Bill Kristol Depressed: Thinks Obama Is Going To Win
Bill Kristol, neoconservatism's intellectual powerhouse, is suffering. Driving around the Washington suburbs this weekend, he saw a few Obama bumper stickers.
"As I drove around the Washington suburbs, I saw not one but two cars -- rather nice cars, as it happens -- festooned with the Obama campaign bumper sticker 'got hope?' And I relapsed into moroseness. Got hope? Are my own neighbors' lives so bleak that they place their hopes in Barack Obama?"
The reference to the "rather nice cars" sums Kristol up. What a silly and superficial man!
Living in those same Washington suburbs, in a Chevy Chase neighborhood full of Obama stickers, I have an answer for Kristol.
No, Neocon Man, our lives are not bleak at all. We have nice houses and nice cars. But, you see, the essence of patriotism is caring about people other than one's self. Not everybody lives in our suburbs, with our fine schools, libraries, and sheer wealth. Millions and millions of Americans are hurting -- not to mention the millions hurting here and in Iraq from the war you and your pals inflicted on this country. Democrats care about those people. In fact, caring about them is what makes us Democrats.
What makes you a neocon is that you only care about you and yours. And that is why you can't understand why Obama gives us hope. It's not only for ourselves. It's for our country, a concept utterly alien to the likes of you.
It's not your neighbors' lives that are bleak. It's yours. What can it be like to live a life of such utter selfishness?
You live in the pigs' sty, you feed at the pigs' trough. But you pose as a champion of the people and the suckers believe you. Maybe you're not so dumb after all.
July 28, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you not the troll who complains about "personal attacks" whenever anyone says something to the effect that you are simpleminded, belligerent, uninformed, and generally a pain in the ass?
The difference is, in referring to you, those are factual statements.
July 28, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. I'm not a troll and I don't complain about personal attacks. I simply identify them as such when it suits me.
I'd like to say you have me confused with someone else but I know you don't. You're still smarting from the repeated beatings I've given you.
July 28, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Mr. Thin-skinned, but there is no such fact in evidence.
You do little other than spew belligerent nonsense, and if you ever showed the actual courage to stand face to face even with a four-year-old, I think I'd keel over from the shock.
For you to talk about administering "beatings" is the height of absurdity. You lack not only the courage, you lack the capacity.
End of story.
July 28, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ The Old Grouch
heh, heh, heh...
July 28, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyous says;
"heh, heh, heh..."
Besides being a troll, he's a plagiarist too.
July 29, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
Oh? You have some sort of copyright on the expression? Of course not. You're simply the moron I've always thought you were.
"Heh, heh, heh.." is simply a method of annoying one's opponent, used in many places by many people. I thought this was the right time to use it on Grouch. He's such an easy mark.
You, too....heh, heh, heh...
July 29, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't feed the trolls
July 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
free patriot says:
"don't feed the trolls" (offensivetoyou)
You're right, I shall now refrain from feeding him the attention he needs to feel self worth.
July 29, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ JohnW1141
You've said that before, remember? Or is Alzheimer's one of your many attributes?
July 29, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really funny because all Kristol ever does is pose as the champion of the people, as do all the faux populists over at NRO, as has every movement conservative from Phyllis Schlafly and Goldwater to Santorum and McCain today.
The truth lies in the laws these guys pass and the results they deliver; not in the fake authenticity BS they project. You're just the latest sucker to fall for their BS. Wake Up.
July 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Northern Observer
You're just the latest sucker to fall for their BS
Actually not. The people who govern us are all rich lawyers, regardless of party...and lobbyists are effective with all of them.
plus...
I don't need a champion. I'm all grown up.
July 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou;
heh heh heh, heeeeeeeeee's baaaaaaaaaack,
trolling for attention, the 'stuff' he doesn't get once he leaves the keyboard.
July 29, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Kristol is the quarterback of my fantasy foolass team, which includes Candy Crowley, Gloria Borger, Jonah Goldberg, Ron Fournier, Matt Drudge and anybody from the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Why would anybody allow these idiots to parade as journalist, is beyond me!
