The days of Cuyahoga Chuck style hyper confident bombast are long gone.

They see Obama alienating a lot of people with his careless words and his strange associations...they can read the tea leaves.

Keith Wilson
04-15-2008, 09:14 AM
Heck, it's right there in most of the polls...President McCain. The days of Cuyahoga Chuck style hyper confident bombast are long gone.
No, it's not gone, it's switched parities. You just wait.

Vote McCain: More of the same but not quite so stupid!
Vote Republican: we'll get it right this time, we promise!

martin schulz
04-15-2008, 09:19 AM
From The Huffington Post's David Paul Kuhn...

Not bad...but he is much better as musician:

http://www.inandout-records.com/userfiles/kuhn_spezial.jpg

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2008, 09:20 AM
:p:p SPECTACULAR hypocrisy, all in the SAME SENTENCE!!!!!! :p:p

'President McCain' vs. 'The days of Cuyahoga Chuck style hyper confident bombast are long gone'.... this has got to be the BEST all time line I've ever seen in the bilge!!!!!


SPEW aint it funny Norman, you should have been around when HiC was front & center talking about all the black op's intel we were not privy too regarding WMD and invading Iraq. He was practically gushing over Powels UN speech. Now that funny, typical HiC :D

High C
04-15-2008, 09:24 AM
:p:p SPECTACULAR hypocrisy, all in the SAME SENTENCE!!!!!! :p:p

'President McCain' vs. 'The days of Cuyahoga Chuck style hyper confident bombast are long gone'.... this has got to be the BEST all time line I've ever seen in the bilge!!!!!

Desperate as ever to score a school boy's point, I see, but you've failed again. :rolleyes: Show us some recent Cuyahoga Chuck bravado in that special style that we've come to know and love. You'll not find it

I make no forecast, but am simply reminding those few of you left with your blinders on that the news and polling favors McCain. I don't like the guy, don't want him to be President, and probably won't vote for him. But he has already, pretty comfortably in hand, 260 of the necessary 270 Electoral College votes. Meanwhile the opposition shoots itself in the foot by insulting huge swaths of the electorate on a frequent basis.

Do you know what the word hypocrisy means. You misuse it with such frequency. Weird... :confused:

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2008, 09:27 AM
I make no forecast,

Spewwwwww :D

Norman ask him about the London bomber ? Oh he forecasted and blasted Ian for showing restrain and waiting for the facts to come in.

Bwaaaaaa ha ha ™ :D

High C
04-15-2008, 09:37 AM
...'Comfortably in hand', you say?...

That is not what I said. Editing my comment makes my point. You can't debate politely or honestly, so you spew, you guffaw, you impune, you laugh.

Congrats, big man! :rolleyes:

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2008, 09:38 AM
Congrats, big man! :rolleyes:

Ummmmmm someone get me a scale down in Slidell :p

carioca1232001
04-15-2008, 09:40 AM
.....Norman ask him about the London bomber ? Oh he forecasted and blasted Ian for showing restrain and waiting for the facts to come in.



Man, have you a memory ?

I recall Phillip Allen posting a thoughtful few lines on the issue and I got knocked for not being up to the mark in my written English !!

S.V. Airlie
04-15-2008, 09:42 AM
The bottom line is that Hillary does not think he knows what he is talking about calling him 'out of touch'.
The big question, is she gonna make people believe what she believes?

Joe (SoCal)
04-15-2008, 09:44 AM
Man, have you a memory ?

I recall Phillip Allen posting a thoughtful few lines on the issue and I got knocked for not being up to the mark in my written English !!

I keep a few pearls only because the NeoCons eat ****e like that up. Post the word "Kennedy" and time how long it will be before someone like HiC posts the word "Chappaquiddick" Post the word "Clinton" and see how long before "Lewinski" These people NEVER let it go, so neither do I. ;)

elf
04-15-2008, 10:12 AM
One thing seems certain to me. If the country puts another old guy or old gal in the White House this year, it will be the last 4 years for my generation. There will not be another 4 years.

Almost enough to make me vote for Hillary - to get this awful mess fully and completely over and done with.

High C
04-15-2008, 01:19 PM
.... can you explain the difference between 'pretty comfortably in hand' and 'comfortably in hand'?

Absolutely. The word "pretty", in this usage, is an expression of less than complete confidence, the opposite of arrogance. Compare that with C. Chuck's typical prose and note the contrast.

Perhaps it would be helpful to review the analysis of Electoral College posted in post #30 on this thread. Note that that analysis was written BEFORE Obama's troubles with his Pastor, and his careless reference to religious folks as bitter small town people took place.

carioca1232001
04-15-2008, 07:39 PM
.......These people NEVER let it go, so neither do I. ;)

Akin to Ping-Pong (table tennis) !

Osborne Russell
04-15-2008, 09:06 PM
I'm also glad y'all think Obama is a shoe-in and you have nothing left to do but gloat. So you thought of Kerry not long ago as I recall. The polls show Obama is having trouble with the middle he needs to win. Don't complain to me if you have to bend over and grab your ankles before its over.

I remember that well. The Democratic Party is extremely arrogant, stupid and cowardly.

But the problem isn't to win the middle so as it is to get them to pull their head out. Because their delusions are destructive.

Who is this "middle"? Is the GOP still the party of the Christian right and the neo-cons? It was they who declared war and have declared no interest in a negotiated settlement. In that posture there can be no winning over, only the defeat of one side or the other.

C. Ross
04-16-2008, 12:28 AM
"Elitism" has been a standard Republican attack line since before I was born, at least since the 1952 election

Well, at least it was an accurate attack in 1952.

I know that sensible Democrats are vexed by the fact that Democrats have only won 3 of the last 10 presidential elections, despite Democratic voter registration larger than Republicans in many years.

This isn't a bash Democrats post, but McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry are not candidates that resonate well with the middle class.

Maybe you read George Will's column on this subject? His argument is that Roosevelt was the last Democratic president who really admired the American culture and middle class, and that since then most Democrats see American culture as something to be changed, and the middle class as a group to be saved from victimhood not a group to be looked to for ideas and common sense. Seems to me that Clinton and Humphrey were the last Democratic candidates who seemed to really LIKE the people whose votes they sought. Does Sen. Clinton seem to care about people and eager to listen to them? I thought not. Sen. Obama is charismatic and may very well slip past this and connect with the folks he talked about, but he could go down the Kerry/Dukakis path as easily as the (Bill) Clinton path.

Keith, how about Ashwin Medea and Erik Paulsen in the 3rd district race? Now THERE is an attractive choice between two capable and decent candidates....

Duncan Gibbs
04-16-2008, 12:41 AM
All eminantely sensible comments Chris! Just one little thing though: The Chimp WILL be a millstone around McCain's neck. Don't believe for one moment that this won't be the fight of his life regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination. And that won't be the only issue he will face...

C. Ross
04-16-2008, 12:57 AM
Duncan, I expect to be annoyed by all the references to McCain as Bush III. My visible annoyance will be a source of great satisfaction to my lefty friends.

Duncan Gibbs
04-16-2008, 01:12 AM
Needless to say you do know that, despite the fact we both think he's a thousand times better than Bush, this WILL be the line of attack and it WILL be withering/relentless/damaging/insert your adjective here.

I just don't know how he will be able to counter it without alienating to 26% of your fellow citizens who think Bush is doing a fine job.

McCain has a VERY hard job ahead of him.

I suggest stoic resignation may be better than visible annoyance, as I cannot see how he will escape this bind. I'm sure his camp already have some form of strategy to at least try and deal with it, but for it to work (ie for McCain to win in November) it had better be utterly and astoundingly brilliant.

George.
04-16-2008, 05:19 AM
I just don't know how he will be able to counter it without alienating to 26% of your fellow citizens who think Bush is doing a fine job.



I hope whoever wins this election goes out of his way to alienate those people. Their influence in the Bush administration has wrecked the US and the world.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 05:26 AM
Well, at least it was an accurate attack in 1952.

I know that sensible Democrats are vexed by the fact that Democrats have only won 3 of the last 10 presidential elections, despite Democratic voter registration larger than Republicans in many years.

This isn't a bash Democrats post, but McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry are not candidates that resonate well with the middle class.

Maybe you read George Will's column on this subject? His argument is that Roosevelt was the last Democratic president who really admired the American culture and middle class, and that since then most Democrats see American culture as something to be changed, and the middle class as a group to be saved from victimhood not a group to be looked to for ideas and common sense. Seems to me that Clinton and Humphrey were the last Democratic candidates who seemed to really LIKE the people whose votes they sought. Does Sen. Clinton seem to care about people and eager to listen to them? I thought not. Sen. Obama is charismatic and may very well slip past this and connect with the folks he talked about, but he could go down the Kerry/Dukakis path as easily as the (Bill) Clinton path.

Keith, how about Ashwin Medea and Erik Paulsen in the 3rd district race? Now THERE is an attractive choice between two capable and decent candidates....

The suggestion that FD Roosevelt, an elitist's elitist, born to the purple, "was the last Democratic president who really admired the American culture and middle class" seems little short of astounding.

Wasn't there some fellow called Truman?

Oh, I forgot, Dewey defeated him, didn't he?

Edited to add:

I did go and read George Will's column.

The passage actually reads:

Michael Barone, in Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan, wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture — the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

Will was not suggesting that Roosevelt was the last Democrat to connect with the middle classes, and he was referring to Adlai Stevenson, not to Barack Obama.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 06:38 AM
Treating the middle class as a group to be looked to for ideas and common sense is called populism.

It does not have a good history... see William Jennings Bryan, Pierre Poujade and quite a few others.

George Will does his very best to create a straw man, invoking such Right wing hate figures as JK Galbraith, but it does not really come off.

Does anyone really suppose that Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln or either Roosevelt spent a moment "looking to the middle class for ideas and common sense" - of course they did no such thing.

elf
04-16-2008, 06:49 AM
You gotta watch out for that lower middle class black guy, however. He goes to a Bible Belting church and is bi-lingual. Speaks blackspeak and whitespeak too. Grew up on food stamps and ambition.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 07:21 AM
But the Colonel says he's elitist, you know,
And surely the Colonel can tell?

S.V. Airlie
04-16-2008, 07:24 AM
But the Colonel says he's elitist, you know,
And surely the Colonel can tell?

Col. Sanders..???