July 28, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Kristol doesn't understand that some people who live in nice neighborhoods or have nice things had to, well... work. They worked not only to acquire those lifestyles but they continue to work in order to keep up. A lot of people in the middle class, or upper middle classes are a layoff away from losing their standards of living. And, they're effected by stagnant wages and rising prices too. For 8 years Bush has been a disaster for anybody who has to work for a living. While we shouldn't forget that the most vulnerable have suffered the most, Kristol is just going to have to face the fact that Bush has alienated anyone without a trust fund.
July 28, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of people in the middle class, or upper middle classes are a layoff away from losing their standards of living.
That's always been the case. You'll find the same complaints over at Free Republic where those same high-end people demand that they stop being lumped with the really rich, who don't have to work for a living.
July 28, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, that's always been the case. But very few people who aren't megarich can say that Bush's economic policies have been good for them. I think Kristol is missing that fact, hence his confusion.
July 28, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
But very few people who aren't megarich can say that Bush's economic policies have been good for them.
But those people over at Free Republic much prefer Bush to McCain and McCain to Obama. Why? They're not stupid people, especially when it comes to their pocketbook. When you factor out issues of foreign policy and race their preferences are just as strong. They believe Obama would tax them to death and restrict their opportunities.
Numbers are important - anyone making less than half a million a year is probably not truly rich - but they are not all important. What counts most is how one gets that money, what one has to do to get it.
July 28, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
In case you weren't paying attention, a lot of them were saying the same thing about Clinton in 1992. The only major differnce this time is that in 1992 most of them didn't have access to an internet that would record their wisdom.
July 29, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ destor
It would be interesting to know what Rosenberg does for a living, how he got his money. I'd bet inheritance - either his or his wife's - plays a huge role.
July 28, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK then - what do you do for a living?
July 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ's bio is pretty clear. He's worked a lot of political jobs for congressional reps, for lobbyists and for USAID. I don't get why you're suspicious of his means or motives.
July 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because that's what cons do when they have nothing to attack someone on. They make up shit, and pose it as a question.
July 28, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ destor
My first post makes clear my reasons for suspicion. He lives rich. How did he get the money to do so? The jobs you've listed don't pay THAT well and, unless he's HIGHLY paid NOW, he can't afford his lifestyle.
July 28, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to post it here because it's too personal but if you want to know what MJ Rosenberg gets paid you can look up the IRS Form 990 for the Israel Policy Forum. They disclose his salary, as of 2006. He's not super wealthy but he's doing very well. If he's part of a two income family and his wife makes a similar amount, then they're doing very very well and would not need to be trust fund babies in order to live where they live.
July 28, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ destor23
The Israel Policy Forum is his newsletter?
July 28, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the non-profit where he serves as director of policy research. He edits and writes the newsletter, I believe, as part of that job. I can assure you, the man really does work for a living.
July 28, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's ADD or myopia or raggedy-brain syndrome - something is interferring with Mr. Kristol's thought processes.
His America is "an America that wins its wars" (Iraq is not a war, Mr. Kristol) "that protects its unborn children" (but not necessarily its 'born' ones) "allows citizens to keep more of their hard-earned income" (your wars are very costly, Mr. Kristol, suggesting you may want to study the inception of and continuation of the income tax.)
July 28, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
kristol is in fine form today, explaining how in 1948 voters punished a "Do Nothing" Congress, and trying to compare 1948 to 2008
there is only one problem with kristol's theory
in 1948, people were pissed at the majority in congress,ie, the repuglitards
in 2008, people are pissed at the MINORITY party in congress, ie, the repuglitards
there are 23 open seats held by repuglitards, and every one of thoses seats is in play
there are 12 open seats held by Democrats, and only one is in trouble
bill kristol really sucks at drawing historic analogies
and ain't he gonna be surprised on November 6, 2008 ...
oh, and "offensive to you", you're a fucking troll, and nobody pays attention to what you got to say
I never read the shit you post ...
nuff said ???
July 28, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ free patriot
I never read the shit you post ...
Never? Promise? Cross your heart and hope to die?
July 28, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free Patriot...
I think you have just said
"And that's the bottom line!"
July 28, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. that was beautiful. I have felt the frustration you expressed. I could not articulate it. I'm relieved to see that someone could. Thank you.