Gotta admit, he knew good chicken..;)

Duncan Gibbs
04-16-2008, 07:39 AM
Col. Sanders 11 secret herbs and spices:

Salt
pepper
msg
msg
msg
msg
msg
msg
msg
msg
msg

john l
04-16-2008, 07:40 AM
this elitist crap is analogous to my swong is bigger than yours. quite frankly anyone who has the time to research, record and spew out hatred, anger and misinformation is pretty darn elitist too. we need pudding and not hype. hype is not believable. it isn't credible. and i'm surprised that some real nuts and bolts respected intellect subcumbs to hard sell, hype tactics rather than facts and issues. maybe he is no different than others and simply is threatened by reality and trying to make issues where there are none. utilizing silly playground tactics to entice uneducated populace in an effort to
control is probably the ultimate elitist tactic and this is what the republicon is expert at. obama said what he did and it will at least
engage people not CON them.

carioca1232001
04-16-2008, 07:46 AM
Col. Sanders..???

Gotta admit, he knew good chicken..;)

Actually he might have, but as for the end product.....awful stuff !

S.V. Airlie
04-16-2008, 07:51 AM
no wonder!

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s307/tancook/chickens.jpg

carioca1232001
04-16-2008, 07:54 AM
I thought it was just the British who were imbibed with a sense of humour !

Duncan Gibbs
04-16-2008, 07:57 AM
Leftest! Elitest! Commo! Hommo! Fag! Baby Killer! Nanny! Marxist! and so on and on and on...

These are not terms of political discussion but rather attack nouns designed to obscure any clear expression of ideas or logic. They're put downs that mean nothing, other than signify unresolved, unproductive and irrational hatred.

Duncan Gibbs
04-16-2008, 07:58 AM
Pre-plucked Jamie?

carioca1232001
04-16-2008, 08:07 AM
On a more serious note, though, Obama´s (alleged) views on religion have incurred the wrath of some, big time. He has broken several taboos, one after the other.

If he does make it to the Presidency, he will need hand-picked Secret Service agents. Otherwise........

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 08:09 AM
Yes. Odd that Obama goes to Church and Hillary doesn't, isn't it?

elf
04-16-2008, 08:19 AM
On a more serious note, though, Obama´s (alleged) views on religion have incurred the wrath of some, big time. He has broken several taboos, one after the other.

If he does make it to the Presidency, he will need hand-picked Secret Service agents. Otherwise........

He already has hand-picked Secret Service agents - apparently twice as many as Mrs. Clinton.

Unfortunately, one can perhaps conclude from that fact that he's been receiving death threats - something which the older black generation here does fear.

If you wish to hear about his views on religion, you can hear them at the Compassion forum which happened last Saturday.

Here is part I of his appearance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTHtTy5wRYs

High C
04-16-2008, 08:24 AM
Yes. Odd that Obama goes to Church and Hillary doesn't, isn't it?

Odd that a man who himself attends church, and supports his own church quite heavily, would say about working class voters (which is most voters) "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion..."

Does he not cling to religion? WTF??? :confused:

C. Ross
04-16-2008, 08:34 AM
The passage actually reads:

Michael Barone, in Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan, wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture — the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

Andrew, I was quoting the Will article from memory and didn't get it perfectly right. So let's just go with Barone's version:

Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture

and

It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind (referring to some condescending remarks by Stevenson)

And you are right that I skipped over Truman vs. Dewey, which was absolutely an election of "common man" over "elitist". I was mesmerized by Barone's pairing of Roosevelt and Stevenson.

I think the general point has merit. Use the Republican example if you like. Dewey should have won, by all rights, given Truman's poor standing, but Americans felt he was a capable but cold and out of touch candidate. Same thing has been true in several succeeding elections. The US is clearly not a political meritocracy. I remember an obscure Saturday Night Live skit featuring a debate between Dukakis and Bush, and after some fumbling by "Bush" the "Dukakis" character says "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy..." Dukakis was the candidate that suggested Belgian endive as an alternative crop for midwestern farmers, who looked constipated and scared wearing a helmet and riding around in an armored vehicle. He lost because he was the Class Nerd more than anything else, IMO.

At least in my lifetime, Democrats have tended to run Presidential candidates who are smart, eager, rigid, and more than a little condescending. Clinton is the only exception, and Obama is just now emerging. We'll see which path he takes.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 08:35 AM
(in response to High C, above):

If I understand the reports of what he said, he was not saying that either guns or religion were wrong; he was saying that some people for whom life is not looking wonderful get bitter and cling to them.

I think there is a difference - religion and guns, are emotive subjects which can trigger a knee jerk response amongst people who have become embittered. That makes good sense, I think.

Bob Smalser
04-16-2008, 08:35 AM
Unfortunately, one can perhaps conclude from that fact that he's been receiving death threats....

Or he's afraid of the people he insults. I suspect we'da heard about the death threats.

I'm glad y'all libs finally found your messiah. He must be, to listen to your denial and nonsensical apologies for his elitism in the face of all the evidence otherwise. He "deigns" to run and we'll only have one chance to anoint...oops....elect him to save our broken souls is the one I like best.

Hell, even fellow lib Maureen Dowd of the NYT's thinks Obama's an elitist wuss out of touch with the middle.

Brie and white wine anyone?


Eggheads and Cheese Balls


By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: April 16, 2008

I’m not bitter.

I’m not writing this just because I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments and a passion for bowling. (My bowling trophy was one of my most cherished possessions.)

My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren’t bitter; they were bonding.

They went to church every Sunday because it was part of their identity, not because they needed a security blanket.

Behind closed doors in San Francisco, elitism’s epicenter, Barack Obama showed his elitism, attributing the emotional, spiritual and cultural values of working-class, “lunch pail” Pennsylvanians to economic woes.

The last few weeks have not been kind to Hillary, but the endless endgame has not been kind to the Wonder Boy either. Obama comes across less like a candidate in Pennsylvania than an anthropologist in Borneo.

His mother got her Ph.D. in anthropology, studying the culture of Indonesia. And as Obama has courted white, blue-collar voters in “Deer Hunter” and “Rocky” country, he has often appeared to be observing the odd habits of the colorful locals, resisting as the natives try to fatten him up like a foie gras goose, sampling Pennsylvania beer in a sports bar with his tie tight, awkwardly accepting bowling shoes as a gift from Bob Casey, examining the cheese and salami at the Italian Market here as intriguing ethnic artifacts, purchasing Utz Cheese Balls at a ShopRite in East Norriton and quizzing the women working in a chocolate factory about whether they could possibly really like the sugary doodads.

He hasn’t pulled a John Kerry and asked for a Philly cheese steak with Swiss yet, but he has maintained a regal “What do the simple folk do to help them escape when they’re blue?” bearing, unable to even feign Main Street cred. But Hillary did when she belted down a shot of Crown Royal whiskey with gusto at Bronko’s in Crown Point, Ind.

Just as he couldn’t knock down the bowling pins, he can’t knock down Annie Oakley or “the girl in the race,” as her husband called her Tuesday — the self-styled blue-collar heroine who reluctantly revealed a $100 million fortune partially built on Bill’s shady connections.

Even when Hillary’s campaign collapsed around her and her husband managed to revive the bullets over Bosnia, Obama has still not been able to marshal a knockout blow — or even come up with a knockout economic speech that could expand his base of support.

Even as Hillary grows weaker, her reputation for ferocity grows stronger. A young woman in the audience at a taping of “The Colbert Report” at Penn Tuesday night asked Stephen Colbert during a warm-up: “Are you more afraid of bears or Hillary Clinton?”

Even though Democratic elders worry that the two candidates will terminally bloody each other, they each seem to be lighting their own autos-da-fé.

At match points, when Hillary fights like a cornered raccoon, Obama retreats into law professor mode. The elitism that Americans dislike is not about family money or connections — J.F.K. and W. never would have been elected without them. In the screwball movie genre that started during the last Depression, there was a great tradition of the millionaire who was cool enough to relate to the common man — like Cary Grant’s C.K. Dexter Haven in “The Philadelphia Story.”

What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action — the same quality that got the professorial and superior Adlai Stevenson mocked by critics as Adelaide. The new attack line for Obama rivals is that he’s gone from J.F.K. to Dukakis. (Just as Dukakis chatted about Belgian endive, Obama chatted about Whole Foods arugula in Iowa.)

Obama did not grow up in cosseted circumstances. “Now when is the last time you’ve seen a president of the United States who just paid off his loan debt?” Michelle Obama asked Tuesday at Haverford College, referring to Barack’s student loans while speaking in the shadow of the mansions depicted in “The Philadelphia Story.”

But his exclusive Hawaiian prep school and years in the Ivy League made him a charter member of the elite, along with the academic experts he loves to have in the room. As Colbert pointed out, the other wonky Ivy League lawyer in the primary just knows how to condescend better.

Michelle did her best on “The Colbert Report” Tuesday to shoo away the aroma of elitism.

Growing up, she said: “We had four spoons. And then my father got a raise at the plant and we got five spoons.”

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 08:39 AM
(In response to C Ross):

I very much agree. I have been hoping for quite a while that Obama can replicate FDR's style, because I think that is what will be needed.

I think we are looking at something at least as grim as the 1930's, in both the USA and the UK, and I think the USA will need an outstanding leader who can not only assemble a good team round him but who can connect with the people. My hunch is that Obama can do those things, certainly better than the other two candidates can.

High C
04-16-2008, 08:43 AM
...If I understand the reports of what he said, he was not saying that either guns or religion were wrong; he was saying that some people for whom life is not looking wonderful get bitter and cling to them....


Yes, I agree that that was his message, I just find it extremely odd that a man who is himself quite a churchman would say anything even remotely critical or negative of others who are likewise. To equate church attendance with bitterness, or church attendance with gun ownership????

Maybe it was just a brain fart moment, though this guy doesn't often speak carelessly.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-16-2008, 08:48 AM
I think we are looking at something at least as grim as the 1930's, in both the USA and the UK

That is an interesting comment - is this the unwinding of the private debt mountain - the death of manufacturing - or is there something else?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 08:51 AM
(in reply to High C)

yes, I agree.

I think this is the quote (I got it from the London Times website, it may be incorrect) :

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And it’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Interesting that "antipathy to people who aren't like them" "anti-immigrant sentiment" and "anti-trade sentiment" get dropped off along with the end of the sentence "as a way to explain their frustrations" so only three of the five made it into the talk radio soundbite. But certainly it wasn't his cleverest remark to date.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 08:56 AM
That is an interesting comment - is this the unwinding of the private debt mountain - the death of manufacturing - or is there something else?

My list would include the contraction of credit - very much like the effects of the Wall Street Crash, the death of manufacturing in the western world, the rise of rival powers competing for global influence and resources (Germany and Japan then; China now) , a wish for barriers to trade (Smoot-Hawley then, anti-NAFTA and anti -EU now) and a sense of anomie amongst the makers of opinion - the idea that our civilisation has somehow run out of steam, which in concrete terms amongst ordinary people shows up as cynicism about our political process, and in Britain at least, maybe not in the States, a tendency for those same people to seek diversion and dissipation.

It looks very scary to me...

Keith Wilson
04-16-2008, 08:57 AM
Keith, how about Ashwin Medea and Erik Paulsen in the 3rd district race? Now THERE is an attractive choice between two capable and decent candidates....Fortunately, in Minnesota that seems to happen pretty often. I hadn't followed the third district race, but I looked 'em up. Ashwin Madia is a very interesting guy. There are genuine differences between them, Paulsen being high in the esteem of the Taxpayer's League (a group I loathe). The third district well be very interesting this time; if I wanted an indicator for the direction the whole country is going I might look there, not because it's particularly representative of the average, but because it could go either way and represents the undecided (or ambivalent) middle pretty well. The 4th district (my district) will be reliably liberal, the 7th will be reliably conservative, but it will be interesting to see which way the 3rd goes.

BTW, I wouldn't call Mondale an elitist at all; he was swimming against the tide and was outclassed as a campaigner by Reagan, who was a complete master of the populist conservative act; just about invented it, in fact.

Bob Smalser
04-16-2008, 09:07 AM
It looks very scary to me...

I guess that's why we never recovered from the Dot Com bubble. Or the recession before that one.

The problem is we're too big and too responsible to do it the contemporary Brit way....declare victory, go home, and deny any responsibility when it blows up in someone else's face.

S.V. Airlie
04-16-2008, 09:10 AM
Pre-plucked Jamie?

Nope bred that way...:eek::eek:

Get the suntan lotion out.:rolleyes:

Keith Wilson
04-16-2008, 09:15 AM
I detect more than a hint of desperation in this particular flap. We have a spectacularly unpopular Republican president, and a weak Republican candidate whose ideas really can be summed up as "More of the same only not so stupid" in the face of serious economic problems and a very very unpopular war. We also have a candidate in Obama who is the first Democrat in a long time actually capable of inspiring people, and who has run a determinedly high-minded and intelligent campaign. They're desperate to get a handle on him, some eight-second simplistic message they can repeat over and over and over hoping by repetition to create plausibility. First they tried to accuse him of racism by proxy through Jeremiah Wright (a truly amazing thing given his background), and he dealt with it directly, honestly and intelligently in one of the best and most thoughtful speeches a US politician has ever given on the subject.

This one won't work either. The pretense that the party which first, foremost, and always represents monied interests is actually defending the common man against elitists - well, that one's starting to wear thin. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!! Not any more.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 09:28 AM
I guess that's why we never recovered from the Dot Com bubble. Or the recession before that one.

The problem is we're too big and too responsible to do it the contemporary Brit way....declare victory, go home, and deny any responsibility when it blows up in someone else's face.

Bob - are you sure that you have recovered from the dot com bubble?

What was the prescription for getting out of it?

- an expansion of credit, whose inflationary consequences were disguised by the deflation that China was then exporting.

I think that what you have now - and make no mistake, this is very much more than a sub-prime mortgage crisis - is the consequence of not sorting out the dot com bubble.

You might even call it declaring victory and then walking away and leaving someone else to face the consequences.

S.V. Airlie
04-16-2008, 09:37 AM
The accusations of elitism directed at Obama are such a chuckle!

Hmmm... let's see.... we've got a Republican presidential candidate who is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, educated at Annapolis and the Navy War College.... and a republican President who is the product of Phillips Exter Academy, Yale (including Skull and Bones), Harvard, who spent the Vietnam years in the 'Diamond squadron' a place where the sons of the wealthy and priveleged served their country without the fear of actually getting shot at, flying obsolete jets so they couldn't possibly be called into action..... and who said contemptuously that his political base consisted of the 'haves and have-mores'....

...and they accuse OBAMA of elitism? :D:D

.

I guess we ALL need a good laugh now and then! :p

Umm I thought it was Hillary that was accusing him of being elitist.. As in Yale Law School..WEllesley before that.....
Then again, she would be able to recognize a brother.

Brian Palmer
04-16-2008, 10:07 AM
Some people in Pennsylvania are, in fact, bitter and frustrated about how things are going:

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/04/some_citizens_agree_that_they.html

The mayor of Lancaster had this perspective on Obama's comments in last Sunday's paper (sorry I can find an archive, so this is a paraphrase). He said, basically, that it isn't so much that people here in Pennsylvania "cling" to these things out of frustration, but that Republicans have been able to exploit these wedge issues and gain votes by painting the Democrats as hostile to gun rights and religion, and easy on immigration and free trade that has cost these areas jobs.

In the absense of having any solutions to the real economic problems faced by rural low income communities, the Republican party has been able to appeal to these voters using these issues and little else.

It is odd that in their responses to Obama, people like Tom Ridge (former governor) have noted that guns and religion are part of the fabric of rural Pennsylvania, but never really challenged him on the free trade or immigration issues.

-- Brian

Sam F
04-16-2008, 10:10 AM
Bob, It matters not a tinker's cuss where you find the FULL quote of Marx's: From the net of from worn pages of an original edition in German. It matters more that one uses the FULL quote, and understands what Marx is actually saying.

OK. What did he say?

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.


To call it drivel is only opening yourself up to the same accusation. And to nit pick between translations is only opening yourself up to being accused of mindless pedantry.

Read the quote again and you will notice Marx ALSO calls religion "the heart in a heartless world," and "soul/spirit of a soulless/spiritless condition/situation/nation."

Yes I read that...


Also note the differences in how opium was thought of at the time Marx wrote the words

uh... opium was thought of as an addictive drug used to relieve pain, but is susceptible to abuse. See DeQuincy's Confessions of an English Opium Eater published in 1822 for reference.



... and how it [opium] is viewed now.
Opium is thought of as an addictive drug whose derivatives are used to relieve pain, but all forms are susceptible to abuse.



... Also note the word "needs" as in necessary or required.

Also noted is that the "illusory happiness" of this drug is necessary or required.
Sorry Duncan, but there's no way to slice and dice that quote without noticing what Marx is actually saying: That religion is an illusion and a drug necessary to dull the pain of the proletariat’s oppression.


And don't confuse Marxism (which is a form of social and economic analysis, many elements of which are still used by market place capitalists as an invaluable tool to judge form and outcome) with communism which Marx and Engels set out as a manifesto, or with phenomenology, (which is the philosphical stream Marx was wading into with this, his most famous "quote.")

But Duncan, first you insist that "it matters more that one uses the FULL quote, and understands what Marx is actually saying" and now you insist that we separate out what Marx actually said and discard part of it in favor of "a form of social and economic analysis, many elements of which are still used by market place capitalists".
It matters more that one uses Marx's FULL position.
Marx didn't draw any such distinction between his "economic analysis" and his philosophy. Why should we?

From that manifesto:

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical, and juridicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."



At any rate you're doing eactly what Obama suggested happens with the statement you're contending: Setting up religion as a bastion from which any comment you disagee with appears to be bunkum.

I think I'll go cling to my guns and religion, thank you. :D

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-16-2008, 10:13 AM
Well, Sam, we rather thought you would! :D

Sam F
04-16-2008, 10:17 AM
Well, Sam, we rather thought you would!

Of course my idea of a gun is a 6 pounder Napoleon. It's the only sort I've fired recently, but not exactly a hand gun. ;)

I tell you Andrew, if this sort of nonsense keeps up, these Democrats'll turn me into a Republican yet.
Oh the shame!

Sam F
04-16-2008, 10:22 AM
Bob hit the nail dead-on when he said:


Here's the bottom line: If you can’t beat a 71-year-old with funding problems and a fractured base in a year like this, with a vastly unpopular Republican war still ongoing and a Republican recession looming, what precisely is the point of you?

This shouldn't even be a contest! If the Democrats can't pull off this election, what on earth could they manage? Certainly not a girl scout troop!

S.V. Airlie
04-16-2008, 10:23 AM
OK. What did he say?




Yes I read that...



uh... opium was thought of as an addictive drug used to relieve pain, but is susceptible to abuse. See DeQuincy's Confessions of an English Opium Eater published in 1822 for reference.



Opium is thought of as an addictive drug whose derivatives are used to relieve pain, but all forms are susceptible to abuse.




Also noted is that the "illusory happiness" of this drug is necessary or required.
Sorry Duncan, but there's no way to slice and dice that quote without noticing what Marx is actually saying: That religion is an illusion and a drug necessary to dull the pain of the proletariat’s oppression.



But Duncan, first you insist that "it matters more that one uses the FULL quote, and understands what Marx is actually saying" and now you insist that we separate out what Marx actually said and discard part of it in favor of "a form of social and economic analysis, many elements of which are still used by market place capitalists".
It matters more that one uses Marx's FULL position.
Marx didn't draw any such distinction between his "economic analysis" and his philosophy. Why should we?

From that manifesto:





I think I'll go cling to my guns and religion, thank you. :D

You are in luck SamF. Move to Massachusetts. There is a law there that states men going to church must go armed.;)

Sam F
04-16-2008, 10:25 AM
You are in luck SamF. Move to Massachusetts. There is a law there that states men going to church must go armed.;)

Might be tough to drag a 6 pounder up the steps!

LeeG
04-16-2008, 10:32 AM
"More of the same only not so stupid" .


now that's a bumper sticker

James McMullen
04-16-2008, 10:39 AM
You might call me an elitist, but I think we've all seen what happens when Joe Average votes for the guy he thinks is just like him--you know, the "C" student who seems folksy and doesn't use all them high-falutin' things like proper grammar, pronunciation and syntax. That's worked out real well, huh?

I think it's well past time for some intellectual elites to try to repair the enormous damage to our economy, our military and our international standing, not to mention our environment. . . . .though in my cynical and elite way I fear we are already past the tipping point on many if not all these issues.

The inherent flaw of democracy is that not everyone who is permitted to vote is equally capable of voting wisely. For every person who carefully reviews the issues, investigates claims, and weighs the pros and cons of complicated policies, there are two or three who vote based on commercials of 8-second soundbites taken out of context. This may be elite of me, but just think of this: 50% of all voters are below average!

Keith Wilson
04-16-2008, 10:44 AM
now that's a bumper stickerI like "We'll get it right this time, we promise!"
Or, better yet: "We won't screw up so badly this time, we promise!" :D

LeeG
04-16-2008, 10:51 AM
following Normans thoughts on the tragicomic aspects to painting Obama as elitist after sheeple voted for GW twice.

GWs fiasco partnership with the neocons REQUIRED the use of elites to channel disinformation to the leaders of gov't. The entire basis for "oops, bad intel" and "let's rewrite military doctrine" came from elites subverting checks and balances. Elites like Perle, Libby, Wurmser and Yoo.

GW is coached by Rove and Cheney "sign the tax cuts, it's OUR time"

And now the great insult is to characterize another politician as an elite. Holy crap this is as funny as a blind man tripping.

Osborne Russell
04-16-2008, 10:58 AM
To equate church attendance with bitterness, or church attendance with gun ownership????

Only Islamic fundamentalists do that.

Kaa
04-16-2008, 10:59 AM
The inherent flaw of democracy is that not everyone who is permitted to vote is equally capable of voting wisely.

Heh. First there is that not insignificant issue of figuring out what's "wisely" :D Defining it as "matching my views" isn't going to get you very far.

Second, democracy is not about optimal choices. It's much more about justice and facing the consequences of your own actions.

Third, there has been some interesting recent research about consistent biases in voters' behavior which may make their decisions "irrational" from a certain point of view. I'll try to find a link.

Kaa

P.S. Voter biases -- e.g. here http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html

Also there is the entire book -- The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691129428/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/002-0917924-2846403)

Osborne Russell
04-16-2008, 11:11 AM
The inherent flaw of democracy is that not everyone who is permitted to vote is equally capable of voting wisely.

Liberty to be cool is liberty to be a dumb ass. The flaw's not in the system but in people choosing to be dumb asses.

It's a matter of individual moral character. Dumb asses don't like the responsibility. They can't understand why anyone wouldn't give up liberty for security, because they're dumb. And because they're dumb, they have no clear idea of what the difference is between being dumb and being smart. So they think it's all a hoax. Someday they will elect someone who truly represents them.

john l
04-16-2008, 11:49 AM
"the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present....
as our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. we must disenthrall ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln in his annual message to congress, dec. 1 1862

right on abe! sounds right! but today your fellow repubs would be calling you elitest.

Brian Palmer
04-16-2008, 12:47 PM
I live in Pennsylvania. I am bitter. But I think I'll just cling to my family, my fly rod, and the WBF, instead.

Brian

Bob Smalser
04-16-2008, 01:26 PM
Hmmm... let's see.... we've got a Republican presidential candidate who is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, educated at Annapolis and the Navy War College....

Sure. We all know how much easier the Flag Officer's kid has it in Basic Training, as a Midshipman, and with all those tough Noncoms he gets to lead after his 5 or 6 years of training is complete. The standards are lowered and they are coddled at every turn. I'm sure you saw a lot of that during your service. Or was it in fact the opposite? That life for the Admiral's kid can be hell on earth after lights out?

Oh m'gosh....I just remembered that I too graduated from the Naval War College. Coom Loudy, too. Guess that makes this forester son of farmers and shipwrights another elitist.

Elitism ain't what you are, it's what you think you are. "Deigning" to run to save all our "broken souls" as we "bitterly cling to our guns and religion" in a country the Obama's have "never been proud of." Gag me with a frigging spoon.

C. Ross
04-16-2008, 01:46 PM
The 4th district (my district) will be reliably liberal ... but it will be interesting to see which way the 3rd goes.

BTW, I wouldn't call Mondale an elitist at all; he was swimming against the tide and was outclassed as a campaigner by Reagan, who was a complete master of the populist conservative act; just about invented it, in fact.

I live in the heart of the 4th. I actively support Mayor Coleman because a liberal mayor makes sense for a city like St. Paul, and I honestly think I receive value equal or greater than the city levies on my property. (I think St. Paul school board levy increases are not adding value.) But Betty McCollum? Upgrade, please.

I agree with you about Mondale. Very much a Norwegian, in political orientation and demeanor. A very liberal, but a decent, in-touch and authentic fellow.

Keith Wilson
04-16-2008, 01:55 PM
Betty McCollum's heart is in the right place, but she is rather a lightweight. I like John Marty, although it's probably best that not everybody in the legislature thinks exactly like he does.

Ah, I see Bob's building an even bigger and more grandiose straw man. You think he might have an axe to grind? Nah . . . . :D

BTW, McCain has never done anything for a living but the Navy and politics.

Bob Smalser
04-16-2008, 02:19 PM
Ah, I see Bob's building an even bigger and more grandiose straw man. You think he might have an axe to grind? Nah . . . . :D

"Deigning" to run to save all our "broken souls" as we "bitterly cling to our guns and religion" in a country the Obama's have "never been proud of."

Not my words. Want the sources? Or are you too smitten with this guy? How does one construct a straw man with the man's own words? If you want real slander instead....read below. ;)

I've always marveled at how men raised without fathers and predominantly among women become so talented at seduction.


...knows someone who went to Harvard Law with B. Hussein Obama Jr., and, the story goes, such was Barry’s monumental capacity for sucking up to his professors that the “Obamamometer” was established to calibrate and quantify the most egregious, shameless brown-nosing, and it quickly became the gold standard of Uriah Heep-dom in Cambridge, Mass. “That was a 10 on the Obamamometer,” the Harvard men and women would whisper when someone rose to the unctuous level of Barry at his best.

But my friend had even more surprises in store for me. It seems that at Harvard our Barry was widely regarded as a person of overweening arrogance and a gold-plated sense of entitlement; not only did the world owe him a living, it owed him just about everything.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODRlMzM1MTYxMzFhNGQyMTFlZjY2MTUwM2JmZTU1Y2U=

Keith Wilson
04-16-2008, 02:24 PM
How does one construct a straw man with the man's own words?Oh, it's easy. You carefully pick a non-representative sample of his words, and quote brief snippets completely out of context. Just like you're doing. Carry on.

And regarding the link - So you want me to believe that a guy who would run for president has an outsize ego? Impossible! Unheard of! Never! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Seriously, show me a person who does not have an inflated opinion of himself and his talents, and I'll show you a guy who never considered running for president.

Gonzalo
04-16-2008, 02:45 PM
It's easy to find articles telling how people who once knew any candidate had a negative opinion of him, especially if you are looking in sources that are opposed to that candidates political party no matter who is running. The National Review, as a partisan Republican rag, started by a man who defended racial discrimination in its pages, would naturally dig for dirt on Obama, and would naturally print articles with this sort of slant.

Google "John McCain nicknames" to find out what McCain's school chums thought of him. So what?

Joe (SoCal)
04-16-2008, 02:45 PM
"Deigning" to run to save all our "broken souls" as we "bitterly cling to our guns and religion" in a country the Obama's have "never been proud of."

Not my words. Want the sources? Or are you too smitten with this guy?

I got to say the more I hear this the MORE smitten I become :)

Sorry ya might call it elitist but I call it the fooking truth and bravo for having the gronicals to say it. He's got this middle class white guys vote.

LeeG
04-16-2008, 02:58 PM
Well, looks like Bob has joined the kids in the bilge. I thought he could hold out as one of the few grownups, like Bruce and Chad, but nope. Gettin' sloppy like the rest of us.

There's nothing like digging into the process that resulted in the disbanding of the Iraqi military to see the competancy of the elites around GW.

Elites are where stuff happens,,sure you got your domestiques but it's the guys at the top who lead folks to Victory. Y'all are for Victory! aren'tcha?

LeeG
04-16-2008, 03:20 PM
the other funny part is that Obama is younger than most of us and his kids are younger,,,not smitten at all,,,it's not a job I'd want to wish on anyones family.

He has given some inspirational speeches,,what's even more scary for some,,he's written them!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

elf
04-16-2008, 03:31 PM
It's so neat what those who are not fully informed can get themselves all het up about, hey Joe?

George.
04-17-2008, 04:51 AM
Does he not cling to religion? WTF??? :confused:

Of course he does. He's a politician. I'll bet you if he was gay, or smoked the occasional joint, he wouldn't tell you either.

George.
04-17-2008, 04:54 AM
I guess that's why we never recovered from the Dot Com bubble.

You haven't. You are a weaker and meaner nation now than you were then, and your finances are in worse shape.

Bruce Taylor
04-17-2008, 07:14 AM
Meanwhile...

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080416Dems1_jb5v9e2.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/041508DailyUpdateGraph2_fgeikmd.gif

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-17-2008, 08:10 AM
Tell you what, Bob:

Why don't you tell us why your preferred candidate should be President of the United States, without maligning anyone else.

High C
04-17-2008, 08:31 AM
Tell you what, Bob:

Why don't why your preferred candidate should be President of the United States, without maligning anyone else.

Maybe because many of us don't have a preferred candidate this time around. Nothing but malignancy everywhere we look... :(

Keith Wilson
04-17-2008, 08:43 AM
Nothing but malignancy everywhere we lookIf you look for that, you will indeed find it, particularly since there are those who delight in manufacturing it. Some of them post here; some of them really ought to know better. Angels and saints rarely run for president. I'm not at all discouraged by the choices this time; I think that both McCain and Obama are pretty decent guys. I have my doubts about Clinton, but she seems intelligent and capable, if a bit too ambitious. Unfortunately, much of what passes for politics these days consists of trying to make one's opponent look like one of the more unpleasant residents of the underworld.

Bob Smalser
04-17-2008, 08:48 AM
Listen to yourselves. The Mind Police.

The way you win arguments is most of the posts on this page are about me personally and not the issues. No matter than Slate, the NYT's and other lib rags have no shortage of columnists who agree with me about Obama's elitism.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17bartels.html?th&emc=th

...Last week in Terre Haute, Ind., Mr. Obama explained that the people he had in mind “don’t vote on economic issues, because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them.” He added: “So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.

john l
04-17-2008, 09:02 AM
i guess then you are of the elite!

Keith Wilson
04-17-2008, 09:02 AM
"The Mind Police." "Lib rags." Bob, you're making a fool of yourself.

Andrew has it exactly right:
Why don't you tell us why your preferred candidate should be President of the United States, without maligning anyone else.

James McMullen
04-17-2008, 09:49 AM
I kinda like Obama. . .so I'm called "smitten", and "seduced by honey-tongued rhetoric". Okay, whatever.

So what would you call someone who still has a Bush/Cheney or a W bumpersticker after these last eight years? Obviously, that would be "stubbornly out of touch with reality".

And what about the McCain bumpersticker? How about "still hasn't figured out how bad the Republican neo-con domination of government in the last 8 years has destroyed our economy, eroded our personal liberties and wrecked our international standing." I like it--it's catchy.

S.V. Airlie
04-17-2008, 09:54 AM
I kinda like Obama. . .so I'm called "smitten", and "seduced by honey-tongued rhetoric". Okay, whatever.

So what would you call someone who still has a Bush/Cheney or a W bumpersticker after these last eight years? Obviously, that would be "stubbornly out of touch with reality".

And what about the McCain bumpersticker? How about "still hasn't figured out how bad the Republican neo-con domination of government in the last 8 years has destroyed our economy, eroded our personal liberties and wrecked our international standing." I like it--it's catchy.

Wait til those folks try to trade them ( cars ) in for newer ones. Those bumper stickers alone will lower the 'trade in' value at least 60%.:eek:

James McMullen
04-17-2008, 10:00 AM
Funny, but I've never seen a "W" bumpersticker on a Prius. It seems to be factory standard equipment on an Escalade or an Excursion though. . .

I guess if I drove a Ford Excursion I'd be kind of desperate to invade oil-producing nations myself. Have you seen what kind of MPG those get? :eek:

pcford
04-17-2008, 10:30 AM
Listen to yourselves. The Mind Police.

The way you win arguments is most of the posts on this page are about me personally and not the issues. No matter than Slate, the NYT's and other lib rags have no shortage of columnists who agree with me about Obama's elitism.

Sorry to disturb your rant with reality, Colonel, but the latest polls in Pennsylvania show Obama and Hillary in a dead heat.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1481

At one time a couple months ago, Hillary had a twenty point lead.

An AVERAGE of the last few polls show Obama and McCain with a slight lead for Obama. And the battle for the general election has not begun.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

My guess is that the right wing slime machine will be less effective than it has been in the last few elections.

Osborne Russell
04-17-2008, 11:34 AM
“A mob is no less a mob because they are with you.” – John Adams


[T]he national councils [the federal government] . . . will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and more out of the reach of those occasional ill-humors, or temporary prejudices and propensities, which, in smaller societies, frequently contaminate the public councils, beget injustice and oppression of a part of the community, and engender schemes which, though they gratify a momentary inclination or desire, terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction, and disgust.

From the New York Packet. Tuesday, December 25, 1787 Author: Alexander Hamilton

So they weren’t looking to placate the rubes, rather to just sort of ignore them as much as possible and hope one day they might become educated so as to make themselves worthy of the sacrifices undertaken on their behalf.

Elitist? Damn straight.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-17-2008, 11:41 AM
And we know what Hamilton and Co were thinking of.

The judicial murder of Socrates by the Athenian democracy.

That gave democracy a bad name for a couple of millenia...

LeeG
04-17-2008, 11:43 AM
Bob, Bob, Bob. I'm not sure of your argument. Is it that Obama represents an elite and advocates elitist values as opposed to being the best leader for the nations interests?

Must be that intellectual elite that discussed Constitutional law. Cheney sure knew how to use one of those for the supreme executive. Good think Cheney and GW paved the way for a liberal president to clean up their garbage, congress won't get it together so maybe we'll see saw our way to one benevolent Decider after another.

George.
04-17-2008, 03:10 PM
Maybe because many of us don't have a preferred candidate this time around. Nothing but malignancy everywhere we look... :(

That's wonderful to hear, given that the last time you all had a preferred candidate it was George W. Bush.

As for the rest of us, it has been a long while since we have seen a US election with three such high quality front runners. It is a pity that one of them has to carry an albatross about his neck.

elf
04-17-2008, 03:18 PM
In the last 2 days three more superdelegates have come out for Senator Obama.

As for albatrosses, two of the candidates, at least, are carrying them and one of those is trying as hard as she can to make sure the 3rd candidate has his share.

elf
04-17-2008, 03:29 PM
Andrew Sullivan, the HIV positive, Log Cabin republican found this from a youtube video today.

"I will tell you it does not get more fun than these debates. They are inspiring debates. I think last night we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.

It took us 45 minutes — 45 minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices.

Now, I don’t blame Washington for this because that’s just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversies and getting us to play gotcha games and getting us to attack each other. And I’ve got to say Sen. Clinton looked in her element," - Barack Obama, in Raleigh, today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4

elf
04-17-2008, 06:11 PM
That clip was a scream! Lemonade, nice cool lemonade. Forget the fake Kool-ade, come right up and get your real lemonade, made from real lemons.

Osborne Russell
04-17-2008, 06:44 PM
And we know what Hamilton and Co were thinking of.

The judicial murder of Socrates by the Athenian democracy.

That gave democracy a bad name for a couple of millenia...

Not following here . . .

jbelow
04-17-2008, 10:14 PM
Listen to yourselves. The Mind Police.

The way you win arguments is most of the posts on this page are about me personally and not the issues. No matter than Slate, the NYT's and other lib rags have no shortage of columnists who agree with me about Obama's elitism.

Bob , did you really expect more from these nitwits ? Liberal dose not describe this bunch . Thomas Jefferson was a liberal . Libturd and Libtard are better discriptions.

jbelow
04-17-2008, 10:26 PM
The accusations of elitism directed at Obama are such a chuckle!

Hmmm... let's see.... we've got a Republican presidential candidate who is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, educated at Annapolis and the Navy War College.... and a republican President who is the product of Phillips Exter Academy, Yale (including Skull and Bones), Harvard, who spent the Vietnam years in the 'Diamond squadron' a place where the sons of the wealthy and priveleged served their country without the fear of actually getting shot at, flying obsolete jets so they couldn't possibly be called into action..... and who said contemptuously that his political base consisted of the 'haves and have-mores'....

...and they accuse OBAMA of elitism? :D:D

I guess we ALL need a good laugh now and then! :p

You forgot the part about the pampering in the plush and luxurious Hanoi Hilton.

LeeG
04-17-2008, 11:19 PM
good clip,,,he scratched his face with his little finger,,that looks like an elitist move to me.

George.
04-18-2008, 05:19 AM
America must be the only country in the world where the masses prefer an undeducated intellectually challenged leader that levels with their lowest common denominator, rather than someone who can actually lead them from ahead.

Here in Brazil, in order to get elected, Lula had to get his act together and demonstrate that even with only a 3rd grade education he had the intellect and pose to lead the country and to represent it at home and abroad. In the US, candidates seem to go out of their way to prove they are no smarter or better educated than the average Joe. Otherwise, they are called "elitists".

Personally, since someone has to lead, and will automatically become a member of the most elitist elite there can be, I'd rather have an "elitist" than a know-nothing fool up there. Again, I call attention to exhibit A: George W. Bush.

Bruce Taylor
04-18-2008, 06:03 AM
good clip,,,he scratched his face with his little finger,,that looks like an elitist move to me.

Uh oh. Little-finger-gate. :rolleyes:

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-18-2008, 06:43 AM
Not following here . . .

I was alluding to the Founding Fathers' concern to avoid democracy in their new Republic, and why they were so concerned about it.

Bob Smalser
04-18-2008, 09:54 AM
More lib defections. The case is now being made in the NYT's that your messiah is just another lying politician.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

How Obama Fell to Earth

.... Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.

He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.

If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home. ...

Keith Wilson
04-18-2008, 10:00 AM
your messiah is just another lying politician.Oh, give it a break, Bob. He's not my messiah, and I've been saying all along that he's a politician. He's still the best of choices we have, by far. Angels, sages, and saints don't run for president.

From the same article:
Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

S.V. Airlie
04-18-2008, 10:02 AM
Bob.. Hillary has promised the same tax cut basically as Obama.

Do you think McCain's approach is any better?

I have voted since the late 60's. I rarely believe what a candidate says while running for president. ( or any office )
It is usually just lip service as rarely does what one says on the campaign trail actually ever happen regardless as to who wins.

Now I am sure that someone here will come up with one example of one candidate following through on some pledge but, I have voted in a lot of elections. It is a rarity.

Osborne Russell
04-18-2008, 10:17 AM
...Last week in Terre Haute, Ind., Mr. Obama explained that the people he had in mind “don’t vote on economic issues, because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them.” He added: “So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.

By "wrong" he means, it's not the rural middle & low classes that are the ignorant bigots comprising the Great Middle, it's the urban and especially suburban middle & low classes. Which stands to reason, because there are more of them in today's modern America.

Osborne Russell
04-18-2008, 10:28 AM
I was alluding to the Founding Fathers' concern to avoid democracy in their new Republic, and why they were so concerned about it.

I see, pure democracy. Oh yeah. The Athenians gave it a bad name, basically, forever.

Thus there is a sort of elitism at the core of the American Constitution. Is it enough that the government simply reflect the will of the majority, i.e., the non-elite?

No it goldang isn't enough. Not politically, not morally. If someone wants to get their thing on they have to get organized, they have to attract sympathy, and develop some skill and perseverance. The ones that can pull it off become elite if they didn't start out that way.

But the implication of the "Obama is an elitist" schtick is that everyone has to doff their cap to the ones who just sit around and nurse their delusions of persecution by "the elite."

Osborne Russell
04-18-2008, 10:30 AM
I rarely believe what a candidate says while running for president. ( or any office )

Me neither. It's a shame but that's how it is.

The most you can do is get good and maybe also get lucky in interpreting what they say.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-18-2008, 10:35 AM
Exactly so.

LeeG
04-18-2008, 11:56 AM
An orthodox liberal. I like that. Speaking of Iraq I love the op/eds comment:

"Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. "

Well, we know what it's like right now. Cheney said quagmire, a study from a military academic says debacle.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/34101.html

WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations.

It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center.

"Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line.

At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion.

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

(actually someone has calculated those and other costs,,trillions baby, trillions,,,kicked on down to the next generation by faux conservatives in power voted in by faux conservatives terrified of liberals)

LeeG
04-18-2008, 11:58 AM
ps. Is Obama really the black Jesus,,like,,could this be the end times??


quick, start praying, gotta catch up

Osborne Russell
04-18-2008, 12:10 PM
I know I find it hard to keep two things straight:

1. Is it a civil war?
2. Is it in Eastasia or Eurasia?

The professional intelligence gatherers keep it all hid.

LeeG
04-18-2008, 12:42 PM
VietnamII, fewer casualties, more expensive, even more disconnected from mainstream America. It's time for some liberal orthodoxy to correct faux conservatism run amuck.


We been Cheneyed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EltGTNglvIU

pcford
04-18-2008, 12:49 PM
More lib defections. The case is now being made in the NYT's that your messiah is just another lying politician.


The author of the piece that the Colonel quoted is David Brooks, notorious neo-con columnist and one of W.F. Buckely's acolytes.

And he gave a negative opinion piece on Obama! I'm shocked! Shocked! Oh the humanity.

I've said it before and I will repeat:
Always check Bob S's sources. The Colonel uses extreme opinion pieces and presents them as The Truth.

Sorry Bob, caught you once again. Things would be less embarrassing for you if you stopped trying to pull off stuff like this.

LeeG
04-18-2008, 12:53 PM
The Truth,,oh yeah. That's the tragedy of the Koolaid,,instead of selling toothpaste and cars with fins it became rhetoric for an administration subverting conservative values putting Powell up as a shill overturning the very lessons learned in Vietnam.

I bet Rumsfeld has some heavy security.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-18-2008, 01:00 PM
declaring victory and then walking away and leaving someone else to face the consequences might not be such a bad plan.

George.
04-18-2008, 02:27 PM
More lib defections. The case is now being made in the NYT's that your messiah is just another lying politician.

David Brooks is a "lib" from where you stand? You are way further right than I thought. :D

Bob Smalser
04-18-2008, 02:33 PM
declaring victory and then walking away and leaving someone else to face the consequences might not be such a bad plan.

Hear all about it from British experts and fair weather friends.

Is Paul Krugman another Buckley clone, too? How about Charlie Gibson? George Stephanpoulis we know is a Hillary fan.


The parsons of the press corps are furious with Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, which means the pair must have done a pretty good job moderating Wednesday's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Barack Obama had an off-night, so his media choir wants to shoot the questioners.

I'll probably vote for McCain myself, but I'd rather see Hillary as the alternative


Clinging to a Stereotype


By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 18, 2008

Will Barack Obama’s now famous “bitter” quote turn out to have been a big deal politically? Frankly, I have no idea.

But here’s a different question: was Mr. Obama right?

Mr. Obama’s comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong.

Start with the economics. Mr. Obama: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration.”

There are, indeed, towns where the mill closed during the 1980s and nothing has replaced it. But the suggestion that the American heartland suffered equally during the Clinton and Bush years is deeply misleading.

In fact, the Clinton years were very good for working Americans in the Midwest, where real median household income soared before crashing after 2000. (You can see the numbers at my blog, krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.)

We can argue about how much credit Bill Clinton deserves for that boom. But if I were a Democratic Party elder, I’d urge Mr. Obama to stop blurring the distinction between Clinton-era prosperity and Bush-era economic distress.

Next, the sociology: “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

The crucial word here isn’t “bitter,” it’s “cling.” Does economic hardship drive people to seek solace in firearms, God and xenophobia?

It’s true that people in poor states are more likely to attend church regularly than residents of rich states. This might seem to indicate that faith is indeed a response to economic adversity.

But this result largely reflects the fact that southern states are both church-going and poor; some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes. (The correlation runs the opposite way in rich states.)

Over all, none of this suggests that people turn to God out of economic frustration.

Finally, Mr. Obama, in later clarifying remarks, declared that the people he’s talking about “don’t vote on economic issues,” and are motivated instead by things like guns and gay marriage.

That’s a political theory made famous by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton.

I was impressed by Mr. Frank’s book when it came out. But my Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, who had an Op-Ed in The Times on Thursday, convinced me that Mr. Frank was mostly wrong.

In his Op-Ed, Mr. Bartels cited data showing that small-town, working-class Americans are actually less likely than affluent metropolitan residents to vote on the basis of religion and social values. Nor have working-class voters trended Republican over time; on the contrary, Democrats do better with these voters now than they did in the 1960s.

It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.

So why have Republicans won so many elections? In his book, “Unequal Democracy,” Mr. Bartels shows that “the shift of the Solid South from Democratic to Republican control in the wake of the civil rights movement” explains all — literally all — of the Republican success story.

Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class.

Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?

Anyway, the important point is that working-class Americans do vote on economic issues — and can be swayed by a politician who offers real answers to their problems.

And one more thing: let’s hope that once Mr. Obama is no longer running against someone named Clinton, he’ll stop denigrating the very good economic record of the only Democratic administration most Americans remember.

George.
04-18-2008, 03:52 PM
I'll probably vote for McCain myself

We figured that, Colonel. After all, Dick Cheney is not running. :D

elf
04-18-2008, 04:07 PM
The Obamanians are waiting for Mr. Krugman to return to his normal self, and let go of his affection for this lady Clinton.

C. Ross
04-18-2008, 04:19 PM
Paul has a crush on Hillary? How...um....wierd.

BTW, I thought it was just us right wing nut jobs being tough on Sen. Obama. Stephanopolous, Charlie Gibson (noted attack dog?), Krugman, Brooks (c'mon he's center-left, not neo-con) and others are piling on.

Is this like the God Squad turning on Sen McCain, good PR placement by the Clinton campaign, or just Democrats eating their young?

Keith Wilson
04-18-2008, 04:23 PM
I think it's columnists needing to write something "hard hitting" and "controversial" that people will read. Bad memes going around, like a bad cold. The antibodies will kick in soon enough, but it's unpleasant for the moment; lots of coughing and dribbles. But there are still six months before the election.

LeeG
04-18-2008, 04:34 PM
methinks it's because Obama is more of a change than Hillary and folks are just a skeered of change.

Bring on the liberal orthodoxy!

Bruce Taylor
04-18-2008, 06:38 PM
Brooks (c'mon he's center-left, not neo-con)

'Cause he speaks softly and wears pink shirts? ;) He describes himself as an Oakeshottian conservative, but the word "neoconservative" can reasonably be applied to him (not as an insult, but as a simple description of his political affiliation). Heck, he was a senior editor at William Kristol's Weekly Standard! His manifesto of strong-government conservatism, "A Return to National Greatness," had some currency in neocon circles, in the late nineties. As an enthusiastic interventionist who believed in the use of hard power against foreign autocrats, he beat the drum hard for the Bush Doctrine, when it was first articulated. That he was disillusioned with the results does not make him a lefty.

As for Krugman, as far as I can see he's been a Clinton-booster throughout the primaries, and Stephanopoulos, of course, is a veteran of the Clinton war room.

Why would anyone be surprised that some Democrats have been a tough on Obama? It's a divided party, at the moment. Nearly half of them would rather see Hillary take the prize.

George.
04-18-2008, 06:47 PM
I see your Paul Krugman, Colonel, and raise you one Jon Steward. He just had me rolling on the floor. He asks: "Doesn't 'elite' mean 'better'? Do you realize that if you get this job, they might carve your head into a mountain? If you don't think you are smarter than the rest of us, then what the FU(K do you think you are doing running for President?"

Or something to that effect... :D

Bob Smalser
04-18-2008, 06:47 PM
I think it's columnists needing to write something "hard hitting" and "controversial" that people will read. Bad memes going around, like a bad cold. The antibodies will kick in soon enough, but it's unpleasant for the moment; lots of coughing and dribbles. But there are still six months before the election.

Lately it's always excuses, isn't it?

Osborne Russell
04-18-2008, 06:54 PM
Well, if he isn't a Black Muslim, or even a Muslim, or a Weatherman, or an elitist, what are we going to talk about -- the Chimp's Justice Department being cited for contempt by Congress?

elf
04-18-2008, 06:54 PM
Paul has a crush on Hillary? How...um....wierd. We can't figure it out either, but he does.
BTW, I thought it was just us right wing nut jobs being tough on Sen. Obama. Stephanopolous, Charlie Gibson (noted attack dog?), Krugman, Brooks (c'mon he's center-left, not neo-con) and others are piling on. Brooks? Oh dear, Cris. Put on your glasses. Brooks has been off the right wall for years. Yuck.


Is this like the God Squad turning on Sen McCain, good PR placement by the Clinton campaign, or just Democrats eating their young?
Well, Hillary's not eating Chelsea, and Mr. Obama's not eating Sasha and Malia so I don't think either of them is precisely eating their young. However, I don't have stats for how many people under 30 either campaign has brought to the registration table. I do recall somewhere today reading that the Obama campaign has gotten up a volunteer base of 250,000 people, though. No, not 25,000. 4 is the number of zeros I recall. And if you have 1.4 million donors it's not that hard to imagine that there are 250,000 people volunteering in one capacity or another.

So I don't think the Democrats are eating their young, quite honestly.

Bob Smalser
04-18-2008, 07:04 PM
More lib rags slamming Obama. Don't any of you apologists read? I have sufficient stock of these to last weeks.


http://www.slate.com/id/2188487/#foursins

What's the Matter With Obama?The four sins of "cling."
By Mickey Kaus

.... all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for ... him)....

....he did openly accuse Pennsylvanians of being racists ...

....contradicted his own positions....

....He doesn't patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena--byproducts of economic stagnation--in a way he doesn't regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena.** ...

LeeG
04-18-2008, 08:22 PM
Long live the liberal orthodoxy!!

Guess what Bob,,everyone's scared. At least Hillary upholds the illusion that GWs pooch screwing can be explained away, maybe by introducing an elephant. Obama is so far out there he's willing to get a hose.

Bob Smalser
04-18-2008, 08:37 PM
Obama is so far out there he's willing to get a hose.

Except he's lying. And badly. The faithful are just slow to remove their blinders.

He lies about no tax increases for the middle class. He lies about NAFTA. He lies about bipartisanship and reaching out, something he's never done once as a senator. He tells one ally he's lying about NAFTA and then threatens another one. He even lied about never hearing Wright's hate speech, and he obfuscated his demeaning opinion of the "flyover" people after he blatantly called them racist..

And this is merely after a couple months. What else don't we know? You don't know of he's the Kwisatz Haderach or just another Post Turtle.


While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man.

Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a post turtle'.'

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was.

The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.'

The old man saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain.

'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just want to help the dumbass get down.'

LeeG
04-18-2008, 08:51 PM
check. So much to unknow.

Osborne Russell
04-18-2008, 09:02 PM
'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just want to help the dumbass get down.'

Sounds more like a Lame Duck Chimp.

LeeG
04-18-2008, 09:26 PM
sounds downright cruel. Why'd they put him up there?

C. Ross
04-18-2008, 10:51 PM
Brooks? Oh dear, Cris. Put on your glasses. Brooks has been off the right wall for years. Yuck.

Yup, my bad. I am embarrased to tell y'all that I was thinking "David Broder" when I was typing about "David Brooks". C'mon, I was sitting in an airport...can I blame it on bad wifi?


Well, Hillary's not eating Chelsea, and Mr. Obama's not eating Sasha and Malia so I don't think either of them is precisely eating their young.

Clever. I think the "eating their young" perspective isn't crazy though. Isn't it what Gov. Bredeson and former Gov. Cuomo are trying to get at with their "force a decision now" entreaties?

The last debate was just plain ugly and unfortunate.

elf
04-18-2008, 11:16 PM
Well, we don't know yet what the impact of this drawn out and ungracious primary competition will be, so we can't say just how many of the next generations are going to lose their enthusiasm.

But it's Friday, and by Tuesday night around 11pm we'll know a lot more. And we do know that ABC has suffered more than 19,000 contacts by email and phone concerning the shabbiness of that debate. As of last night the youtube of Obama's response with the brush off had been viewed more than 11 thousand times and that was only on youtube. And at that same event Mr. Obama took questions from the floor for a half hour - one of them was a 5th grade boy who had Mr. Obama leaning over him holding the mic for him to ask his question which was "How can I become President some day?".

So I have a hunch the young aren't quite ready to be dinner yet.

And the supers are ignoring Dean at this point.

I really sense that the party is in ill repute right now. Mrs. Clinton is clinging to it and Mr. Obama is working entirely around and outside of it, making the politicos look even more out of touch than they did before that debate. Just yesterday some of the women of my generation who just adore Bill went up to Boston to tell Deval, Teddy and Kerry to intercede with Dean and seat Mrs. Clinton's delegates from FL and MI.

I don't think they understood the answer.

C. Ross
04-18-2008, 11:31 PM
I really sense that the party is in ill repute right now. Mrs. Clinton is clinging to it and Mr. Obama is working entirely around and outside of it....

True. I'm not sure that the Democratic Party -- the party hierarchy, not those who vote Democratic -- has had any positive influence since Johnson and Kennedy in Presidential elections. (And in those elections, they were helpful in Texas and Illinois. The only winning two Democratic candidates since Johnson were an outsider and a party opponent.

Keith Wilson
04-18-2008, 11:41 PM
Bob's straw men just gets bigger and bigger, and now he's putting horns on them! I think he's channeling StanV. You just wait, Bob, Obama will get elected and he'll take away all your guns and all your capital gains too! :D

LeeG
04-18-2008, 11:51 PM
Emily, maybe this ungracious time is an opportunity for America to process the last few years. Seems to me that people will want a young mans hopeful oratory over variations of familiar platitudes.

LeeG
04-18-2008, 11:52 PM
I think Bobs got other things going on in his life and he's venting. Time to go fire up the back ho and make a ditch.

elf
04-19-2008, 12:04 AM
Clearly I'm getting a sense that my generation is no longer where it's at, and quite honestly that tickles me just fine. My generation has made a horrendous mess of it, if you ask me. Not just the Republicans but the Democrats, clearly, as well. That's one of the reasons I've never committed to a party, not even now.

But the post-college generation, I fear, is in for a big surprise when they finally realize how much work it's going to be to follow this half white/half black man, especially when he continues to use the network he's been building to get elected to actually bring about policy change.

Getting elected is going to look like a cakewalk compared to what it's going to take to make Change and all the money he's raising isn't going to be the right kind of change to buy the Change he's holding out in front of them.

In the long run the question I see is whether he will be able to bring them along for 8 years, especially since the first 4 years are going to be much harder than the ABC debate.

LeeG
04-19-2008, 12:22 AM
yr right,,getting elected will be a cake walk compared to what's needed.

Bob should be for Obama,,let the democrat take the fall. Gotta be better than more of the same.

LeeG
04-19-2008, 02:30 AM
just because I can


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uO_KITFHmY&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/19/14614/6027/588/498777



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUkyvpA_a8&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/4/18/22105/1053/399

George.
04-19-2008, 04:03 AM
My, my. It's so good to see desperation on the far right... :D

I suppose soldiers of a certain disposition must particularly fear Obama. After all, he promises to put the military back on its leash.

C. Ross
04-19-2008, 09:43 AM
I suppose soldiers of a certain disposition must particularly fear Obama. After all, he promises to put the military back on its leash.

Actually, I'd be interested in where the military vote lands this year. The debacle in Iraq was not inspired by military leaders, but people who thought they were geo-political savants. If I were a career solider I'd be angry about the no-win situation I was in.

elf
04-19-2008, 09:45 AM
And, indeed, apparently many of them are.

peb
04-19-2008, 09:58 AM
. And we do know that ABC has suffered more than 19,000 contacts by email and phone concerning the shabbiness of that debate.

It was perhaps the first debate where there were difficult, pointed, follow-up questions continually asked of the candidates. And now the Obama supporters complain that he was not allowed to continue with his shallow, albeit elegant, answers.

The way the debate was run was especially refreshing considering how little substantive difference on issues there are between the two candidates. Apparently ABC took this into account and focused especially hard on the "character" issues. From an outsider perspective, this is all the Dems have to go on as far as differences, they should be glad that is the route ABC chose to take.

LeeG
04-19-2008, 10:07 AM
Actually, I'd be interested in where the military vote lands this year. The debacle in Iraq was not inspired by military leaders, but people who thought they were geo-political savants. If I were a career solider I'd be angry about the no-win situation I was in.


yeah, but that's the great thing about the neocon guys with GW up front, they framed the narrative simple enough that you're either for the military solution,,or you're for Saddam Bin Laden.

You're not for the islamofascists ready to swim up the Potomac with a yellow cake are you? Hell no,,obviously the solution is to go in unleashed with the righteousness of belief. When you KNOW what's right, and anthrax follows 9/11,,like what's next?

It sure isn't a time to be soft on defense.

It's not like the details are comprehensible to meer people,,we gotta trust the folks with special super duper knowledge. Like where the wmd and who's linked to who spreading that terrorism cooties.

I wonder if we'll ever find out who sent the anthrax letters with US identified anthrax.

George Jung
04-19-2008, 10:43 AM
Perhaps a different 'take' on the debates - it appeared obvious, to me, that it ws a 'hit' on Obama, and Clinton clearly relished that. The comment was that it represented a 'flip' from the last one, when Clinton was on the the defensive. Maybe.

Another thought - whoever gets the nod (and everything I'm hearing suggests Obama is still favored) will be targeted over these same issues, by their Republican opponent. May as well let the tempering by fire begin now, rather than wait. Makes sense; after taking a 'hit', it takes time for the voters to reconsider their intial reactins to that news, return to their pprevious positions.

LeeG
04-19-2008, 10:58 AM
same sense I've got George,, Obama could do his version of "there you go again" and the network media can be happy they've provided a good entertainment product. These shows have to compete with a lot of other stuff on the tube.

C. Ross
04-19-2008, 11:12 AM
LeeG George Jung and peb are on to something here. Seems that the Obama campaign is focused relentlessly on two things: selling the character of the candidate himself, and avoiding most issues except Iraq. This is impressive and disciplined campaigning. But the answers on other issues do sound a bit shallow, and Sen. Obama does sound a little annoyed when pushed to get into details on some of the pieces that support Hope and Change. They're off the message of the campaign.

LeeG
04-19-2008, 11:28 AM
yep, we just want another decider who makes us feel good again.

Whether it's Reagan dismissing self-doubting angst of the 70's or Bill Clinton bringing in the new generation with Fleetwood Mac.

Come on,,Obama is adorable, we had eight years of "I can't talk but trust me, I go with my gut and won't trouble you with big words", that sh*t didn't work so it's time for something different. Obama can talk about big ideas in simple words as though he's talking to adults and not nine year olds in adult bodies. That feels good.

No wonder some folks are ascared. It looks like seduction. Hey,,but we're all consenting adults so what the heck,,the pooch has already been screwed, any of the three candidates are better than George with Cheney up his back.

elf
04-19-2008, 12:07 PM
Seems that the Obama campaign is focused relentlessly on two things: selling the character of the candidate himself, and avoiding most issues except Iraq. This is impressive and disciplined campaigning. But the answers on other issues do sound a bit shallow, and Sen. Obama does sound a little annoyed when pushed to get into details on some of the pieces that support Hope and Change. They're off the message of the campaign.

Well, I think that's not accurate at all, Cris. There is one other thing he talks about nearly every time I've heard him speak - and that's the need for the country to work together to come to agreement on policy on all fronts. He offers his policy proposals on the site and then speaks about the need to change the way the government runs so that the ordinary voter is not closed out of the process of governing.

Of course, that's the hard part, getting people to do more than donate a few bucks and come to some mob scenes like last night in Philly and cheer.

But if one actually believes that the US has drifted way far away from representative government, if one feels like one doesn't count at all any more even a little bit, like the tax code and the economic policy is stacked against one and has been for years, then the idea that he wants to bring participation in governing back into the hands of the people makes a certain sense, even if one is not so certain that one is willing to get involved.

Now, 35,000 people down in front of Independence Hall is not bad in terms of participation, but still it's only cheering. But if even 1% of those people does something more and 10% of that number does something even more it certainly is opening up participation to a bigger group than we're looking at right now. And if that participation is in actual governance, not just campaigning, it could even have an impact like Mr. Obama is asking for.

I don't believe any candidate is going to be able to call in that sort of impact without a measure of charisma. It's simply not possible to be a colorless wonk and get people fired up to take risks, like to turn off the TV and go out and sit on a committee to deal with local environmental laws, or class sizes in the grade school, or public housing construction guidelines, or sewage disposal, or whether to let a Dunkies into the strip mall down the street. Sooo much easier to watch the Patriots or Red Sox or Cubbies or whatever, switch off the attention, and then get fired up every 4 years instead.

So expecting Mr. Obama to intone about policy details during a speech in front of 35,000 in center city Philly is unrealistic, of course. In fact, expecting any candidate to drone on about policy in that situation is.

Whether Mr. Obama will be able to bring Congress along with his plans when they get to the nitty gritty is another question. How he will try to do that is even more interesting to consider. If 19,000 individual people made their opinions felt by ABC last week about the non-debate, I do think we're looking at a different way of getting the mob to be heard. I'm not strong on math, but more than a million people apparently watched that debate and I believe that 19,000 is nearly 2% of the people who watched it. If we had participation like that in public policy making it would be amazing.

if Mr. Obama uses the campaign structure he's been creating, the idea of participation in policy is changed to something rather new.

For those who actively dislike what Mr. Obama is saying this should be setting off alarm bells in their minds too.

C. Ross
04-19-2008, 07:44 PM
Fair points, Emily.

Sen. Obama is playing "ask not what your country can do for you..." as well as any politician since maybe Gene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy. He is also playing perception over policy as well as any politician since Ronald Reagan.

I will be curious to see if this approach changes. If nominated, he has already shown that he will run against Bush 3, not against McCain. "Let's come together and throw the rascals out" might be hard to turn into a mandate with Congress.

elf
04-19-2008, 10:15 PM
Just means you get to watch and work for the Congresspeople of your choice as well. You've got a lot more interesting choices out there than I have here. The only thing I get to struggle with here is the Clintonian old biddies, otherwise everyone I usually vote for is already on Obama's side, although some guy is dreaming of running to oust Kerry.

This week I answered a call from the Obama campaign to write my undecided superdelegates and tell them why I thought they should support Mr. Obama's candidacy. I got the call from the Obama site, and the names and addresses of the people to write from there too. They are doing that for every state with uncommitted supers.

Nothing to say you can't do the same out there and write to Democratic superdelegates letting them know why you think they should afiliate themselves with Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. It's not necessary to be a registered Democrat, or even friendly.

What Mr. Obama wants is participation. Sure, he's partisan, but eventually he wants wider participation, if you take his words at face value.

C. Ross
04-19-2008, 10:30 PM
My superdelegates have spoken, except Collin Peterson.

My Congressperson will surely be the partisan, lackluster and anonymous Betty McCollum. Who? Yup. Sigh. We could do so much better.

If there's anything interesting to come out of Minnesota this year, it will be Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken, or the possibility that McCain picks Gov. Tim Pawlenty as VP candidate.

Minnesota Superdelegates
Vice President Walter Mondale -- Hillary Clinton
U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- Barack Obama
U.S. Rep. Tim Walz -- Obama
U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum -- Obama
U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison -- Obama
U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson -- uncommitted
U.S. Rep. James Oberstar -- Obama
DFL Party Chair Brian Melendez -- Obama
DFL Party Associate Chair Donna Cassutt -- Obama
Democratic National Committee member Ken Foxworth -- Obama
DNC member Rick Stafford -- Clinton
DNC member Jackie Stevenson -- Clinton
DNC member Nancy Larson - Obama
DNC member State Sen. Mee Moua -- Obama

elf
04-19-2008, 10:36 PM
Walz and Peterson are Bush dog democrats - watch out for them, they might vote for McCain!

http://openleft.com/frontPage.do

Check out the right sidebar here and see where the link goes.

It's an uphill battle for Franken, from the point of view of the Obamanians.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-19-2008, 10:43 PM
I am a little confused about some of the debate surrounding Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton...In the last eight years the Bush administration has tumbled the USA into a war they lied about, tripled the national debt, created a recession, put the reputation of the USA alongside Iran and North Korea, and perpetrated an overwhelming atmosphere of fear and suspicion among the amercan people.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, you guys could run a three legged blind dog from the pound, with a potted shrub as his running mate, and they couldn't do any worse.

C. Ross
04-19-2008, 10:53 PM
Tim Walz? No blue dog there. Ran as a vivid anti-war candidate.

Mr. Franken, deemphasizing his roots in comedy, has become a sodden, dull, scold. The Air America Al, not the Saturday Night Live Al. He will win only if Obama wins MN overwhelmingly, and if he ever lightens up a couple of watts. My bet is on Coleman.

Who the heck is opposing Kerry?

elf
04-19-2008, 10:55 PM
Closer up there is a much bigger difference between the two Democratic contenders. For me it comes down to style. Mrs. Clinton is motivated by fighting. Mr. Obama is motivated by organizing and cooperating.

I prefer cooperating. Fighting seems to have gotten my country into troubles for a very long time. I'm really tired of troubles.

elf
04-19-2008, 10:58 PM
Tim Walz? No blue dog there. Ran as a vivid anti-war candidate.

Hmm. Check that site and tell me what it's about, then. I'm not clear. MN is not exactly my area of expertise.

Dunno now about Republican running against Kerry. Tomorrow.

Incidentally, there's an IYRS talk this Tuesday and then Daniel Forster will be giving a slide show early in May. You coming this way either of those times?

C. Ross
04-20-2008, 01:46 AM
Apparently Walz voted for FISA, and has not followed through on his pledge to end war in Iraq. (He pledged WAY more than was feasible. A likeable guy, but a surprise winner.)

IYRS events? Tuesday I'll be in Hartford, but just for about 5 hours. When is the May talk? I may be in MA or RI once or twice in May.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-20-2008, 01:54 AM
I am a little confused about some of the debate surrounding Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton...In the last eight years the Bush administration has tumbled the USA into a war they lied about, tripled the national debt, created a recession, put the reputation of the USA alongside Iran and North Korea, and perpetrated an overwhelming atmosphere of fear and suspicion among the amercan people.

As far as the rest of the world is concerned, you guys could run a three legged blind dog from the pound, with a potted shrub as his running mate, and they couldn't do any worse.


Yes, but there are Red Queens like Bob Smalser, who believe that the United States "solved" the dot com bubble. If you can believe that, you have no difficulty believing three impossible things before breakfast...

George Jung
04-20-2008, 07:53 AM
"As far as the rest of the world is concerned, you guys could run a three legged blind dog from the pound, with a potted shrub as his running mate, and they couldn't do any worse."- Petie

I've heard you described as such, but it's not much of a platform to 'run' on, now is it? And thanks for the offer, but you have to be a citizen to run for President. :p (BTW, who's the guy in the pot?) :D

A Red Queen, ACB? I'm unfamiliar with that term; perhaps you can enlighten me? :confused:

elf
04-20-2008, 08:02 AM
Speaking of Krugman being wrong, himself. Here's an explication of the data from RCP:


Krugman's Latest Attack on Obama Not Supported by Evidence

By Alan Abramowitz
Paul Krugman continues his bashing of Barack Obama by attacking Mr. Obama's recent comments about "bitter small town voters." In his recent column, Krugman makes two claims about the political behavior of white working class voters that he says prove that Obama's characterization of these voters was simply incorrect. Leaving aside the fact that Krugman is taking Obama's comments out of context and distorting their real meaning, both of Krugman's claims are demonstrably false.

1. Krugman claims that the relationship between frequency of church attendance and Republican voting is much weaker among lower income white voters than among upper income white voters. This claim is not supported by evidence from the 2004 national exit poll. According to the exit poll data, the relationship was equally strong among lower and upper income white voters. Among white voters with family incomes of less than $30 thousand, George Bush was supported by 68% of those who reported attending church more than once per week vs. 33% of those who reported never attending church. Among white voters with family incomes of $100 thousand or more, Bush was supported by 81% of those who reported attending church more than once per week vs. 46% of those who reported never attending church. Thus, while upper income whites consistently supported Bush at a higher rate than lower income whites, the difference in support between the most and least frequent church-goers was identical in the two groups.

2. Citing the research of Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels, Krugman claims that Democrats do better among working class voters now than they did during the 1960s and that the success of the Republican Party in American politics since that time is entirely explained by GOP gains in the South. But this is simply not the case. Republican gains in the South are only part of the story of GOP success since the 1960s. Republicans have also made significant gains among white voters outside of the South, and these gains have been especially striking among two groups that were once mainstays of the New Deal Democratic coalition: Catholics and blue collar workers.

According to data from the American National Election Studies, Democratic identification (including leaning independents) among white voters outside of the South fell from 50% to 44% between 1962-70 and 2002-2004 while Republican identification rose from 45% to 51%. Thus, an eight point Democratic advantage during the 1960s was transformed into a seven point Republican advantage in 2002-2004.

But Republican gains were much larger among two key Democratic constituencies. Among northern white Catholics, Democratic identification fell from 65% during the 1960s to 44% in 2002-2004 while Republican identification rose from 26% to 49%. Thus a 39 point Democratic advantage among northern white Catholics was transformed into a five point Republican advantage. Similarly, among northern white blue collar workers, Democratic identification fell from 61 percent during the 1960s to 41 percent in 2002-2004 while Republican identification rose from 31 percent to 48 percent. Thus, a 20 point Democratic advantage among northern white blue collar workers was transformed into a seven point Republican advantage.

It is clear from these data that the Democratic Party's problems in recent years have not been confined to white voters in the South. Democrats have also lost ground among white ethnic and working class voters outside of the South, voters who were once crucial components of the party's electoral base. While Barack Obama's formulation of the problems that the Democratic Party has been having with these voters may not have been artful, there is no doubt that the problem is real.

Dr. Alan Abramowitz is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University, and the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States (2004, McGraw-Hill).

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-20-2008, 05:32 PM
[QUOTE=George Jung;1819966

A Red Queen, ACB? I'm unfamiliar with that term; perhaps you can enlighten me? :confused:[/QUOTE]

Alice laughed, "There's no use trying," she said, "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Osborne Russell
04-20-2008, 05:58 PM
That this cha-cha about demographics is a waste of time is the best that can be said of it. Much more to the point, it's an un-American rhetorical trick.


"Most men are cowardly, vicious and cruel."

-- John Adams

If this be elitism, let us make the most of it.

George.
04-21-2008, 05:40 AM
Of course it is elitism, what John Adams said, and what Obama said.

The whole US Constitution is elitist. It was designed to keep the unwashed gun-toting church-controlled masses from having too much direct influence in government. It came up with a Senate, indirect elections, etc., etc., to ensure that the elite had a disproportionate say in matters - even if ultimately the people selected that elite.

What exactly is wrong with that? Athens of the 5th century BC was not elitist. Ördinary people" ran the show. Look what it got them.

Osborne Russell
04-21-2008, 11:24 AM
Depends what you mean by elite. America forbids an hereditary aristocracy but invites the formation of economic and political elites. Liberty American style means the liberty to form combinations, associations, classes, factions, special interests, elites, whatever you want to call them. Apart from the immorality of state interference, there is the argument that liberty allows people to find and promote their common interests, which makes society less violent and more rational. To what extent it actually works that way is open to question but until a better idea comes along the choices are: anarchy, tyranny and meritocracy.

What really bites is that the GOP has ever been the roaring fountain of lip service to these principles, as they defend the corporate ticks on the national jugular. Until they found they could sell the Chimp as a populist, and Obama as an elitist. It's too perfect. Elites damning their opponents as elitists.