When I served tables, a fellow server -- a neocon -- once said to me, "Jesus is on the train from Chicago." The comment was so retarded, I didn't connect the reference. I thought, "there's no way he's trying to make THAT point (the same one Billy Boy PUBLISHED)." I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I should not have.
Again, M.J., what a skillful issue gouge. You are the man.
July 28, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to interject on subject when there's a serious flogging of offensivetoyou going on but Kristol criticizes the bumper sticker based on "the cheezy" Got Milk? ad. When that ad first came out I too thought it was cheezy. Regardless it became one of the most successful ad campaigns in history and it's still going strong. I'm not surprised Kristol doesn't know this and it further reinforces my belief he's a great contra-indicator. If Kristol says something there's about a 90% probability that the opposite is true. He's been consistently wrong so often I'd lay money right now we'll get that filibuster proof majority.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
July 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just what hit me, too. What a condescending thing to say - he revealed his shriveled soul with that.
July 28, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ - excellent profile of William the Bloody. Like many current Republican/Bush Base dead enders Kristol is a person obsessed and infatuated with himself.
Like Bush and his supporters, Kristol has no regrets for the ruin and death caused by this administration.
July 28, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
But those people over at Free Republic much prefer Bush to McCain and McCain to Obama. Why? They're not stupid people, especially when it comes to their pocketbook. When you factor out issues of foreign policy and race their preferences are just as strong. They believe Obama would tax them to death
Yah. You live in dreamland:
the average freerepper IS racist (maybe he doesn't wanna admit it), and very focused on kicking butt militarily, than talking and negotiating, which admittedly is harder and more complex. they think this is cowardice and whimpish.
They just vote emotionally, and i really don't see how wasting money by giving it to Halliburton in Iraq, via the US tax-dollar, is gonna get them better schools, health and roads.
Why do they do it? They got scared. They got scare mongered. If you can get people scared they'll just do about anything.
Now, neokkkon scaremongering has lead to one group, the rich (over 250 a year), becoming even more rich. Democrats might scare you about mcSame, but they got the past 8 years as living proof.
The world wasn't out to get you THEN. If it was, well, maybe you had it coming. But NOW, thanks to bush, much MORE of the world hates you. Not Americans, but STOOOPID NeoKKKon Americans.
July 28, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ The Coloured European Observer
I don't know what you're talking about and I doubt you do either. Regardless of their attitudes on race and foreign policy, freepers care about money...and especially their money.
July 28, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ The Coloured European Observer
Let me remind you that freepers had the same attitudes towards both Kerry and Gore, have the same attitudes towards the anti-war Left and the Greenies (who are almost exclusively white), the same opinions of most Democrats going back to FDR at least; they're all a bunch of jealous, cowardly, Godless, communists intent upon taking money from the industrious, the clever, the hard-working, the risk-takers.
I'd say it's you who have a really, really serious race problem.
July 28, 2008 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well then I have to take issue with your statement that most of them are intelligent, not rich and that their over-riding concern is their money. Its very easy to prove that GDP growth, Unemployment and inflation have all been better (a lot better in the case of GDP growth and Unemployment) under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents over last 60 years or so.
It seems to me that intelligent people would reject a party that provides as poor a return as the Republicans have. Is that the case over in Freeperland?
July 29, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dave Adams
Well then I have to take issue with your statement that most of them are intelligent, not rich and that their over-riding concern is their money.
That's a very serious argument, one which has engaged mankind since Marx's time, at least. You cite your supporting evidence, they cite theirs.
The fact is, the evidence is inconclusive because our understanding of economics and human social interactions is so poor.
July 29, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The evidence isn't inconclusive, in fact its quite obvious.
July 29, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dave Adams
Really? And I thought you were a reasonable man.
Well, let's start with your first claim...Its very easy to prove that GDP growth, Unemployment and inflation have all been better (a lot better in the case of GDP growth and Unemployment) under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents over last 60 years or so
You're using these 3 markers as indicative of good times, and you want to claim that improvements in them are due to policies of incumbent Democrats. That can all be disputed, especially the latter. But that involved lots of statistics and detailed argument. So let me be non-technical
Would you say America experienced better times under Eisenhower or Carter, under Reagan or Johnson? See what I mean? You're just a partisan ideologue and, like all such, are incapable of allowing facts to dispel your illusions.
July 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attempt to distract with an Ad Hominem noted. This is usually a sign that there is no underlying argument.
I'm going to interject here before you go "non-technical", or to be technical about it, Ad Hominem, again.
You are free to add to the list or use your own. I suspect that you may not use any technical measurement, but please, clear up any misconceptions I may have.
My point is simply that there is economic data that the government uses to track economic progress, and that one can see patterns in that data. Here are my sources, BTW:
GDP Growth:
http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
Unemployment:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
CPI:
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt
I make no claims about why, but the data is clear that since WWII (the time period you cited) measurable economic performance has been better when Democrats occupied the White House than when Republicans did. Its hardly an illusion.
Now where were we? Oh yes, you were about to accuse me of being an ideologue:
July 29, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Dave Adams
War - if you win - is good business. That's the only pattern I see in your GDP data...and I already knew that.
July 29, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there's the difference between us. When I saw the data for the first time I was surprised. In my case the facts actually did dispel my illusions. I didn't think there would be a significant aggregate difference between Republicans and Democrats. Illusion dispelled.
Given your statement above and your previous definition:
I have to conclude that you, by your own definition, are a partisan ideologue.
July 30, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Dave Adams
Economic Prosperity and the Presidents
Here you go. An analysis which supports your position, or, more likely, is the source of your position.
For me, it's equivalent to reading tea leaves.
Remember the claims about rapidly increasing inequality, about CEOs who suddenly were making hundreds of times as much as their employees instead of ten times as much. That first occurred under Clinton who is ranked no. 1 while Eisenhower, who presided over our most egalitarian post war era, is ranked no. 10, almost at the bottom.
What Clinton most famously did is balance the federal budget at the urging of Wall Street, of Rubin and Greenspan and others. That is a classic conservative recipe, and was, and is still, hated by virtually the entire Left. Now you want to say that the prosperity which resulted was the result of the policies of the Left, simply because Clinton had a (D) after his name?
You also ignore Bush I's most famous economic act, the one which sank his ship - new taxes the classic Democratic solution. What did it get him? Bottom ranking and one term.
And how about Johnson, ranked no 2? Of yes, the VietNam war and civil rights turmoil were really, really good indicators of prosperity and contentment.
John Kennedy ruled for 3 years, hardly enough time to seriously affect the economy, but perhaps I'm wrong. Could you tell me what he did domestically which separated him so drastically from his predessesor Eisenhower?
And what did Reagan do to cause him to achieve a higher ranking than his predessesor Carter?
Sorry. I'll stick with my original claim. The data are inconclusive.
July 30, 2008 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see that I'm going to have to dispel a few more of your illusions.
First, I happened upon the particular data I cited because I went looking for it at the source. One of your fellow Conservatives, "the Cleverbulldog", cited a Congressional White Paper from 1995 that compared GDP growth during Reagan's two terms to projected GDP Growth during Clinton's term (which it found it to be wanting), and lamented the "lost opportunity" due to Clinton. My reaction was "Well that can't be right", and so I went looking for GDP growth figures from a credible source. theCleverbulldog then challenged the validity of using only GDP Growth as a metric (amusingly so, given that it was the metric he cited) and so I went looking for data on Inflation, Unemployment, and the Federal Deficit. I still haven't located data on the Deficit.
Second, I have to question why you think that Liberals hate the fact that Clinton balanced the budget. The kind of criticism you're talking about is historic. it might have been true 40 years ago, but no longer, at least not in my experience. This site is predominatly Liberal and I don't see anyone here complaining about Clinton's balanced budget. Admittedly, Liberals don't purport to hate deficits with the same virtiolic lip service that Conservatives do, but we also didn't have a Vice President who said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".
Third, I'm not sure why you claim that I've ignored Bush I's tax hike, since neither of us have even mentioned it.
Fourth, the Civil Rights Movement, while certainly painful to many, had a lot of constructive benefits. Surely you don't think the country would be better off if there had been no Civil Rigts movement?
Fifth, Kennedy never ruled, he presided.
July 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CEO accurately describes the attitudes of a large part of the Bush Base.
As to the 'freepers money', Bush and his neo-con advisers have swindled them of it in a unnecessary 'pre-emptive' war, a devalued and sinking US dollar, inflation and rising deficits as far as the eye can see.
No Carnie snake oil purveyor or huckster could have done a better job. Most don't even know what is happening. They will always blame someone else, liberals, blacks, or folks on the other side of the world for the problems for which they alone are responsible-putting a charlatan and an incompetent in a position of power.
July 28, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ noblecommentdecider
Most don't even know what is happening.
They have an even lower opinion of you. In any event both you and they are part of the voting public...which always gets what it deserves.
July 28, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensive: Did any of your mother's children survive past birth -- or did the best part of your clan dribble onto the sheet beneath??
You are a truly pathetic piece of work.
July 28, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take umbrage at this statement. I do not doubt that many democrats care about the suffering of others. I also do not doubt that there are many republicans who care about the suffering of others AS WELL.
Caring about other people is no more the province of any one political party than it is the province of any one religious group.
Such sweeping generalizations undermines the unifying tenor of the democratic presidential campaign. As such, I would implore you not to engage in such tactics, as they do a disservice to the high ideals which sen. Obama has done such a fine job of upholding against what could be described as the 'slings and arrows of GOP distortion'.
July 28, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think Mr. Rosenberg is spot on in every respect. As far as Kristol is concerned, the man is obviously a no-nothing, so it's surprising that anybody bothers to listen to him.
The Republicans have always been for the rich and against everybody else, and there's nothing new there. It's surprising that the American people seem to keep missing that simple fact.
Eight years of Bush has virtually destroyed the American middle class. It was meant to do that, and again, how could anybody with a brain have missed it?
July 28, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That assessment is not strictly true. I would argue that you are conflating the neo-conservatives and the Republicans. Just as not all democrats are tree-huggin hippies, not all republicans are gun-totin neo-cons.
I would consider that the Bush economic policies were meant to inflate the wallets of the richest segment of our nation (which, you may recall, includes every member of congress). That the middle-class was crushed under the weight of these inflated wallets I would see more as collateral damage than purposeful malfeasance.
July 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A nation of whiners if you ask me
July 28, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes me feel so much better! But seriously, I doubt that it was unintentional. The middle class is a threat to them, as it's the only group with both the clout and the desire to oppose them.
July 28, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would consider that the Bush economic policies were meant to inflate the wallets of the richest segment of our nation (which, you may recall, includes every member of congress).
Do you have a point?
July 28, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg says:
One Jewish senator I know is well-known for being a fiery uber-hawk on Israel. In fact, he has no interest in Israel at all and never has. He cares deeply about America's domestic problems, on which he's a leader, but is indifferent to Israel, Palestinians and Middle East issues in general. It is precisely because he doesn't give a damn that he can mouth the Marty Peretz/Alan Dershowitz line with such enthusiasm. It matters to him not at all but it keeps the campaign money rolling in (allowing him to keep doing the things he does care about).
Mr. Rosenberg, you owe it to your readers to identify this mendacious hypocrite. Please tell us.
Of course you'll refuse to, and I'll conclude you are lying through your teeth.
Posted by apacmember
July 28, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd guess Chuck Schumer
July 29, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservative complaints about Democratic bumper stickers are just that- complaints.
And that's what Republicans and their supporters are reduced to these days. Its as pathetic as it is welcome, not to mention overdue. I'm not outraged by Kristol's column; far from that.
I do think Kristol's election-year historical analogy is off by about sixteen years though. What Kristol should really be worried about is that 2008 could shape up as a repeat of 1932, not 1948.
July 29, 2008 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Kristol to Richard Perle;
'I support the war in Iraq, I just don't want to fight in it.'
Perle; 'Truly,and I support the troops, I just don't want to be one.'
Perle; 'So Bill, do you want to get in with me and Wolfowitz on the 150 million barrrels of oil in Northern Iraq?'
Wolfowitz; 'yeah, lets get what we can before they start wanting to pay for the war with some on it.'
Kristol; 'Sure, count me in, shall we invite the Kagans?'
July 29, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there's the difference between us. When I saw the data for the first time I was surprised. In my case the facts actually did dispel my illusions. I didn't think there would be a significant aggregate difference between Republicans and Democrats. Illusion dispelled.
Given your statement above and your previous definition:
I have to conclude that you, by your own definition, are a partisan ideologue.July 30, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink