McCain Ahead by 10 in Gallup--Plus Today's Front Page NY Times Suck-up To The Greatness of Sarah Palin
I simply can't fathom it. Why would anyone vote for the Republicans this year?
Other than this. The New York Times today offers a valentine to our Sarah, the mom to end all moms, the new feminist/activist/working mom who is an nspiration to all womanhood.
It seems to be working. But why?
Okay, I understand that Republicans, for the most part, vote Republican. Democrats are, for the most part, equally loyal to their party.
But what about independents and swing voters. Other than the factor one is not supposed to discuss (but which we all know is a big one), why would any American vote to continue the status quo?
It's almost un-American, the idea of perpetuating bad times. Overwhelmingly the American people think George W. Bush was a terrible President, that the Iraq war was a mistake, and that the economy is in a free fall.
How then can they vote for four more years of the same. Again, I have no problem with Republicans voting Republican. And I know why racists and neocons and the abortion-obsessed will vote Republican. But why would any normal patriotic American vote for the continuation of a status quo that, we pretty much all agree, sucks?
They want to believe.
September 7, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 21, 2011 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
They liked the 8 years Bush/Cheney gave us?
September 7, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's a known quantity. No surprises. Give this a second: McCain is a patriot, he has served this nation for years and no one would question his resolve or purpose for serving. McCain has reached across the aisle to work on legislation, numerous times. McCain (even if you don't like this) selected a "Woman" as his running mate. Obama is an unknown. he came out of nowhere just as Palin did but Obama wasn't willing to even vet Hillary. He had a chance to win and would have won had he chose Hillary. He chose to break that link of trust that many women had with him out of what appears to be animosity. Obama released this video www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqhoiK8-Ww that demonstrates his decision to not defend America with ever resource we have available. Obama doesn't believe in "Winning", not in Iraq not in Afghanistan not anywhere other than to win elections for himself. Obama only serves himself. Show us what Obama has ever done to help someone else? Please. Obama won't release information about his background nor discuss it in public that we know of. Sure he'll discuss being raised by Grandma but he won't produce a single paper he wrote in college and on that point, How could the Editor of the Harvard Law Review not have 1, not 1, published paper or article? If someone answered that simple question Obama would be more acceptable. Too many questions, too many unknowns.
September 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good lord... you really are a piece of work. A scared half-wit.
Unfortunately, you unintentionally made the point I was going to make, but better than I could.
Americans are, by and large, scared half-wits. John McCain is saying, "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes."
Old Sarg is gonna salute the flag, stick his head in the sand, and chant himself to sleep. "USA! USA! USA!"
Why? Because his worldview, along with his head, would implode if the Democrats once again took the White House, created jobs, increased the standard of living, and so on and so forth, putting the lie, once again, to all the jingoistic, ideological crap this guy has swallowed whole.
"Too many unknowns" is code for "This young black guy is smarter than I am, and that turns my world upside down. I'm scared. He might be right. And if he's right, I'm wrong. About everything."
September 7, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if you caught it, but a few weeks ago, McCain's campaign put up a new page on their website and started recruiting supporters to go out and post talking points on liberal blogs. It's called The Action Center: http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx
Perhaps our Mr.Sarge is a Action Center blogger.
September 8, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ kohoutek
Unfortunately for you, most of us read. That is not a winning argument. It makes you nothing more than a jealous whiner lamenting the Republicans' superior ability to appeal to them.
September 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
stop "butting" in!
September 8, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pot, kettle, black.
September 8, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey there Billy Boy,
OTY is the original "butting in" boy, that's the reason for my post, I was throwing a mild shot at his hypocrisy.
September 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg,
produce ONE paper McCain wrote while in the Naval Academy.
I heard this same line during the Kerry and Gore campaigns, it was BS then, its BS now.
September 7, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good morning OldSarg, aka: troll.
September 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gave an honest answer to the question that was asked. I'm sorry that you feel a discussion means "throwing around insults".
JohnW1141 you are correct, "produce ONE paper McCain wrote while in the Naval Academy", I can't but, I wouldn't expect a midshipman, learning to be an officer, while in a BA program to be writing articles for a paper he was not the Editor of. On the other hand, Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.
The question you should ask yourself is "Why does EVERY editor in the history of the Harvard Law Review have published articles EXCEPT Obama?
September 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the fuck does it matter? Read the accounts from those who were there about his tenure.
What did he do? What an EDITOR does...helped authors of all political viewpoints make their arguments better, presenting a provocative and wide-ranging set of well-argued viewpoints to a bigger audience.
You get insults because you're arguing out your ass. And most of don't have time to give you the education you didn't take advantage of the first time around.
Opening your eyes and your mind, indeed using the mind god gave you, that's not our responsibility.
But we're saddled with the consequences of your ignorance every time you vote, every time you ignore the consequences of your mistaken beliefs and persist in clinging to them, despite the fact the results never change.
September 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What the fuck does it matter?" It matters because it's reflective of his performance in the position he held. McCain was trained to be an Officer in the US Military and to serve with honor. He did that. Did Obama do his job as the Editor? Show us an example of him helping someone make improve their viewpoints or arguments. Let us speak to one person from his past at harvard of in Chicago who he worked with that will vote for him, other than his wife.
"You get insults because you're arguing out your ass." You're mad because you can see the mantel slipping. Obama is turning out to be a whining empty suit. In Colorado we called it "All hat, no cows". Half the statements on this site are pleading for Obama to stand up for himself. He can't. Obama is a coward. His wife told him "No" to Hillary. he couldn't stand up to her so he will fail. He will not be president because he can't even stand up to his wife. She knows he's a coward. You know he's a coward.
"But we're saddled with the consequences of your ignorance every time you vote" Yes, yes you are. You are saddled by me. You know I believe in what I do and that I won't bend to your foul wind. No have no control over me and I can laugh at your attempts to bully. You are a joke. Ha!
September 7, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude...You're like your own worst enemy.
Since you're too lazy to research your own assertions or find answers to your questions (which would nevertheless never stop you from voting from a position of ignorance), here are a couple links to get you started:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/
For any other questions you have about Obama, I'd suggest doing what I just did. Google it. Takes a couple minutes, but you'll find praise, attacks, whatever your heart desires out there.
Then it's up to you to do your magic. You know, make all contrary evidence disappear, reaffirm your world view, yadda yadda.
One thing that pisses me off more than anything is this "We don't know!"
Bullshit. Never has more information been available to more people more quickly in the course of human history.
Tip: Some sources are good, some are not so good. A good indication of a source's integrity is that he/she/it will often support your beliefs/opinions/preconceptions, but just as often call them into question or just flat piss you off.
Like I say further downthread, most of us, myself particularly, aren't here to try and educate people. That's why we went to college (to get the base), and keep reading and staying interested (to keep expanding). Likeminded people presume a degree of assent on a wide range of things.
Whatever you did or didn't study, maybe you'd enjoy going and doing some poli-sci courses, or history, or whatever, instead of asking for us to do what we can't. Convince you that you're wrong. Only you can do that.
But you have to want one thing more than anything: To know the truth (such as it can be known). If you're out to confirm your own presuppositions, you'll generally find a way to do that, however dubious the sources or methodology.
(And please don't trot out the elitist response. God knows I wish I could've stayed in college forever.)
But I came from your side of the tracks. Republican born and raised, voted for Reagan in my first election, raised in the Church of Christ, family from Oklahoma.
Then I got my head pulled out of my ass by leaving my comfort zone, going to a small, prestigious college back east, and finding the overwhelming weight of science, history, literature and intellectual thought decidedly on the other side.
And I did what honest people do, changed my opinions to fit the facts. Not the other way round.
September 7, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the most well-considered, polite, erudite and wise response I have ever seen to a poster of OldSarg's predispositions. I'm sure he stopped reading about paragraph 2, but nonetheless, thank you. Well done.
September 7, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
maxd,
hahahahha, good one :-)
September 8, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you really are an "Old Sarg" perhaps you'll be interested in what they guys over at Vet Voice have to say about McCain. It's also notable that McCain received a "D" grade from Iraq and Afganistan Veterans of America (in 2006, the 2008 ratings haven't been released yet). If McCain is such a wonderful thing for this country, why would these veterans not support him?
I'm not going to argue the point. I'd just like to suggest you go over there and take a look at what they have to say.
September 8, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie said:
I'm not sure OldSarg is military. I asked him the significance of his name, was it Army? He never answered. If he is military, he should learn how to spell Sergeant.
Maybe his name reflects Tony Sarg an old time German born American artist.
September 8, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
MANTLE. Get a spell checker. Get a fact checker. You're not even as much fun as Obamawon (aka Dud) or airgun177.
September 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ole Sarg is not a troll, just a stubborn ol' coot who enjoys pissing off liberals...
And who feigns an interest in the goings-on of the legal world by his reference to the Harvard Law Review...
And who claims graduating 894 out of 899 in a class can be excused for one guy, but that the other guy is obligated to go back and dig out all his old college assignments...
And who ignores the fact that John McCain passed up an admiralty and continued service to his country in the Navy in order to enter the delicious world of favors and politics...
And who, worst of all, claims Obama doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. Ole Sarge fails to define winning in Iraq however, and fails to point out that the Marines have been laughing at the Iraq war pretty much since it became an endless occupation for the Army. Tell us: What is there to "win" in Iraq anymore?
OldSarg, I actually agree with a few of the things you point out around here, and it's definitely good to have contrary voices. But the thought that Sarah Palin might become my CinC makes me laugh, not frightened or excited. It also makes me sorry for voters of this country. Picking her was a joke and you know it. Nonetheless - and you can vouch for this - we in the military are obligated to carry out her orders should she decide to declare war again on the Reds and forge boldly across the Bering Straight to democracy and freedom
September 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
tk,
McCain and Palin scare me. We gave the Bush/Cheney gang a military and look how they abused it. I suspect McCain and Palin will do the same as they elbow their way around the world 'not takin any shit from anyone'.
September 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
John W,
I suspect the Joint Chiefs have pushed back, general Army staff officers have always been the pragmatic type, and there is certainly no enthusiasm for McCain in the ranks as there was for Bush. I do not fear a McCain or Palin presidency. McCain is just too damn old and unserious to really inspire anyone or do anything dangerous, and Palin is a joke. Thoughts?
Also, the honest-to-goodness apolitical conservatives (as opposed to the partisan OldSarg bandwagon types) still remember and dislike the John McCain of the 90s who proudly supported things like gun control and tax increases.
And as David Brooks has been saying, if John McCain does win, he will have inherited a Congress that has increased its Democratic majorities and will be Pissed as Hell that Obama lost (to say nothing of how weak-willed Harry Reid and Nansi Pelosi have been up to now)
TK
September 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Democratic majorities and will be Pissed as Hell that Obama lost (to say nothing of how weak-willed Harry Reid and Nansi Pelosi have been up to now)"
This is fantasy. Democrats do not get Pissed as Hell. (Those who have voted for them, often to their own consternation, do, but I am speaking of the soory samples of humanity in Congress.)
And if Democratic shitty politicians are so upset at weak-willed Nancy and Harry, they could have been removed at any time.
September 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
from their positions of 'leadership,' or whatever you want to call it.
September 7, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
tk,
You said: "I do not fear a McCain or Palin presidency."
You may be right. But here's why I fear them. The Bush/Cheney gang, with the acquiesence of the Republican Congress, then the Democratic Congress, took for themselves almost unlimited powers. No one can deny they feel they can do as they please, with or without Congress' approval.
Their disdain for the law is obvious in many ways, especially with the ignoring of calls to testimony before Congress, and ignoring of legitimate subpoenas.
The personalities of both McCain and what has so far come to light on Lapin, with them being elected, and taking the same powers of the Bush gang is what scares me.
I saw him address the VFW, and he said in a most serious and almost freaky tone: "I will never suyrrender in Iraq. I will never surrender in Iraq". The first thing that came to my mind was; He personalized this war.
I think McCain is still fighting the Vietnam war.
I think he feels personally betrayed in that he suffered for nothing, we lost. I think he wants to ameliorate what he feels by winning a war somewhere.
The Bush gang has abused our military and sent them to die and be maimed for life for illegitimate reasons, I'm afraid McCain is capable of this too.
September 7, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct to say that Bush/Cheney feel they can do what they want, with or without Congress' approval.
That is why they should have been impeached long ago, to save the integrity of our political system. There are no checks and balances anymore.
For not impeaching Bush/Cheney, we will pay a price, perhaps the price of our Republic.
September 7, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really didn't want to jump into the fray but that comment was so asinine I had to respond. John McCain didn't pass up an Admiralty; he was never offered one. He never had any major sea command so he didn't qualify with his peers, mostly because of the FIVE YEARS he lost in a Hanoi prison, and the months he spent in physical therapy afterward.
If he was so hell-bent on politics only, he could have left imprisonment after only 3 years, but declined since it would have been used as propaganda by North Vietnam. Or he would have jumped into politics right after his release, but instead he spent 6 more years in the Navy. He spent 15 years in the Navy total. Jeez... how much would have been enough before you would refrain from questioning his patriotism?
I swear I'm fed up with innuendo, rumors, and garbage like this. Oppose McCain all you want for his actual record, or his policies, but why don't f**king amateurs stop trying to smear a man's heroic service to his country?
To answer the original question above, besides die-hard Republicans, for better or worse there are three other groups that will vote McCain:
1) Those that like the status quo
2) Those that believe that McCain/Palin will be significantly different and better than Bush/Cheney
3) Those that believe the change Obama/Biden bring about would be worse than McCain Palin
September 8, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really didn't want to jump into the fray but that comment was so asinine I had to respond. John McCain didn't pass up an Admiralty; he was never offered one. He never had any major sea command so he didn't qualify with his peers, mostly because of the FIVE YEARS he lost in a Hanoi prison, and the months he spent in physical therapy afterward.
If he was so hell-bent on politics only, he could have left imprisonment after only 3 years, but declined since it would have been used as propaganda by North Vietnam. Or he would have jumped into politics right after his release, but instead he spent 6 more years in the Navy. He spent 15 years in the Navy total. Jeez... how much would have been enough before you would refrain from questioning his patriotism?
I swear I'm fed up with innuendo, rumors, and garbage like this. Oppose McCain all you want for his actual record, or his policies, but why don't f**king amateurs stop trying to smear a man's heroic service to his country?
To answer the original question above, besides die-hard Republicans, for better or worse there are three other groups that will vote McCain:
1) Those that like the status quo
2) Those that believe that McCain/Palin will be significantly different and better than Bush/Cheney
3) Those that believe the change Obama/Biden bring about would be worse than McCain Palin
September 8, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnR
Considering the McCain family, if McCain had stayed in the Navy he no doubt would have made Admiral some day. Didn't he leave as a Captain? I think this is what tk was referring to when he said;
"And who ignores the fact that John McCain passed up an admiralty and continued service to his country in the Navy...."
September 8, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
His wiki entry (fwiw) says that he never had a major sea command so he never would have made full admiral, although he had a shot at the lessor rear admiral.
Keep in mind too that his injuries were causing him to miss a lot of work time, which probably wouldnt work well with someone at the admiral level.
September 8, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record.. two points to make on my statement
which poster John Rohan calls "asinine," a "smear," an attack on McCain's patriotism, and "innuendo, rumors, and garbage":The first point is that Worth the Fighting For supports my claim in spades, esp. the final few pages of the chapter titled Liaisons
The second point is that it was probably true that McCain would not have been a candidate for Admiral, as I'm betting congressional liaison is probably an end-of-the-road career assignment, though John Rohan has more military experience behind him (there's that word again) to confirm this better than I. As for John Rohan's doubt that McCain was hell-bent on entering politics, my gosh read the memoir. That was McCain's whole goddamn purpose.
September 9, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg,
Obama graduated from Columbia with a degree in Political Sscience, he graduated Harvard magna cum laude with a Law degree. Now I know you will discount that accomplishment because McCain barely got out of Annapolis and you're more concerned with papers that he did or didn't publish, a bullshit issue to rational people, but with meaning to the vacuous among us.
I'm sure the fact that he has big ears will be an issue with you too.
Sarg, you're rooting around in trash cans filled with trash issues. On an Issues scale of 1 to 10, this "Paper" thing of yours registers at a Negative 47. I'd be ashamed to offer this as something of importance.
September 7, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're focusing on the wrong thing all together. It's not specifically "published papers" it's anything. Who is he, what has he done, who has he worked with? Give me some history. With Palin I can tell you when she won a a stupid basketball game with a free-throw. McCain POW, Biden a horrible car accident. Who is Obama or Barry or Barak? We don't even know the damn guy's name. What about his trip to Pakistan? Who was he visiting there? Who the hell goes to Pakistan for a vacation? At least he had family in Africa and Hawaii. If he was a Community Organizer what kind of organization was he organizing? Did he really hang out with Ayers? Why would he have sold half his front yard to a slumlord crook? I mean look at the pictures! It was HALF the front yard! WHY?
The point is Obama couldn't get a security clearance! We (and you are included) know nothing about Obama.
September 7, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg,
apart from the right wing e-mails that are full of trash floating around have you ever tried to find out anything about Obama?
I know nothing will satisfy you becasue you work with that old political trick of incessant questions. Regardless of how irrelevant, how silly, you will always have more questions.
Why did Obama wear brown shoes at his prom when everyone else wore black? Why was he born in Hawaii and not Detroit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
September 7, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of a two-year old who keeps asking "Why?" because it keeps Dad talking to them. Eventually most kids figure out that their Dad loves them whether they're currently speaking to them or not.
But some never outgrow the need for constant affirmation. It seems to go hand-in-hand with the need for an authority figure to tell them what to think.
September 7, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had answers to most of your questions before the guy actually started running for President. If you're too lazy to find the information, I'm not helping.
September 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, ignore this MF (OldSarg, not you). Everyone of those questions has been asked and answered. Want to know what Obama stands for, then read his Blueprint for Change. It does have a lot of words in it and this might mean having a dictionary handy, but hey consider it like getting an education—better late than never. I also have to wonder—what is the suggestion here about not being able to find papers Obama wrote? Is it that he wrote radical overthrow the government type papers? That's just silly, as he been a middle of the roader all of his adult life. I certainly could care less what he wrote in undergrad school almost 30 years ago, that's for sure. Shit, I wrote a paper comparing LSD trips to mystical experiences back then. As for writing in general, well he's got a few books out there...
September 8, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarge said
That sums you up in a nutshell. Educational accomplishments are not important enough to focus on, but some "paper" someone didn't write as Editor is important.
That concern is a mile wide and an inch deep.
September 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's cut the "Obama's not interested in winning" crap.
"Winning and leaving with honor" is the McCain (Repub) line and that side has yet to define what constitutes victory. What will it be? A signing ceremony where Iraqi leadership and others surrender their guns, scimitars and suicide belts?
And honor? What right have we to demand an honorable end when the beginning was dishonorable?
No, Obama understands (not being too thick "upstairs") that the Iraqi leadership needs to be prodded into taking more steps to solve their political dilemmas and if withdrawing props will hurry the process along, that's the best way to proceed (necessity being the mother of invention). It's not about winning or loosing, it's about solving the mess we created by our invasion.
And McCain's stand? 100 years more of a "security operation", that looks, smells and acts like imperialism - that unfortunate mode of internatioal dealings that was supposed to have died out with the last millenium.
I don't want to hear another word about victory until someone tells me what it looks like.
September 7, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't even know that Hillary didn't want to be vetted unless she was assured of the position on the ticket, right? You really need to get your news from more sources.
John McCain, served his country until it was no longer politically expedient. Same way he served his marriage. I am not going to denigrate his service, but hundreds of thousands of other Americas served in the US Navy and they aren't anymore qualified to be president than John McCain is, myself being one of them.
Just because someone has a little (R) behind their name doesn't mean they automatically get my vote as a republican. It is about solutions and it is about the future. John McCain has no vision for either and no track record to run on to prove to us he would be able to succeed. Platitudes and legislative battles he fought ten years ago doesn't count.
You need to do a little bit of research on Obama before saying he has no resume and no experience to run on. His experience is deeper and much more relevant than John McCain. Read his book Audacity of Hope or watch one of dozens of interviews with the man from the primaries.
I won't even get into Palin, as she has zero experience. I grew up in Alaska and have been to Wasilla. That makes me as qualified as Palin is. I worked as a journalist in the US Navy, so I guess that makes me more qualified since my journalism experience is military related.
Other than that, you may be an Old Sarg, but you don't seem to have learned much from that life.
September 8, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the truth is that McCain's not so much a patriot as a rent boy. He used his Dad's connections to propel him through the Armed forces, and became an incompetent pilot. He then sold out America to the NV when he was captured. He came home, dumped a wife who stood by him, and married a woman for her money. He used that money to bankroll a political career.
It's true. McCain is a known quantity.
September 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
DGValdron says:
That sounds eerily familiar.
September 8, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still haven't found the medic yet Sarge? He's got plenty of those happy pills to help keep the pain away.
September 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason, other than race, that Americans may vote for McCain MJ is that Obama is not attacking the Republicans for their corruption, cronyism, lawlessness, trampling of the Constitution, their lies about everything you can think of including the war and the economy and their blazing incompetence in the administration of the Federal government. No, instead we are served up a regular diet of Republicans lieing and savaging Obama/Biden with only a tepid response from our side. Once again, the Republicans, despite all the facts, are painting our nominee and his runningmate as pussies, cowards, wimps and elitist so that the issue is no longer the catastrophes created by Bush and the Republicans, but that the Democrats are actually worse than those guys. Unless and until Obama stands up and fights we will lose this election just like we did 1988, 2000, and 2004 (and I don't mean putting on comparison ads that make a point but don't devastate the lying corrupt Republicans). It's just that simple.
Obama needs to stand up and fight!
As well done as the Democratic Convention was, you rarely heard the words corruption or lies. Rarely did you hear a full blown partisan assault on the scumbag Republicans for what they've done to our country. No, at the insistence of the Obama campaign nearly every shred of attack was eliminated from the remarks of all speakers. That is an error of epic proportions.
This is a fight, not a debate we're in. If Obama wants to lead the United States then he's going to have to lead the Democratic Party into battle, not into negotiation or parlee.
The other side is firing all it's guns and our side seems to think (once again like Kerry and Gore) that people are tired of all that and will see through the lies and reward the Democrats for taking the high road, etc... Bah! If they continue as they have these past couple of months Obama will lose and by extension the nation and really the world will lose because we will have allowed a war mongering pig to enter the White House with a fascist Phyllis Schlafly clone on his arm waiting to assume the Presidency upon the old man's demise.
September 7, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
I was of the opinion (hope?) that the Obama camp was sitting on a mountain of opposition research and they would start firing it after the conventions; timing, timing, timing.
The mountain of opposition research to use against the corrupt, hypocritical Repugs would make the Alps look like a speed bump.
Sadly, Biden wasn't all too impressive on Meet the Press today.
September 7, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony, of course, is that they do indeed have that mountain of research you're talking about.
Unfortunately, this is where Obama's lack of ever having run a competitive race against Republicans comes in. He has decided that, despite all the evidence of 1988, 2000, and 2004 that this time, the strategy of not fighting furiously to win will actually work. Of course, that's nonsense an anyone who isn't delusional ought to know that by now. But in the rarefied atmosphere of a campaign that has just won the nomination for President they feel invincible, smarter than everyone else, and as though they have been imbued with special knowledge and talent that will "transcend" the normal laws of political physics which continue to apply despite their having succumbed to this foolish idea that the same losing strategy will somehow magically become a winning strategy this time. The candidate, in particular, is always most susceptiable to this foolishness which is why you need good advisors who aren't prone to falling for the delusion, with clear heads around you: something hr lacks in my opinion.
They are under the delusion, as others have been before them, that because they are right, smarter, are not corrupt and have the right movtivations the people will listen and understand and vote the rascals out. This is absolutely false. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The Republican swine, by the way, are counting on all this wooly headed thinking from the Democrats. They know it is the only way they can implement their strategy and win.
A light will come on, and the Obama campaign will come to realize all this and that their ship is sinking on or around October 15th. By that time, once again, it will be too late and despite the galant effort that will be made at the end (you remember that part of the scenario don't you?), Obama will lose what should have been another 1964 for our party to a near dead, war mongering old madman who should not be allowed anywhere near power, particularly after making a choice as cynical and irresponsible as Palin for VP! Palin makes Agnew look like a philospher King for God's sake!
Yes, about mid-October they'll realize they just got the shit kicked out of em for four months running and they will come to the utterly brilliant conclusion that they may have to take the gloves off. Don't know about you, but I'm sick of this friggin Harlem Globetrotters fixed game. All of us, everyone who cares about his or her country, need to shout from the rooftops to the Obama people and those God Damned fools who call themselves Democrats in Washington DC that our country and our future is at stake, that this isn't about Obama or them or what being negative will do to their ability to govern! There never gonna fuckin govern if they can't win a God Damned election! How much more obvious can all this be? The election is is about us and our children and the future of this great nation we love and thus they need to get off their self-absorbed, egotistical asses and fucking fight our enemies!
The grassroots and netroots cannot do this without the nominee and the party participating in the battle. It won't work. The nominee is the one chosen to lead us into battle. Is he not? Instead, our chosen leader stays in his headquarters tent, arguing the finer points of policy and how he will handle things once elected. All the while he is oblivious to being flanked on all sides and waves off all warning signs as nothing to worry about! While all the enemies guns are blazing and our defenses are being blown to bits in the crossfire, our leader does nothing---just like the leaders we've chosen in the past---the centrists, the middle of the road people, the ones who sold themselves to the voters as the one who can win by bringing in independents and even Republicans! What a load of crap! We have more guns and better guns but they have been ordered to be put in mothballs because "we are better than that." Screw that attitude. It's time to rumble!!!!!!!!!!
The Democrats of Washington DC have destroyed the greatest, most progressive force in America over the past 40 years with that kind of cowardly thinking and garbage for campaign strategy and our foolish voters voted for it once again in the primaries this year. It makes me want to pull my hair out! I don't see Hillary having been any better, in fact I think she was the worse choice of the two, but at least she would not have gone down without a fight.
Obama is a rookie and he's showing it with his refusal to fight back when they spit in his face. I have warned people from the beginning, as have many others, that this would happen with Obama (and don't get me wrong I don't dislike him and I'm gonna voter for him enthusiastically because the Republicans are threat to my children's future)but when you can see this BS coming a mile away, how can you ignore it as most people did all spring and even up to the present moment? There is no excuse for what is going on. None.
People need to be shouting from the rooftops and DEMANDING that Obama fight these bastards instead of making excuses for his flaccid, anemic response to the attacks, counseling patience and hoping any longer that there's any fight in the guy. There ain't! He is not a fighter. He needs to be pushed to fight or else he won't. He's gotta be forced into battle and the battle must begin right away or we can kiss our country goodbye!
September 7, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
excellent observation. The Democrats think the vast majority of Americans are particle physicists and address them as such, the Repubs know they're vacuous, a mile wide and an inch deep, and ready to vote becasue of a good bumper sticker slogan.
September 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats act like people are paying attention and that they understand the stakes and that they are not ignorant. The truth is that they are not paying close attention, they don't have a clue what the stakes are, and they are astoundingly ignorant.
The reason the whole elitist charge sticks with the common people of our nation is because Professor Obama is not talking their language. He is still acting to impress the smart crowd. Well that ain't the deal here folks. We done that un already see? It's time to impress the lesser lihts amongst us because even now the destiny of the nation is in their hands. He could do it if he wanted to but he doesn't want to. After all, in the best circles that isn't the way it's done and it isn't what took Obama to the top. Obama doesn't hang in any but the best circles anymore. In fact, he probably could not escape the best circles were he to try and this point even though they are strangling him and leading him straight to defeat!
Biden can talk the language of the common people if he wants to, but is restrained from doing his best by the no attacking the other side, high road bullshit program from Obama and his people.
It's time to take off the gloves (long pat time actually) and roll up the sleeves and light into these lilly livered Republicans like the cowards and fools they are! All it takes is standing up to a bully (as everyone who has ever done it knows full well). If ya hit the bully hard just a couple of times he slinks away in fear and cowardice. But the bries and chablis Democrats are always in charge and they don't like that sort of thing. It means getting dirty and mussing their hair ya see. When labor had more influence in the Democratic Party we used to kick ass because the workers aren't so God damned impressed with themselves that they've fooled themselves into thinking they are too good to fight. Now we are paralyzed by a class of gutless, alleged leaders that lead like the pansies they are. They couldn't win a fight with a dead man (as we are seeing at this very time). Why, they're such pussies they are making McCain look good at this point even though he is a feeble, ignorant, mean-spirited and quite dangerous right wing opportunist. How embarassing it is to endure this quadrennial humiliation that is brought on not by the enemy but by our own side's lack of balls!
As long as the limosine liberals rule the Democratic Party we will remain estranged from the common citizens of this country. We need more fighters and less compromisers. We need Democrats who aren't afraid to be real, live, liberal Democrats who have the courage of their convictions and not just when they have 60 votes in the Senate because they are so terrified of the big, bad Republicans. We need leaders who are not beholden to the same corporate interests and predatory interests of wealth as the Republicans. We need leaders who will lead byfighting and winning instead of by negotiating and demonstrating aplomb after being humiliated time and again due to their own failure to stand firm in the face of illegitimate but strong opposition. We need leaders who know how to kick ass, take names, reward friends and punish the living hell out of enemies. It's as plain as day folks!
The horsewhipping our leaders have put us all through the past 8 years have taught those assholes not one thing. They are as cynical and out of touch as the Republicans and their pathetic behavior is all the proof anyone needs of it. 2008 should have been the easiest victory we've seen in our lifetimes and instead it will be yet another "inexplicable" defeat unless a sea change occurs prior to September 15.
I tremble with horror for my children and our posterity at the thought of what my country will be like after yet another four years of the corruption, lies, crimility and general misrule of the Republican thugs. And what makes it all the worse is that it would be so easy to win. Victory is not only in sight, but it is in our hands. All we need to do is take it, but instead we offer it openly to those who would ruin all that was ever great and good of America.
September 7, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb, you are, of course, absolutely correct. Obama wants all of us to come together, sing Kumbaya, and be loving Americans, working only to better the have nots in our country. That is a guaranteed method for losing the election.
When I heard a Biden speech, where he was presumably campaigning for Obama, he spent the first 5 minutes telling his audience how great McCain is, and how much he admires him. Why wouldn't that audience go home determined to make that American Hero our president?
Obama, meanwhile, explains in great detail the fine points about why McCain isn't on the right track with his proposals, but can never sully himself enough to point out that McCain absolutely pissed on all of us with his selection of a vacuous, but sexy girl to be his successor if anything happens to him. No one who pisses on all Americans is qualified to be President. What is so hard to understand about that?
I give us no better than even odds to win in November. And, it is almost impossible to create a better situation for a Democratic candidate to win in a landslide. We will prove we can snatch defeat from the lower digestive tract of victory.
September 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I'm in the same mind in some ways, I would LOVE to see the 15 or so very worrisome items about Palin come up in Biden's talk. But here's the rub. I won't matter. That's right. It won't matter. Anyone who hasn't really made up their mind right now is either not going to vote, or has fooled themselves. This war is not going to be won by getting people to change their votes, or by bloviating on blogs. Nope. Sorry.
Here's what WILL help. Go to my.barackobama.com, and volunteer. Be part of that community organization they talk about. This group will be registering new voters, getting voters out to the polls, and yes going door to door with your neighbors and seeing if a few votes can't be changed. Its the only way. It was a huge advantage for Obama before Palin brought the evangelicals on board. You want Barack to win? Go help.
BTW, there is a 10-15% change Palin will be President within 4 years if McCain gets elected, and her absolute lack of knowledge and expertise means she is likely to make idealogical choices, not practical ones. This is what makes her so dangerous. That is what Bush did.
Somehow, some here in America WANT our president to be a regular Joe. I have no INKLING why. Would I want an 'average' neurosurgeon? An 'average' teacher? An 'average' broker? NFW!!! But we want an 'average' guy for President? If we elect these jokers, we fucking get what we deserve.
September 7, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to say this, but what you're suggesting is pure piffle. This is the kind of argument we get every election year from the bries and chablis crowd.
I gotta tell ya, all your going to barackobama.com for guidance and direction will make not one whit of difference if the man at the top continues to allow himself, his character, his motives and his policies to be destroyed without so much as lifting a finger to fight back and defend himself like any red-blooded American man would do and that's a great deal of the point here. If you don't understand this or if Obama doesn't then it's just hopeless.
These nice little comparison ads they are putting up are cute, they're are okay, but they are nowhere near enough. We have to point out to people that we're dealing with the worst sort of lying scum (which happens to be the truth) and we have to quit compimenting the decrepit "war hero" for his service a lifetime ago that happened because he couldn't beat the antiquated North Vietnamese defenses with his top of the line US aircraft. We need to point out that the friggin two biggest mortgage finance companies were taken over the federal government today because these Republican criminals allowed our entire economic system to be destabilized as a very lucrative favor to their buddies. We have to remind people that the reason they can't afford their home anymore is these Republican scumbags. And ya know what, if someone like Duke Cunningham serves his country when a young man with distinction and then turns out to be a corrupt prick, then he's just a corrupt prick. Same thing for McCain. He's just another lying, morally corrupt prick and our side needs to be saying so without fucking apologizing all the time. In case you haven't noticed, regular Americans don't cotton to that toadying act the Democrats do. They don't like pussies as their Commanders in Chief and they don't like men to lead them who won't defend themselves, their character, their party or anything else when they've been unfairly and repeatedly attacked.
There are millions who will most certainly change their minds prior to November and there are millions who, if we don't allow their attention to be diverted, will vote against the Republican swine because they are swine and they've been reminded every day of it. The brilliant minds behind the Kerry campaign thought just as you are suggesting and look at what a remarkable first term President Kerry had eh? Your points sound good and sooth those who would rather not have to get down in the dirt and duke this thing out, but your positions are simply incorrect and don't work out when applied in the real world. I'm sure the Republicans tremble in their boots when they think that they've been given a pass on another Presidential election where our side throws no punches and allows them to wail away on us unopposed. And they absolutely cringe when they think of how all those nice young men and women are going to show up out of nowhere on election day. Right.
Sorry for the cynicism but I've just seen it too many times and heard it too many times. It's the same old broken record the Democrats trot out every four years and I'm just unwilling to dance to that losing tune any longer. You should be too. Why you and just about everyone else who has been paying attention aren't is what troubles me most. This whole point is so blatantly obvious it's just shocking to me that people think as you do any longer.
September 7, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Local campaigning is very effective in a really close race. Such door to door campaigning can swing a percent or two of the vote, and that can be the edge that leads to victory. But, getting the election to be that close is entirely up to the candidate.
I have done lots of door to door campaigning, ranging from canvassing to locate potential voters, to reminding those voters to get out and vote on election day, to virtually demanding that they get their butts to the polls, to simply dropping leaflets at their door. My experience is that if you are very lucky you will actually get to have a conversation with perhaps 5% of the people whose doors you knock on. Of those, most of them will be telling you what they think, not listening to why they should support a candidate. And, the remaining tiny percent is just as likely not to vote as to vote.
This may not be true in every section of the country, but it has certainly been the case in my state. Registering voters is more effective, but getting those newly registered voters to actually vote really depends on the candidate arousing their interest and enthusiasm enough for them to want to vote.
What candidates want more than anything, and they all want it desperately, is money. With money they can run TV ads that will have more effect than all of the door to door stuff will.
Obama is the candidate. He will win or lose almost entirely based on how well he campaigns.
September 8, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on Hoppy!
And, regardless of how effective a local, grass roots campaign is, if the candidate runs a pathetic campaign it won't make any difference cause it won't be close. That's what is shaping up right now if Obama doesn't seize the initiative and use the unprecedented amount of money he has to go after those Republican criminals and actively beat them to death with their record of lies, lawlessness and corruption! Right now he has, in his campaign, the resources to blow McCain to bits, but for inexplicable reasons he is shooting marshmallows out of that uzi he has in his hands. It is absurdly foolish!
September 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on Hoppy!
And, regardless of how effective a local, grass roots campaign is, if the candidate runs a pathetic campaign it won't make any difference cause it won't be close. That's what is shaping up right now if Obama doesn't seize the initiative and use the unprecedented amount of money he has to go after those Republican criminals and actively beat them to death with their record of lies, lawlessness and corruption! Right now he has, in his campaign, the resources to blow McCain to bits, but for inexplicable reasons he is shooting marshmallows out of that uzi he has in his hands. It is absurdly foolish!
September 8, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
excellent observation. The Democrats think the majority of Americans are particle physicists and address them as such, the Repubs know they're vacuous, a mile wide and an inch deep, and ready to vote becasue of a good bumper sticker slogan.
September 7, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point. Especially now that McCain-Palin have made the campaign about character rather than issues, the Democrats will have to expose their lies and flip-flops.
September 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say the lack of attacks will be an error of "epic proportions"?? I assume you mean this will be the reason Obama loses.....
You are too fatalistic.
Obama's team has done fine, and has been dropping the hammer at will lately, check his comments yestersay re: Palin, "you can't just make stuff up", and Biden's speech in PA. That is the kind of campaign that will work in the stretch run. We are trying to appeal to 10% of the electorate who are NOT political, and obviously have no strong affiliation with either Party. Attacks that sound shrill and partisan will do nothing but turn those voters off.
So, yes, step up the attacks. But keep them fair. Obama is no John Kerry, and has not, nor will he be Swiftboated. Mark it down, the only error of "epic proportions" going on around here was McCain's lurch to the Right.
September 7, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you were right but you're not. The "hammer" you refer to is a pathetically weak one. They need to unleash the hellhounds on this pack of swine and without delay. Kerry was doing EXACTLY the same sort of thing Obama is now doing at this stage of the game. Obama lost his lead this week in case you didn't notice, despite your "hammer" being dropped. Unless they swing that hammer with all their might we're all screwed.
September 7, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have been watching a different show, because I thought he hit the ball out of the park.
September 8, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The prima facie answer is that the Democrats (meaning the Democrats we vote for, not the Democrats who vote) are either somehow complicit in, or approve of, these policies.
September 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Americans like pacifism and higher taxes even less.
September 7, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
See reply to oldsarg above. Applies to you, too.
Pacifism? Higher taxes? You must make a lot of money, my friend. A lot.
Simply repeating lies has become a Republican standby, the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "I can't hear you! Nya nya nya, I'm not listening!"
And again, you make the point.
The very policies you support, which we've had for 8 years now, have proven disastrous. But your mind simply cannot get itself around the fact that you've been proven wrong.
So, you double down. Because if a smart Democrat made things work, made government work, your entire worldview would go up in a puff of smoke. That's what you're fighting against.
Don't pretend it's anything else, because the evidence is overwhelmingly in, and you're on the wrong side of the facts, and history. But it's hard to know that when your fingers are in your ears, your eyes are closed, and the only arguments you have can be summed up as, "No. The world is flat. The world is flat. The world is flat."
September 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
kohoutek
excellent posts, bullseyes. :-)
FOX BULLETIN: Georger Bush declares world to be flat, 12 million wingnuts nail feet to floor in fear of sliding off!
September 7, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'll have one party rule and can take responsibility for every last little thing that happens after inauguration. You know, like as has been done with Bush. Heh.
September 7, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Support Obama. You will find that, as is historically demonstrated and commonly accepted by anyone with any intellectual honesty, the economy does improve under Democrats, real wages go up for the middle class, the standard of living rises, and the wealth disparity (or concentration thereof) diminishes. For shame!
It'll be good for you, good for us, good for everyone. Even the plutocrats. More happy employees with cash to spend? Wow...They'll be able to buy lots of shiny useless shit made overseas again (since our genius capital heroes whose asses you're always licking have eviscerated America's manufacturing and technology advantages), pay the mortgage, and whatever else.
And remember, employees with healthcare get sick less often, contribute more, and cost the economy less.
Most important, you'll have retroactive ass cover: "Hey, I voted for the guy!"
September 7, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words Americans like wars but don't want to pay for it.
I have a suggestion for shooter - follow the advice of your fellow patriot in the picture at the link, oh, and you will be paying for the wars of Bush and McCain.
link
September 7, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter242,
As to Clinton, (the right's favorite target) many Republicans are so ideologically f**ked up mentally that they never realize, or admit, how much better off they were under Clinton than under the Bush gang and the Republican congress.
September 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
The amount of cognitive dissonance some people can exhibit is truly frightening.
September 7, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one thing Clinton can take credit for is being a master politician. It's a remarkably underrated talent.
My own theory of history and economics is that attitude determines the future. i.e. if people think the economy will be good, they do all the things that bring a good economy. It's nearly a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On the other hand if enough people badmouth the leadership effectively, odds are that the country will follow that track. Especially if one is verbally challenged like Bush.
Obama has, or can have that ability. It's another reason to vote for him. No matter how bad things get, a good politician can mitigate the pain
September 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Such as, the idea that higher taxes bring prosperity
Strawman alert! No one claims that higher taxes bring prosperity. The claim is that (slightly) higher taxes do not affect the economy much in any wau, disproving the hysterical warning of the GOP back in 93 when Clinton did put through a fairly small tax increase.
September 7, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, higher taxes on the investing class and lower taxes on us, the spending classes, helps the economy. Over the last century, stock market returns, inflation-adjusted but ignoring dividends, averaged 7.4% under Democrats and only 3.8% under Republics.
September 8, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans have somehow convinced a lot of people, not just their own party members, that the problems that the US faces aren't the president's fault and that if anyone other than the Republicans had been in power we'd be in worse shape now.
So if we say, "Unemployment is at 6.1%. Doesn't look like those tax breaks did the trick."
The Republicans say, "Without those tax breaks, unemployment would be over 10%."
It's not a falsifiable argument, which is to their advantage.
September 7, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup Yup! Same reason why 50% of Americans believe the earth is 6000 years old. Rational thinking is too hard and too painful.
September 7, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you figured out yet that Democrats control congress now, and have for 2 years? In that time gas doubled in price. Why? Wrongheaded democratic policies that drove up the cost of food and restricted the supply of oil. Then there is the war on terror, that the democrats want to surrender. Reid said 'this war is lost'. American's don't like defeatist politicians.
September 7, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Name one thing that the Deemocrats did to drive up commodities prices.
Commodities prices rose in the face of a falling dollar. The dollar was debased by the Federal Reserve (headed by a Bush appointtee) and by massive federal borrowing (under Bush's economic plan and to fight Bush's war).
September 7, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one. But I can't disagree that the commodity boom was a rolling-over of money from real estate to other hard assets.
On the other hand, would have raising rates into a recession been a good idea? How about trying to kill the .com bubble when it was bringing jobs and tax revenue. That seems unlikely as well. And of course, restricting the production of oil makes it more expensive. There is no getting around it.
September 7, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter, I won't defend ethanol subsidies... they're stupid and they are inflationary. But theCleverBulldog says that Congress did something within the last 2 years that caused gas to double in price. I don't think tCBd can defend that statement.
September 7, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
um, vice president al gore???
i thought you were talking about the democrats being in control of congress. i thought you were blaming democrat control of congress to deflect criticism of republican control of the white house?
if you want to absolve republican control of the white house by pointing to democratic control of the congress, you'll have to point to an instance of the democrat controlled congress overriding a bush veto. or you'll have to point to specific legislation that the republican controlled white house has pushed for and not gotten from the democrat controlled congress. but at the very least you'll have to come up with something that is actually relevant in time and space to democrats controlling both the house and senate.
September 7, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
fka,
excellent counterpoint.
September 7, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instability in the Middle East, millions of barrels of Iraqi oil offline, growing Chinese and Indian oil demand?
Didn't realize the Congress was controlling China's government and economy, or our Middle Eastern policy, bullshit, er bulldog.
Venture capitalist friend of mine surmised before the invasion of Iraq that the purpose was to keep the oil OFF the market. Because prices would rise. And if prices rose, who would benefit? Not those oil folks whose asses the Bush's lick...No, not them.
Now, I'm not much of a conspiracy guy...But several years later, and watching what's happened, I keep remembering this guy's comment and have a hard time refuting it.
But you, no, you are so vested in the lies you've told yourself, you'll believe anything but what's right in front of you.
September 7, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
theCLeve,
did you notice the price of a barrel of oil dropping quite a bit the last 4 or 5 weeks?
Gee, and without any new drilling.
September 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who was it who said: "A Republican is someone who can't enjoy a good meal unless they know that someone else is hungry."
I just saw that somewhere.
I don't think it's true about all Republicans but it is definitely true about the right. And they own the party now.
I only wish we were able to say that people with money whose politics revolves around not paying taxes to help others are utterly unpatriotic, kind of like those Republicans who oppose funding for NIH except for research in those diseases which have afflicted their own families.
September 7, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I don't know who said that, but someone else once said;
"All Republicans look like the guy that fired my father."
September 7, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This makes me think of a possible Democratic ad.
To an old crackling recording of: "come on baby let the good times roll, roll on and on.:
Visuals would be a scrolling of all the bad statistics from the Bush administration and a morphing to a montage of McCain and his 95% voting record.
The ending would be the abrupt screeching of the phonograph needle across the record, the visuals stopping with the McCain-Bush embrace, and a voice asking: Good times? Isn't 8 years enough of the same old Republican two-step?
September 7, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Compare the condition of this country, foreign and domestic, when the Bush/Cheney gang first took office and ruled for the ensuing 6 years with the Congress in the Repug's hands, to today.
Now tell me about all the wonders that produced.
Anyone? Anyone?
September 7, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh John.... the Senate was Democratic during the first two Bush years, via Jumpin' Jim Jeffords. It is in fact that Democrat Senate that voted for tax cuts and the war authorizations. And all that came after the recession starting in Clinton's term. Remember Jan 2000 to Jan. 2001? And then again it was with holdovers from the Clinton regime that shepherded us into 9/11.
The point is that the economy was already tanking before Bush got into office and it was Democrats that helped us into war and tax cuts. I think you should share the blame where deserved.
September 7, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And then again it was with holdovers from the Clinton regime that shepherded us into 9/11."
Please explain this statement without lying.
September 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't I let this gentleman do it for me. I've only read the first page but it looks like it makes my point for me.
September 7, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter, I only read the first page too.
Here is the key paragraph:
"In his numerous television and press interviews, as well as in testimony before a bipartisan panel investigating U.S. intelligence failures, Clarke is harsher against Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who demoted him after 9/11, than ever he indicated even in his hostile book. And while Clarke appears to be a righteously angry but often credible accuser, many of his longtime friends are saying publicly that his anti-Bush diatribe has cost him his credibility."
Yes, and Scott McClellan has no credibility, and Lawrence Wilkerson has no credibility, and Paul O'Neill has no credibility, and the people who tried to clean up OLC after John Yoo left, and were fired for doing so (Jack Goldsmith and Daniel Levin, who actually waterboarded himself) have no credibility.
Valerie Plame has no credibility either, does she? Then Michael Hayden, who heads NSA or whichever of the 16 top secret organizations we have spying for (and on) us, has no credibility, either, because he testified, under oath, to Congress that she was covert.
Richard Clarke, by the way, has testified under oath about this. Bush's defenders won't testify under oath about anything. I won't say it means they're lying-
but it definitely means they don't want to tell anyone the truth. (Except Scooter Libby, who did testify, and perjured himself.)
September 7, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter242 says:
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/Default.asp
Shooter, the article you refer to is in the right wing magazine, Ingsight, owned by The Unification Church, which also owns The Washington Times.
Let me guess, you probably read The American Spectator too. The Weekly Standard?
You're trying to pass off right wing analysis of the opposition to prove your right wing point.
That's no different than a born again Christian pointing to the Bible to prove the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I suggest you save those type of sources for visits to FreeRepublic.com
September 7, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
I replied to your post at the bottom (misplaced) of this thread.
September 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
haven't you heard, MJ?
mccain is the change candidate.
misinformation is the reason the majority of people who will vote for mccain will vote for mccain.
just as misinformed voters represented the majority of bush voters in 2000 and 2004. the MSM pushes different narratives (evangelicals being the phoniest and yet most widely accepted narrative) because the truth damns the MSM (and the MSM knows - and cares - fuck all about the truth anyway).
presidential campaigning is all about marketing and market research and deceptive advertising. it isn't about finding your opponent's strengths and attacking those strengths. it's about finding your opponent's strengths and appropriating those strengths. (the same as obama did with edwards during the primaries.)
this puts mccain at an advantage because mccain doesn't really have any strengths for obama to appropriate. (although if the media lets mccain get away with calling himself the change candidate, maybe obama could just pretend to have been a POW just like mccain was!)
September 7, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am an independent or swing voter.
I do not agree with the cultural beliefs of the Republican base; I am not religious and do not like religious interpretations, particularly when they conflict with well-established facts. I support abortion in theory although am open to some modifications of existing law and practice. I am absolutely opposed to any restrictions on contraception and sexual education.
I do not agree with most Republican solutions to our economic problems, but am willing to recognize our basic lack of understanding and the ad hoc nature of proposed solutions.
I recognize the difficult nature of the Iraq war but do not agree that it was wrong, unnecessary, or badly handled. I say only that those things might be true.
Still, I have not ruled out voting for McCain because I think the Left has entirely mischaracterized and stereotyped the Right; Most are not creationist, and not against contraceptives. Many are far from dogmatic.
But most of all I can't stand Rosenberg and all who agree with him. He is a coward, a liar, an America hater, a hypocrite, and not very bright. Who would want to be associated with a base composed of such people?
September 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
so in other words, you are defensive about republicans and their positions and character being mischaracterized but actively involved in promoting mischaracterizations about democrats and their positions and character.
persuasive.
September 7, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ flake
so in other words you are incapable of taking my words at face value because they are too threatening to your prejudices.
September 7, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
what aren't i taking at face value?
you just complained about the left mischaracterizing the right and then proceeded to mischaracterize the left.
September 7, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But most of all I can't stand Rosenberg and all who agree with him. He is a coward, a liar, an America hater, a hypocrite, and not very bright. Who would want to be associated with a base composed of such people?"
Offensive,
Votes are cast secretly.
September 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensive,
It is laughable that anyone could advance this argument, which is irrational anyway (you make it sound like this election is Rosenberg against McCain), because you seem to forget which party launched the Swiftboaters.
September 7, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
Rosenberg is a good proxy for the anti-war Left. I've forgotten nothing about slime in politics. Unlike you, I don't see it as unique to either party and it certainly didn't start recently. Nor do I think you're a good judge of rationality.
September 7, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensive,
The only word that matters to you here is "anti-war."
Look at Obama's positions on this matter. He and Gen. Petraeus have more in common, in terms of intellect and matters of principle (principles of what wars are about, not ethical principles, necessarily), than Petraeus and Bush or McCain.
Petraeus will be doing a lot less flacking and a lot more fighting if Obama is elected.
September 7, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I believe you're being unfair to M.J. Rosenberg when you call him a "good proxy for the anti-war Left."
Much of the antiwar Left believes, as I do, that Bush and Cheney have committed treason and countless war crimes.
I haven't seen evidence that M.J. believes any of that.
It is an unfortunate, even tragic, situation we have here. Treason, War crimes. Forging evidence to go to war. Etc.
September 7, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
dia,
I wonder why there are some who use the term "anti-war" as a pejorative.
September 7, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
John,
It's often the same people who claim they are "pro-life."
September 7, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ diachronic
Yeah. Rosenberg is not the worst which is he makes a good proxy. But it's more complicated than that. I have a friend who believes the war is entirely justified, that Clinton would have done the same thing, that the anti-war Left are a bunch of anti-American fools...but still believes the Administration are a bunch of incompetent criminals.
September 7, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that you're not a social conservative, offensivetoyou (you're not offensive to me), doesn't mean you're an independent. It just means that you're embarrassed that social conservatives support the same party that you support -- the Republican party -- and thereby, undermine your amour propre.
Sorry. It comes with the territory.
September 7, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Ellen
You and I share the belief that economics is very far from a science. So why would you think I am pro-Republican? I have consistantly taken the position that our foreign enemies are far worse than we are...and that military action against them is most likely justified. That's all.
September 7, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, she spoke in Spanish again, be still my heart.
September 7, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 8, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moat,
I knew it was French, my post was a private joke :-)
September 8, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, here's the deal. You support Republicans, you support those they sell themselves to, like the religious right, and their attempts to legislate their beliefs into law.
Republicans have no economic solutions. They have no economic plan. Their one idea is: "worship capital and piss on the labor that capital requires to turn a profit."
But unfortunately, the old-school conservatives were sold out in the Reagan revolution. And the Republicans have pandered to the religious right ever since. Just as they have pandered to white southern racists ever since Civil Rights.
It took America almost 200 years to figure out what the simple phrase "all men are created equal" means. And it wasn't the Republicans who brought you that understanding. It wasn't the conservatives who thought maybe women were equal human beings. Wasn't the conservatives who thought that labor wasn't equivalent to slavery. Wasn't conservatives who've done anything remarkable for this country.
Republicans love to claim Lincoln. But there hasn't been a truly "Republican" president since who has done anything of lasting value for this nation.
We all love America. But some of us love America enough to trust the words and act them out. Some of us love America enough to believe in tough love: that soul-searching and self-critical reflection brings improvement. Some of us love America enough to be honest about the legacy of slavery and the attempted genocide of Native Americans. Some of us love America enough to be honest with her.
And the rest of us are just scared of the truth, and believe that if they wrap themselves in a flag and have a John Wayne marathon, then everything will be alright.
Where do the lies come from, my independent friend? Who is blowing smoke up your ass and telling you black is white, up is down?
The people who have fought for the dignity of working people, the equality of colored peoples and women, the education of the masses?
Or the those who have stood opposed?
The people who believe that hard, honest work is just as important a component in profit as the initial capital?
Or those who tell you that the only value being put into the economy is capital, and that all the men and women who turn that capital into goods and services are greedy whiners who want something they haven't earned?
The people who believe that access to healthcare is a fundamental human right in the richest country in human history, not to mention good business?
Or the people who tell you that no matter how hard you work helping the rich turn their capital into even greater wealth, you child doesn't deserve to see a doctor if they don't pay you enough to be able to afford it?
Who are the liars, my independent friend?
I say all politicians are crooks: they all owe someone.
But the people the Democrats owe are the people who work for a living, the people who teach our children, build the cars, mine the coal, fight our wars, the people who are beat up, lynched, dispossessed, told they're less human, less equal, than rich white males.
The people the Republicans owe: The ones with capital, the ones who will always try to keep the most, pay the least, and maximize their return at everyone else's expense, the people who sell you the myth that God ordained it's every man for himself, the people who managed to pervert Christianity and equate wealth with righteousness, despite a whole Bible that says otherwise. The people who profit when we send soldiers off to die, then ignore them when they return broken and shattered.
Who is lying to you my friend? Who hates America, and Americans? Who loves this country, who believes in the dignity of their fellow citizens?
You make up your own mind. But the evidence is pretty fucking clear. And that's why those who stand on this side of history are so fed up. It is only willful ignorance that can argue anything else.
None are so blind as who will not see.
September 7, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
kohoutek,
excellent commentary.
God I love this site sometimes
September 7, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ kohoutek
Pompous propaganda, not surprisingly applauded by a decaying half-wit. So let's begin.
You say
"And the rest of us are just scared of the truth, and believe that if they wrap themselves in a flag and have a John Wayne marathon, then everything will be alright."
but that decaying half wit said just a little earlier
"McCain and Palin scare me"
which didn't tickle your ire at all. Apparently only those who are scared of your version of truth deserve to be ridiculed.
You basically say that Republicans are evil capitalists while Democrats support heroes of socialist labor. Talk about simplistic, discredited bullshit.
And those crocodile tears for old school conservatives - comrades like you hated them as much as you hated religious conservatives and you admitted that you continue to do so...but are blind to your admission. Nor is your claim true. Religious conservatives are just as conservative economically as the old bunch.
And what about your claim that, since Lincoln, nothing good has come from Republicans who have been those who blocked equality among the racists. More complete crap from a pompous ignoramous. From the civil war to FDR the Democrats were the party of racists and TR did more for this country than almost any other President. One can also make the argument that Woodrow Wilson, that self-righteous, Southern racist Democrat, in his unreasonable demands, did more to precipitate WWII than anyone else. Nor do you have a realistic idea of what the founders meant by "all men are created equal". With the possible exception of Tom Paine none of them thought blacks and whites were equal...although many opposed slavery.
And your claim that somehow only progressives can see the evils of American history. What a crock. What separates you from conservatives is not your ability to see that evil but your determination to
see American society as essentially evil, and therefore to be destroyed. You don't love America. You hate it and side with its enemies.
It's because I see you that way that I consider voting for McCain, regardless of his shortcomings.
September 7, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
that should read
"equality of races" rather than "equality of racists"
September 7, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
God this gets tedious. But in for a penny...
You really want all of us on here to believe you can't see the contextual difference between these two statements? I know, apples and oranges are the same thing. They're round fruit. Do you really need me to spell it out, or is just pointing out your inability to read for meaning enough? (I don't have to do this with my children, for crying out loud.)
So, I suppose you're now going to show all of us the historical evidence we've never seen? Please, elucidate. Or, you could go back and look at, oh, say any industry prior to government regulation or unionization. But, I know, you'd have to read something. And, previewing your later attempts to confuse Republican and Democratic labels in the modern era with previous party incarnations under these labels, the point is that Progressive ideals, presently championed by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, are the ideals that, throughout history, have represented humanity's higher aspirations. Conservatism, in whatever guise, is the excuse for the status quo.
Not crocodile tears, not even tears. But I can try to respect economic arguments based on some kind of evidence. Even if that evidence has largely been discredited. "Comrades"...see, it's all about "commies" and "marxism" isn't it, Mr. McCarthy? The boogeymen hiding behind your "independent" facade are showing through.
I was raised a religious conservative (Church of Christ). What I hate about them is their a)complete ignorance b) refusal to follow Christ's actual teachings c) insistence upon judging, instead of leaving the judging to God, as instructed, and d) the complete lack of faith evidenced by their inability to hew to the doctrine they would shove down all our throats.
I didn't imply that religious conservatives aren't economically conservative. What I did say is that Republicans completely gave up being the party of "economic conservatism" when they sought to ally themselves with "values voters" and became the party of moral hypocrisy, ie, the evangelical right. There is no way in hell that anyone can use the New Testament to justify modern Republican every-man-for-himself, dog-eat-dog capitalist dogma. You show me where Jesus Christ ever says anything remotely resembling any of the crap being peddled by the Republican party. I do seem to recall a bunch of stuff about money lenders, false prophets, looking after the poor, selling all your possessions and following Christ, and the whole rich people, camel, and eye of the needle shit, though. You talk about a marriage of convenience that reeks of moral and intellectual dishonesty to the core.
What you missed are the quotes around "Republican". We all know the parties have changed over time, the names in modern discourse meaning very different things from what they did at various points in the past.
In the context of this discussion (as you well know), I, and most others here, are speaking of progressive politics/policies/ideology, which, in the modern era, as you rightly point out, are represented by the Democratic party. What Democratic, Republican, or Democratic-Republican meant in another era...That's irrelevant. We're not arguing about the history of the parties. We're arguing who, here and now, is on the right side of history. And indeed, when looking at history, the cardinal sin (paraphrasing here) is to judge it with modern eyes. So, when a president is progressive, he's progressive. When he's not, he's not.
Back to the original point I was making (and that you've helped me make) is that what's disingenuous about the Republican Party claiming Lincoln now is that it seeks to inherit a glory it no longer deserves, seeks a virtue it has long since abandoned. All "Republican" Lincoln or Teddy really has in common with modern Republicans (in terms of which side of history they stand on) is that party label, which sadly no longer means the same thing. Love Teddy. But he's no more a modern Republican than I am. Woodrow Wilson...mixed bag. Racist, on one hand, as was a majority of Americans, progressive in most other areas, by the standards of the time. Responsible for WWII? I think not. Flawed figure? Sure. So, tell you what. I'll give you TR as (quote/unquote) "Republican"...but I still use the quotes for the same reason I used them with Lincoln. The meaning of Republican in their contexts bears little to no resemblance to the Republican of our time. And the Democrats of our time are the modern standard bearers of progressive ideals. Doesn't mean they always were. But we're not living and arguing in 1896 are we?
That's the point you'd like to obfuscate, but remains true all the same. Linking modern Republicans to previous incarnations...It's just bullshit. What have they stood for in the modern era? Where have the Democrats stood? More to the point, on what side do progressives and conservatives stand? That's the issue. If you're a modern Republican, you're not a progressive. And if you're considering siding with the Republicans, you're not a progressive.
Throughout history, it's progressives who make change for the better, conservatives who oppose it. Republicans one day, Democrats the next, it's not the party names that matter, it's the ideals being advanced. In our time, in our era, Republican=Wrong. Democratic=Right. McCain=Wrong, Obama=Right.
And don't get me started on that bullshit about what the founding fathers meant. What I said is that it's taken us 230 years to figure what those words mean. I didn't say the founders understood it...They obviously didn't live it out. But they wrote something true, despite their what we'd call "barbaric" understanding, that we've had to redeem from darker conceptions of the human condition. Our faith in the promise of those words, the challenge laid down by them, is what got us past the commonly accepted "truth" that god did not, in fact, make us all equal. The fact Obama is poised to become our president means that my version of history is correct. Progressive ideals have won out. All men are created equal is closer to be true in fact now than it was a year ago, 230 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. And I'm damn proud to be trying to make that happen.
And here, at last, and as predicted, we find patriotism, the last refuge of scoundrels, being appropriated by you. I'm on the Cherokee tribal rolls. My ancestors walked the Trail of Tears. My people have been here a goddamn long time. Don't talk to me about "America's enemies" you imbecile.
Who's doing something about the evils of American history? You do acknowledge, apparently, the evils. Who changes them? Who stands against them? Progressives. Of every era. It is, by definition, Progressives, versus Conservatives (the status quo), who, in any era, stand against the accepted evils of the time and demand better.
What separates me from conservatives is not my determination to see American society as evil, but my determination to believe we do not need to endure the evils. I do not accept that what is, what we've inherited, has to remain as is. I believe in progress as a fundamental aspect of humanity's better angels. And I choose to side with those angels from all times, places, party labels, who have been on the side of our continued progression from barbarians to who we are now, and who we can be. My Cherokee ancestors fought for this country in WWII. My German, English, Scottish and French ancestors fought for this country, with honor. When I buried my father 3 years ago, he laid beside his father, a colonel who served in Patton's 3rd Army, and then in Korea, and his two brothers, another colonel and a sergeant. Don't you dare lecture me about who loves this country.
I'm not afraid to face our sins and call them out. And neither am I afraid to believe we can do better. This is not yet the best of all possible worlds. And if you think it is, then you, sir, pompous ignoramus that you are, are content to cling to the status quo, afraid to demonstrate the same courage you would herald in your "Republican" heroes.
No nation has set itself a greater task. No nation has proclaimed itself so boldly. No fundamental ideology of government has inspired so many. I believe in living up to the challenge that was laid out before us.
And that makes me every bit as much of a patriot as you. History shows that any goddamn fool can die for any god-forsaken morally bankrupt leader, regime, or ideology. Obedience and acquiescence, jingoism and "patriotism" are the cheapest and easiest things men offer. You seem to forget those who staked out this nation, who saw the sins of their homelands and forebears, said, "We can do better. And we will do better." Traitors all, they endured, imperfectly. And now you bow down at the altar of excuses and fear, where they would not, and dare call those who refuse to sanction your fear, your willful ignorance and blindness, traitors. You deliberately miss the point.
Funny, isn't it.
I don't think our politicians are heroes and saints. But I do know, out of the two before us, which one is on the right side of history.
September 7, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
kohoutek,
I'm watching and scoring this debate between you and offensivetoyou, and at the moment, you're leading;
You have 210 points to OTY's 9
However, in the insult department, you're losing badly, perhaps because you're up against the Bobby Fischer of insults
kohoutek 4 points OTY 109 points
September 8, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should outsource insults to my daughter. She's cold, man.
September 8, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was poetry!
The only thing I would add is in the politics/policies/ideology part.
The current republican party is vastly different today from Goldwater's conservative republican's of the 1960's. We're just talking 40 years here.
In fact, Goldwater himself was so highly irritated with McCain, he refused to deal with him. From what I've read, to this day, McCain is not allowed to mention Goldwater's name at any political function. Goldwater didn't want his good name to be used by McCain. That's a strong message coming from a leading patriarch of the party about a freshman politico.
September 8, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this where we audition for the position of MJ's personal troll?
September 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Anewdude
Forget it. You don't have the chops. Stick to "useless idiot". You were born for the part.
September 7, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
Your post was fine until the last paragraph. And then you spawned a thread that disappoints me. You can do better.
If you need blood, bite airgun177. I believe there is a different hand in that sock puppet now.
September 8, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reasons?
1. he's black.
2. he's black
3. he's black
4. he'll raise taxes! Taxes on rich people means that the scraps won't trickle down to Joe Six Pack.
5. He'll lose in Iraq! Remember, War is good for business.
6. Did I mention - he's black?
7. Nanny State!!! Helping those blacks and Hispanics to take YOUR money!
8.Promoting American jobs on American soil - all those tax credits to the people who make all the money who let the scraps trickle down to Joe Six Pack will dry up!
9. oh and did I mention - HE'S BLACK!
September 7, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question, MJ, but didn't Krugman ask it and answer it last Friday? The politics of resentment appears to trump the appeal to people's interests. Now why that should be so, maybe that's a question for Richard Dawkins. But in political terms, one must grant that the GOP have done a brilliant job over the years in smearing the Dems as snobs and elitists, who are also unpatriotic tax-raisers. No matter what is in Obama's programme, that is the message that the GOP faithful want to believe.
September 7, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's pretty simple, really. So many people are so out of tune they barely pay attention to news.They listen to the sound bites and they say "oh that sounds good. Then they pull the lever and go about their business.
So they vote images and impressions. They aren't hurting them, themselves, so right now the recession doesn't exist in their minds.
That and the fact that people just can't shut up about Pailin. Obama has all been shut out of the campaign atm
September 7, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are right. Hate usually trumps everything else -- at least since the GOP decided in 1964 that its ticket to victory was to become the racist party.
As LBJ said when he signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. "The Republicans will run on this for the next 50 years and it will cost us the south forever."
He did the right thing anyway and, as predicted, the solid Democratic south became the solid Republican south. He was wrong about one thing: the race poison is not limited to the south.
September 7, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason LBJ said that is because the Civil Rights Bill was a Republican Bill that he had no choice but to sign. The Republicans had the votes to over ride a veto.
September 7, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
shameless.
September 7, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
OldSarg says:
I think you just make things up or you're reading too many of those right wing e-mails floating around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
"The bill was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963,[1] in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote."
He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19.
Vote totals
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
By party
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Intriduced by a Democratic President, Signed by a Democratic President. Every vote had more Democrats voting for the Bill than Republicans
September 7, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Wrongheaded democratic policies that drove up the cost of food and restricted the supply of oil.
What policies, wrongheaded or otherwise, have the Democrats actually passed into law? In case you haven't noticed, George Bush's veto pen has been running out of ink while Mitch McConnel has kept the filibuster in great working shape. The only things that have gotten through Congress and been signed into law are measures that were either very popular (i.e., minimum wage increase) or so utterly urgent (i.e., economic stimulus) that no one opposed them. And by the way, oil prices started their climb to the stratosphere some years back-- not in 2006. In fact the rise correlates rather well with the Iraq War.
September 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent points. And, the oil price climb really started right after the dotcom bubble broke. As far back as 2005 some people were calling oil a bubble and saying it would soon drop back down to... $30! Well, the bubble call was premature. At $130, seems like we were in a bubble. Now oil bears are saying oil could settle between $60 and $80. Whatever the merits of either side, the trends are that oil prices generally fell throughout the 1990s and have generally climbed throughout the 00s.
September 7, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected, the Senate was Dem for 2 years.
So reduce it to 4 years of Bush and the Republican Congress, then look at the consequences.
I won't defend any Democrat that voted for the war or for the Bush/Cheney gang tax cuts, rather, I will condemn them.
Explain how the recession started in Clinton's term. Was the last year of Clinton's term negative growth? Maybe the recession you refer to was simply a continuation of the Bush Sr Recession?
You say: "...it was with holdovers from the Clinton regime that shepherded us into 9/11."
Shepherded? heh heh heh. Bush/Cheney had control, Condi Rice as national security advisor ignores Richard Clark's multiple pleadings for a meeting or principles to discuss al Qaeda, and the whole Bush gang ingnored the PDB titled "bin Ladin Determined to attack inside the USA" until AFTER 9/11.
Yeah, Clinton did it, why not blame Woodrow Wilson?
Christ, you really believe that shit?
Would you put that argument in your dissertation?
You said: "I think you should share the blame where deserved."
Good economy? The Republicans did it. Economy in the tank? Well, the Democrats did it too"
Republicans and their cohorts, when caught with thier hands in the cookie jar will always try to ameliorate their crimes by trying to bring Democrats into it.
200 Republicans can be convicted of felonies and their sycophants will scream:
WELL WHAT ABOUT THAT GUY JEFFERSON WHO HAD MONEY IN HIS FREEZER, HEH? HEH?
I'm sure you can sell this to OLDSARG
September 7, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post above is directed at shooter242
September 7, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, as all the smart political analysts have been saying for a year, this has always been the Democratic candidate's race to lose. That an independent or swing without racist tendencies would vote Republican would be because they got turned off by something Obama is, did or said. You've always assured your readership that he's the best and brightest politician you've seen in a generation, so no problemo, right? You're just doing a rhetorical game here, right?
September 7, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are asking a question that you know cannot be answered because it's a deliberately loaded rhetorical question.
September 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi MJ -
I think you must remember that people are not rational, they are rationalizing. So people have a gut feeling about a candidate, and only need insinuation to confirm that feeling - in the positive or the negative.
Specifically, from what I hear from friends in finance ...
First and foremost, they believe in incentive-driven economic policy. (as do I)
They like McCain's emphasis on nuclear power as a realistic alternative to coal and oil. They feel the left has stymied the move towards nuclear power.
They feel Obama's economic policy is absurd - to comedic proportions. I discount those absurdities as political expedience and "goal-setting."
They mistrust Obama's Chicago background as being corrupt Democratic machine politics. (which I saw myself in San Francisco)
They feel that McCain is a very different man from Bush, with a history of bi-partisanship. (the line was "he co-authored legislation with Kennedy"). (I do not)
They see the rest as political expediency.
---
Because I fundamentally agree with them about economic policy, religion, and foreign policy - I was struck that they could be as sure about McCain as I am about Obama.
This brought me to consider political decision-making.
Leaving aside party members who are loyal to their party (which I find to be the strangest of all), decision-making really appears to be based on a voter's sense of the "true" nature of a candidate whereby contradictory or undesirable behaviors are seen as political expedience.
Clinton supporters discounted Clinton's Rove-like tactics as expedience, feeling that once in office her policy-self would take over.
Some Obama supporters discount Obama's profession of faith emphasizing his well-reasoned stances on a host of issues. Whereas my friends in finance are alarmed by both Obama's and Clinton's religiosity.
So the game is to paint your candidate's identity in a broad stroke and to merely confirm negative suspicions about your opponent.
So, my finance friends mistrust Chicago Democrats - I'd say for good reason. I haven't seen any evidence that Obama is a machine politician, in fact to the contrary, he broke the Clinton machine. But for those who are suspicious, an insinuation will serve to confirm and solidify a voter's stance against a candidate.
Look at George Will's take on Obama's acceptance speech. He heard a different speech from me. I heard "self reliance" repeatedly emphasized, and Will heard his suspicion confirmed when Obama summed up the GOP as: "you are on your own" meaning - Dems will expand government.
George Will is a great example to see the selective attention at work. He emphasizes Obama's leeriness of Nuclear power etc ...
This article is a great example. He'll emphasize what he disagrees with in Obama, while downplaying what he disagrees with in McCain. Completely ignoring the signs that McCain's own decision-making style is scary.
People aren't rational. They are rationalizing.
So when people hear Obama say that he'll end our dependence on foreign oil in 10 years ... they tune the rest out and vote for the guy who says nuclear power is a viable alternative.
When I see that McCain has surrounded himself by neocon advisors, I tune out his sensible policies and cast my vote for Obama...
thanks for doing what you do,
Jack
September 7, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You argument is reasonable.
September 7, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
jackifus,
good post, good thoughts.
September 7, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans were given two clear choices in the acceptance speeches of the two presidential candidates. And both parties are promoting change as a selling point.
Obama stressed "change" with a new direction and goals.
McCain stressed "reform" to reach old failed objectives.
Based on the latest polls, the current undecided voters that will likely determine for the nation which agenda or message is most desirable and/or whether it can be achieved.
Those who believe that change can be brought about through the political system may favor Obama. Those who want turmoil and confrontation labeled as reform may like McCain.
For example, McCain used the words "fight" or "fought" 30 separate times in his acceptance speech. Obama used "fought" only once. Just one illuminating insight into two very different personalities.
September 7, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't even want to think about it. I am at wits end. People can keep living in denial but this election might be all but lost. Over the weekend I saw my sister and brother-in-law, who have always been steadfast democratic voters. The conversation eventually turned to politics where my brother-in-law says 'Sorry, McCain is my guy now.' and my sister follows up with 'Yeah, Palin is great, did you see her speech?', with my brother-in-law nodding his head. I valiantly tried, as stunned as I was by their sudden defection, to disassemble all they believed Palin was about. But then it got uglier. My sister says 'Well, Obama wasn't even born here'...to which I looked at her and 'what are you talking about he is an American'. She goes on to say that she read on the internet (of all places go figure) that Obama was actually born in Kenya and his father had him smuggled into the US when he was an infant. Incredulously I replied that she shouldn't be gullible to believe everything she reads on the net because there are many partisans who try to spread out and out lies about Obama...to which she retorts 'no, this wasn't one of those sites, it had good stories about Obama too'. Laughing I said of course they did, if they didn't they'd have no credibility. Then she hits me with the whopper 'WELL I'M NOT GONNA VOTE FOR OBAMA BECAUSE HE IS A TERRORIST!!' I just got up from the table and walked away shaking my head and muttering at that point. Up till now I thought my sister and her husband, who really have been solid democratic voters, were sane and rational people. I can't even begin to tell you how demoralized I was to learn otherwise. But the bottom line is if they can be duped and motivated by fear and hate I can see how others might be too.
I agree with oleeb (way further up the thread)...Obama needs to fight back hard and take no prisoners (pun intended). He needs to aggressively go after Palin and McCain's records. There are enough examples in her record (trooper-gate, the Bridge to Nowhere fiasco, the librarian and police chief firings, the earmark feeding frenzy with ties to Abramoff when she was mayor of Wasilla, etc.), to prove she is no 'Super Mom' just another corrupt politician in the storied republican tradition. As far as McCain goes...well voting with George Bush 90% of the time is a good start. But there is the Keating 5, his close relationship to numerous lobbyists including Big Oil, his temper, his age, his health, his temperament, his judgment and his lack of any record of him being an agent for change (outside of empty rhetoric) during his long career in republican politics.
September 7, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would it take for "solid" Democratic voters to turn on their party and their own interests?
Two things I think. First, the Democratic nominee is black so therefore he has to meet tests others don't, he is subject to nearly insane criticisms that others aren't and they are taken seriously and so on. Second they can relate to the type of nitwit Palin is and were taken by her as opposed to listening to what she is for and against, etc... This bamboozlement won't last long. The part about judging Obama fairly or even equally with a white guy is a whole different kettle of fish.
September 7, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would hope it would not last for long oleeb but I swear my sister and her hubby really appear rational to me. They loathe George Bush and they both voted for Clinton in '92 and '96, Gore in 2000, Kerry in '04. Up till the weekend of Aug 30-31 they were for Obama...and then out of the blue she screams at me this past weekend that now he is a terrorist. I really don't know what to make of it. Are they racist and looking for a reason not to vote for Obama? Maybe, the thought has crossed my mind. They were Hillary supporters during the primaries but seemed to support Obama once he became the nominee. I wasn't about to press the both of them more about their change of heart and turn it into a big family fight because there was no hint of equivocation or indications of second thoughts in their support of McCain. In their case it seems Palin won them over...which wouldn't bother me as much if it was about the issues. That doesn't seem to be the case though...it all seems to be an irrational anti-Obama position they have taken.
We need to spread the word about what Palin is all about...like her belief that the Iraq War is being waged on God's behalf. I really don't care about a person's religion per se unless they claim they are leaders of this country, claim to be acting on the direct wishes of God's and have access to the 'button'. She isn't a 'Super Mom' who is gonna work to help families across America...she is a religious fanatic who believes in an impending Armageddon. Religious fanatics with fatalistic beliefs of bringing about the end of human life on this planet because it is 'God's will' , whether they be Muslim or Christian or Jewish or any other sect, need to be stopped.
September 7, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Libertine
Your task then is to find 4 people to vote for Obama to counter your sister and brother-in-law... but I can tell you if they could be "turned" that quickly, I would wonder just how much they were committed to Obama.
Have they registered on the web site.. have they donated money or make calls or volunteered in any way?
Change happens from the ground up...
September 7, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, neither of them half a tenth of the interest in politics which I have. They are casual followers of political events but they have what I believe to be above average knowledge of the issues.
We (me and my family) live in CT. I doubt we need to worry about Obama not carrying our state. It was more about normally rational people taking completely irrational positions...but even if I am not going to try to sway them, in the name of family unity, I will continue to get people over to our side.
September 8, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
People will vote for McCain-Palin for the same reason that they pay to see professional wrestling.
I had wanted to think that Presidential politics was different from professional wrestling, but having listened to Sarah Palin's speeches, it's clear I was wrong.
It's not about issues. The McCain campaign has conceded that. It's all about posturing and bombast and whether you can convince the rubes that you're the one wearing the white leotards.
September 7, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People will vote for McCain-Palin for the same reason that they pay to see professional wrestling."
You may be on to something....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WvIJCM-LXo
September 7, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an amazing thread... Oleeb/John/Jack and others you guys rock... my head is about to explode... I could read your posts all day.
You've added to my bank of information to use when phone banking...
thanks
September 8, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
For many American airheads electing Obama is a scary proposition precisely because he embodies very real change. Like a bad marriage that they stay in they would rather endure the pain of the status quo than overcome the inertia to change.
Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
September 8, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
For many American airheads electing Obama is a scary proposition precisely because he embodies very real change. Like a bad marriage that they stay in they would rather endure the pain of the status quo than overcome the inertia to change.
Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
September 8, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Fear. Americans are easily manipulated in believing that the country is in danger. They easily fall for republican propaganda of fear. Why do you think republicans would like to make national security as the main issue this election. Why do you think they kept emphasizing 9/11 from their convention. How do you think George Bush was reelected?
2.Racism. There are still a lot of racists in this country. Although we all like to think that racism is no longer a problem, in reality, it still is. Why do you think the majority of inmates are minorities? For the most part, white america will always want to be in charge and maintain the status quo. It hasn't been that long since the civil rights movement. A lot of Americans are ready for an african american president but there are still a great number of people who would never vote for Barrack Obama because he's black.
3.Republicans have mastered the "art" of character assasination. They have shifted the focus of this election from the real issues into personality contest. Lets face it, Americans love drama and senseless acts.
September 8, 2008 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do Americans vote for more
Poverty, ignorance, fear, and war?
They do it 'cause fascism's just the tool
To split up the proles so the Party can rule.
And if you don't know how the dirty work's done
Then accustom yourself to a life on the run;
'Cause you haven't a future or a chance at the prize
Once you've voted for scraps in return for your lives.
September 8, 2008 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ kohoutek
Here it is again. America is a fascist country.
September 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As the Buddha said: you can't give offense to anyone unwilling to take it. But thanks (I think)for the corroborating opinion about endemic fascism in America. (I'll rule out attempted sarcasm in your case, simply out of politeness).
American fascists don't offend me (1) because I won't let them and (2) I've known them all my sixty years of life. Threatening me with prision if I did not submit to the Army draft for cannon-fodder duty in America's imperial/colonial War on Southeast Asia pretty much convinced me -- rather the hard way -- about America's lurch into post-WWII fascism, and I've not seen the hard-right reactionaries in America do anything but get even more fascist as the decades went by.
I agree totally with Gore Vidal when he observes that "Americans are among the most easily frightened people on earth." I mean, what more can one say when a 72-year-old Panamanian-born war-lover and a book-banning woman village mayor waving a baby blanket can scare the shit out of stud-hamster America practically in the space of a few days?
No doubt about it: Classic divide and rule fascism in America todsy doesn't even pretend to hide its dripping fangs. The "good German" Americans, though, will haplessly go on genuflecting to the boot stamping them in the face because, as Adolph Coors (the First) said long ago: "I can always hire half the unemployed to beat the other half into submission." Nothing to see here, folks; move along ... Nothing to see here ...
September 8, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My head is about to explode (yeah, I know. No great loss.) Quit panicking.
McCain got a convention bounce. The 54% - 44% is obviously an outlier. The race is a dead heat.
Even with the love fest Palin's been getting since she was announced and that bloody horrible interview Obama did with "O'Really?", it's still basically tied.
Obama and Biden need to get off of defense and start blasting with both guns, both barrels. It's still our election to lose.
September 8, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
September 8, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh heh
September 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you figured out I'm talking down to you?
September 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get used to it, the Republicans are going to win. Here's the truth, whether you like it or not.
America is a hateful nation built on rage and fear.
Republicans are all about the hatred.
Every now and then there's a spell where America tries something different. But nine times out of ten, America is all about the hate.
That's why Obama's togetherness shtick falls increasingly flat, and Palin's hatefest goes over so big.
September 8, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ kohoutek
Here it is, sonny, spelled out for you in unmistakably plain language.
This is the position of the "progressive left". You won't often see it stated this plainly and honestly. But go to any thread - any thread - in which America's enemies are criticized and you'll see the caveats flying; It's really the fault of America. It's revenge for American actions. Americans have done far worse. America is run by Jews for Jews and Jews, as everyone knows, are the shit of the earth.
We notice.
September 8, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not part of the progressive left, and it's particularly idiotic to make that assertion.
The problem with the progressive left is that they don't believe that at all. They believe in bunny rabbits and christmas and good stuff. They believe that people ought to be nice to each other, and that America was founded on positive ideals. This is actually pretty obvious to anyone except third rate, right wing nutbars whose testicles haven't dropped and who couldn't get a real job.
The insistence of the progressive left on living in happy-bunny-land is why they keep losing.
Here's the reality of America. There used to be these people called Indians, they used to own the whole country. The colonists killed them, raped them, stole their lands and extirpated their population. America drove these people into the sea. We took an entire continent from them. America wiped entire nations off the face of the Earth, took entire populations and shoved them onto the most worthless plots of land it could find. And when that land turned out to be worth something, America kicked them out.
This isn't controversial. This is just historical fact. Once upon a time, there was no America and the entire continent was inhabited by Indians minding their own business. And then there was America, from sea to shining sea, and the original inhabitants weren't doing so good.
In the millenia long scheme of things, no big deal. Happened before, it'll happen again doubtless. Most of the non-colonial states came about through piracy and conquest.
Here's the other reality of America: There's these people called blacks. A few hundred years ago, the Colonists needed cheap labour. So we kidnapped millions of people from Africa (blacks) and made them slaves to work for free. It worked out really well for Americans, and America made lots of money. It was always kind of icky, and formal slavery was done away with. But there was lots of money to be made from keeping blacks down, so you had Jim Crow laws and lynching.
Again, historical facts. And again, in the big scheme of things, no big deal. People have been doing awful things to each other for a long time.
But these two things shaped the American character. You see, you can't just do something like that to your fellow human beings, and acknowledge their humanity. You can't just rob someone of their land, or force someone into slavery, and live with the fact that you've robbed them or enslaved a human with the same worth as you.
You have to take that humanity away. You have to convince yourself that they deserved it, that they really really had it coming. In order to justify all the bad things you do to them, you have to make them the aggressor, you have to make yourself the victim, you have to work up a good hard head of hatred. You have to learn to hate in order to live with yourself. Hate has to be a passion, a part of your character. Because if you aren't hating... well, you can't justify continuing to rape and brutalize.
So Hate, and a bottomless capacity for Hatred, that becomes a part of the American character. It embeds itself in the American culture. It becomes one of those defining aspects of what it is to be an American.
Go look at the history of lynching. I dare you. Go read some of the more outre accounts - psychotic wacked out stuff where fine upstanding citizens are literally burning and disembowelling helpless victims in hideous ways. That's not ordinary. That's big time hating. That's not individual behaviour, but an aspect of culture bursting into full bloom. Where do you think that stuff comes from?
Because hatred is such a defining part of American culture, such an integral part of the American identity, it's potent stuff to appeal to.
Americans have always been at their best when they could find someone to hate. And once they find it, they don't let it go easily.
America, for instance, was pretty diffident about the first world war. All morally muddled, didn't know which side to support, until finally the Germans got the dander up. Even so, America's participation in WWI was hardly transformative, not really defining in any substantial way. America came out of WWI with a big 'Ehnn', torn between idealism and isolationism, not really satisfied or animated in anyway.
America didn't really get its act together until WWII, when it had enemies - the Japs, the Nazi's, that it could really sink its teeth into, get a hate on for. And after that, it was those damned Russkies and the cold war. Both the American right and the American left were on the same side.
This is why Sarah Palin's speech goes off so much better than Obama's.
Obama talks bunny rabbits, he talks niceness, he talks vision and all that. Well, it's nice, but it's not exciting and it sounds like it might be hard work, and it's not all that personal. Americans think that's okay, but really, it doesn't grab people. It's like being in Church, you hear the good word, but it's just some guy yammering away, and you're really thinking about that 18 year olds tits two pews down. Americans want to be good, and they try, but they'd rather it was more exciting and less work.
Sarah, on the other hand, talks hatred. She talks spite and invective, she makes it personal. She says 'there are bad guys, and we gotta hate em.' That's exciting, that's focused, that's easy... it's personally easy, and it's culturally easy. She's appealing to the nasty side of the American character. It's all about the righteous fury of smashing someone in the face who really f*cking deserves it for some reason which we aren't too sure about, but we know they had it coming big time. Palin's about the Hate, and her followers love it.
This is why McCain and Palin, and their smashface, burn your houses, bile, their endless sense of righteous outrage, their imaginary victimhood and lashing out at imaginary aggressors and oppressors are going to beat Obama and Biden's sunday school solemnity.
Because that's America, all you snivelling lefty tards. Because being good in America will always take second place to being right. And being right is always being strong. And being strong strong is all about stomping the weak. And stomping the weak means they had it coming.
Now, you can either embrace that. Or you can fight against it. Either way works, your choice. Offensivetoyou embraces it, in a sort of pathetic impotent way.
The American left doesn't really embrace it. I'm fine with that. But they don't fight it either. Instead, they like to pretend it's not there. They overlook it, excuse it, turn a blind eye, they see it as some sort of weird accident - like the pedophile raped those kids, but he didn't really mean to and probably doesn't want to. That's the one thing that don't work.
We notice.
Whatever. Seek professional help, guy.
September 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ DGValdron
Of course you're a member of the progressive Left and you really do hate America. You're just a Canadian rather than an American. I used to read your rants over at Comment is Free.
September 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't hate America.
I hate gutless weasels. I hate snivelling worms all wrapped up in their imaginary victimisation. I hate mouthy tards whose balls haven't dropped, who wrap themselves up in illusions of masculinity but live in their mothers basements, eat cheesies, talk tough and never showed an original thought or actual sand in their lives. Sorry if all that hit home.
But America? I quite like America. I just don't sugar coat it.
On the other hand, I am Canadian. Which means you've actually managed to finally, finally, after all this time, after all these years, you actually managed to get something right.
Call your mom, LOL. Hell, ROTFL, call the media! Sing it on the mountains. ;)
You actually managed to get something right! Good lord. Someone take a picture, quick! After all, when is the next time this is going to happen.
ROTFL
September 8, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ DGValdon
If you were sorry you wouldn't have said it, would you?
Gee, how brave you are! Presenting stuff that's been well-known for at least a half-century as if it's something new and daring. Even your lying exagerations and partisan distortions are something new.
September 8, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction; "nothing new" not "something new"
September 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
@DGValdron
Ya had me wondering, but I do respect a person that is honest and truthful, regardless of their nationality. Americans are in need of getting dressed down to remind them they aren't the alpha-males of the world.
September 8, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ DGValdron
I wonder why zeno2vonnegut hasn't commented? Just a little while ago he was insisting that this policy represented a demonstration of government's ability to stand up against the land hunger of its citizens. Most of the assholes of this site agreed with him. Most embarrassing observation, Valdron. Lucky for you they're the scared half-wits kohoutek says they are.
Of course you can. It was done throughout history. Also you conveniently forget that Indians did it to each other all the time, and that this is a nation of immigrants - most of whom got to own land for the first time in their family's history.
More fake superiority. There was a review of a book on post civil war slavery and lynching on this site only a few days ago. I looked at it.
Only a few days ago, on a Jim Sleeper thread, posters were frothing at the mouth to use that smashmouth technique against Palin. You ought to get out more. Or perhaps the hate-filled halfwits you were talking about are best represented by "progressives"?
September 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gads, you can't stop whining, can you. You don't actually offer anything of substance, but you don't give up. Well, let's take a look at your dreary carping:
Do you even read your own stuff? Or have you been steeped in swill so long that it all makes sense to you.
That's simply idiotic on your part. No surprise. Of course it's done throughout history. I made that point myself. People have been doing bad things to each other for a very long time. But there's a psychic cost to doing that, there's a process that people go through to be able to do that. Dehumanization, objectification, the manufacture of outrages and causes, justification. Read Hannah Arendt. Read about the banality of evil. Read anything. It's well documented and well understood.
ROTFL!!! Do you read your own stuff? Do you think at all about any of this.
I didn't conveniently forget about anything. It wasn't relevant.
Except to you. And do you know why its relevant to you? Because "it makes it all right!" If those rascally indians were stealing each others lands and committing genocide on each other, its okay for us to do it to them.
This is textbook justification. Classic stuff. "They deserved it."
Utterly contemptible.
Pretty much what I would have expected from you.
As for this whole nation of immigrants, shtick. Again, you're exploiting some goofy racist dehumanization. These deserving people finally got to own some land... that was stolen from the original owners. It only works if we dismiss the humanity or the rights of the original owners.
But apparently none of it got through.
You work so hard to vindicate my faith in you.
Get out to Jim Sleeper threads? Puh-lease.
Of course, to make such an assertion, you have to ignore the McCain/Palin hatefest.
Some of these timid little lefties notice that they're being curb-stomped and complain that maybe they should fight back... and this is your proof. What insipid nonsense.
Really, it's beneath even you. This is your version of thuggery 101. Attack, wait for a defense or complaint, and then take that defense as justification for the attack.
I have to say, I'm enjoying your posts - as brain damaged and infantile as they are. Pathetic they may be, but they're textbook examples of the argument I've made.
Seriously. At some point, someone might have said to me, "Hey Jackass, that's some highfaluting talk, prove it!" And I'd have been put on the spot and had to do some work.
But now? All I have to do is point to your wretched, bitter little posts and my case is made.
So thanks. ;)
September 8, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
you're out of your league in this recent debate with Kohoutek and DGValdron.
I'd say "you're in a hole, stop digging" but its worse than that, you're in the Mariana Trench.
September 8, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
DGValdron,
excellent, excellent commentary. A+
and, yuo say;
That's what Hitler did to the Jews, he dehumanized them first, then anything that follwed was easy.
September 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. It's sorta like that Falwell/Robertson schtick about how 9/11 was god judging us or whatever the hell he/they/it were talking about?
But they don't hate America. Right-wing (white) preacher says god is judging us, god is damning us...Well, not a big deal. We deserve to be judged, right, because of homosexuals, and whatever else? He's just pointing out our faults, our sins, and that's good. Black guy says the same thing? Uh huh. You know how it goes. "Liberal" says it, must be a commie America-hater.
Do you really believe the stupid shit you talk?
You're like the poster child for why this country is circling the toilet.
September 8, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ kohoutek
The white preachers who said that were put down hard by the right. The blacks and liberals say it - the left applauds, or at least says they were justified by previous actions of the right.
You're proud you talked down to me? That's not a great way to win votes, as even an ass like you should know. And without the votes of independents you're in the toilet, not the country. Bye, bye...
September 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you were done with me. Is this some sort of weird, interracial man-crush thing you've got going on here? You like the bitch-slapping, no?
Smell the feet.
September 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ kohoutek
Why would you think I was done with you? I'm satisfied with my responses. Still perhaps I said something that led you to that conclusion. What?
And what's with the fag stuff? Sounds like you've been reading zeno and jackass. You ought to give that up; not good for the little gray cells.
September 8, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
DGValdron,
Are you now, or have you ever been, a card carrying member of the progressive left?
All right, sir, let me ask you one simple question. Do you, deny it? Yes or no?
How many people are members of your organization?
I am prepared to wait for my answer till Hell freezes over!
September 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has hell frozen over already?
I'm not a card carrying member of the progressive left, JohnW1141.
In fact, I'm the exact opposite of Offensivetoyou, and I'm the worst thing people can imagine.
I'm an honest man who speaks the truth.
September 8, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
DGValdron,
I know. :-)
I was making just throwing some sarcasm around, hoping your antagonist would see it :-)
September 8, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. I was doing a Kirk Douglas impersonation. Sadly, these things don't carry well over the computer screen.
I'm afraid my career as a cyber-blog impressionist is doomed.
;)
September 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I miss Kirk Douglas.
September 8, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
kohoutek,
Kirk Douglas was one of my favorites, when I see him today, just a physical caricature of his old self, I feel sad. Age takes its toll.
I know from experience.
September 8, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 8, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign has always had anemic messaging on substantive issues. Even his acceptance speech was like reading from the liberal bible of good intentions. "All children should have a chance in life," etc, that sort of thing.
Uh. Okay. And?
To me, it looks like Obama radically mistakes the historic moment. Like he's been too busy campaigning for too long and has no sense for where we really are.
If he does, then he should have the guts to bring it.
September 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the anemic entrance of the 'New Direction Congress' of two years ago?
They were elected with the highest of hopes, but shirked every task the electorate demanded of them.
I believe that anemic record will cost Obama heavily. It is a reality that most liberals are unwilling to admit; in fact, it appears that backing down to Bush on every single point was their strategy to make Obama win.
That seems perverse to me; history shows that Harry Truman was able to beat Dewey in '48 because Republicans were rendered similarly passive (in this case because of intraparty divisions, not because of conscious strategy).
September 8, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the racism factor is much bigger than most people who are trying to analyze the election realize. We have the conscious racists who are hopeless. However, I think there are a large number of people who are subconsciously racist. Thus they are uncomfortable with an Obama presidency and find reasons to justify voting for McCain. So behind the good reason lies the real reason and behind the logical lies the psychological. These old truisms are, unfortunately, hurting the Obama candidacy.
September 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone take a deep breath. McCain is not up 10 points. What this poll proves is that calling people during the Republican Convention, many of whom are not even registered to vote, will lead people to voice support for Republicans. Also, who is likely to be home during the Republican Convention. Republicans. Deep breaths, 1,2,3. Do not panic. The only thing that matters is if this convention seems to lift McCain in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Florida or another major battleground state. Obama has spent a lot of time in the rust belt while the McCain/Palin hate fest raged.
September 8, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your arguments against those that have drunk the koolaid but you are shoveling sh*t against the tide. The war, (7 years since mission acomplished) the economy in the tank.(unless you are trading paper on wall street) The absolute obscenity of bailing out those that caused this housing disaster with "creative financing." It's funny Phil Gramm isn't touting his de-regulating the investment banking firms. It took a awhile but he got his results. They cleaned up and now the holder of the worthless paper is being bailed out by taxpayers. "Let the market decide my ass. Where are the "Free Market" a$$holes now? $200 bil. Where the hell is that money coming from? We are already broke people! From China, Saudi Arabia? We sure as hell don't have it! The administration borrowed from China for the last "rebate." That chump change was supposed to straighten out the economy. Where ever Bush's Oracle is, I wish he would come out from behind the curtain to prove this administration hasn't got a clue, even after over 7 1/2 years. Evangelizing the DOJ and any other department of the federal government, And voting for the McCain ticket with a VP candidate who claimed the phrase "under God" is in the Pledge Of Allegiance because the Founding Fathers wanted it that way? The Pledge was written by a minister and if he thought it was needed he would have placed it there. It was inserted because religious nuts in Congress in 1954 thought it was needed to combat the "godless communists." What phony pandering bullsh*t! And it continues. It won't be long before we are illegal immigrants in Mexico and Canada looking for jobs they don't want to do!
September 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree.
The NY Times piece, as read by this Christian woman, laid out facts to indicate that Sarah Palin acted recklessly and without due regard for the life of her baby after her water broke. If you piece that together with her not telling anyone about the pregnancy and getting amnio, it adds up to a time-honored method of a Christian woman's trying to cause a natural miscarriage of a pregnancy.
The piece also shows that she is able to sling her children around with her while she is performing her job. This is not the normal experience of the women in this country.
To women, the NY Times piece proved that Sarah Palin ain't all that.
September 8, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine what they'll think when they read the National Enquirer.
September 8, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Valdron
You want to ignore the comments of zeno2vonnegut? That's not really a response.
There's very little psychic cost to doing evil - partly because evil is not an objective term, partly because it is so universal, partly because so much of history is subjective, partly because people really do care more about possessions than each other. I don't care how many psychobabblers, weenies, political correctness, idiots have said otherwise. What people fear is loss of wealth and power, drastic changes in the rules of the game, and physical pain.
Ownership is a concept which makes sense only within a society and culture. Outside the law of the jungle rules. Ditto for morality.
Lefties are justified in fighting back because they're timid little weenies but Righties - who you characterized as scared half-wits - are not justified in fighting to save their property and way of life because they have more than your weenie friends? Great argument.
Finally, you conclude with a whole litany of putdowns and insults, to the applause of that rotting piece of flesh whose sole function is to do just that, and you think your going to win the votes of independents? Wow.
September 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh heh
September 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
o2u,
You are misrepresenting what I said. Valdron had one sentence which is arguably in disagreement with my statement that after the Oklahoma land rush, the US government quit resettling Indians when real Americans had "better" use for the land. Cease interpreting what I said, please. And if you can, be nice.
z2v
September 8, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ zeno2vonnegut
What you said, you said to me. Interpreting what is said is what people do when they talk to each other. What Valdron said is a much stronger contradiction of what you said than you admit. He regards the whole reservation system as a complete scam; Indians shuffled off to worthless land and then removed from it when if it was later shown to be worth something. Just as I claimed.
I don't feel any need to be nice since kohoutek's first response to Old Sarge was to call him a scared half-wit, not in response to an insult, but because he didn't like Old Sarge's position. Nobody called him on it. Au contraire...
Nor do I feel that I compelled anyone to respond to me in the way they did...or at all.
September 8, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou said:
Many times in life an incident will occur and you will think to yourself; "now I've seen everything," as when the public voted for the Bush/Cheney gang twice. Or when a famous Evangelical Preacher who preaches the good family values mantra, and comes out hard against gays, then you discover this same Preacher visits a gay prostitute for some gay sex and drugs.
offensivetoyou's words on initiating unwarranted insults makes me say "NOW I'VE SEEN EVERYTHING!"
September 8, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Johnwjackass
But, jackass, kohoutek was rude to Old Sarge who is never rude. If he'd been rude to me I'd have never made that argument.
Further, as I've said repeatedly, I chose to respond rudely and viciously from the beginning because kohoutek's behavior is the norm on this site.
September 8, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, rude behavior is part of political discourse. You choose to make an issue of mine but not of others like kohoutek. That detracts, seriously, from the value of your argument.
In fact, it has no value...nor do you.
September 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh heh heh
September 8, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My God, what does Obama have to do to have people stop believing the old saw that he's an unknown quantity? For crying out loud, he's been campaigning for almost two years for President and participated in dozens of debates and engaged in hundreds of in-depth interviews. If you don't know who he is by now, you either don't care to know, or are an intellectually lazy, no-nothing who prefers to get their information from Faux-News and GOP talking points.
How does Sarah Palin get a pass for being unknown and yet the much better known Obama still causes doubts ... ?
September 8, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Remember the anemic entrance of the 'New Direction Congress' of two years ago?
They were elected with the highest of hopes, but shirked every task the electorate demanded of them."
Exactly. Red staters desperately voted in Democrats. Today, Republicans are eagerly noting that Congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's. Is this the "change" Obama talks about?
If I'm a swing voter, do I swing back? Hope McCain is serious about his "reform" mantra, his stupid little assertion that "government is broke"?
Frankly, I think it is broke. I don't any real analyses on offer, however. Not from either candidate.
September 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I see Obama as a stopgap. Congress cannot or will not do its job, which means that we are dealing with a two-branch government: the Presidency and the judiciary. The judiciary is not going to be much help here, so we have one branch, really.
Since Obama is the more moderate and intelligent of the two by far (not to mention he does not have self-control issues like McCain) he will do by far the less damage, and a new political movement can get started to supplant the old one.
In the meantime, of course, people need to live. When you are dealing with a broken state, you think about damage control. Hoping Obama will be FDR is asking for too much. But there will be fewer self-induced crises, and maybe that will give a breathing space where the serious work can begin.
September 8, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats only won the power 'to set the agenda', that is all. Without the republicans none of their agenda can be passed into law, and the republican have made sure to that. It's not the democrats in congress who has the negative rating, it's the intitution of congress.
Why is America so willing or even contemplating returning the axe to the men who cut their feet off? Are they tired of having hands too, are just plain stupid?
September 8, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why?
Ignorance and the fear of God!
I was raised to be a blind evangelical born again christian, an instrument of God's will. Then I came to Europe when I was 22, got an education and finally understood cultural history. As long as one half of the population remains poorly educated and brainwashed by religous fanatics, people like Bush-McCain-Palin will always rule. I'd probably be voting for them if I'd never gone to Europe.
September 8, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is this where we audition for the position of MJ's personal troll?
Posted by Anewdude
September 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
@ Anewdude
Forget it. You don't have the chops. Stick to "useless idiot". You were born for the part.
Posted by offensivetoyou
September 7, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
September 8, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And I know why RACISTS and neocons and the abortion-obsessed will vote Republican. But why would any normal patriotic American vote for the continuation of a status quo that, we pretty much all agree, sucks? "
Here's a few statistics for you MJ. 93% of blacks polled indicate they will vote for the black candidate. Dem Rep thing? Well they did so in their own Democratic primaries - against a candidate that has better minority rights credentials than possibly anybody since MLK. If one STATISTICALLY removes this clearly non racial vote, the 50-50 poll sudenly becomes 56-44 (a landslide). It is clear that outside of this clearly non racial block vote, that the majority of those other rotten RACISTS do not want the "messiah" - B Robin Hood (take from the rich - give to your supporters) O - to be president.If i was just a cynic, I'd perhaps conclude that these non racist black voters were attempting to pull off a "coup d'etat". I'm glad you wrote your little piece - now I know it's just those rotten RACIST Republicans that are trying to steal this election. Imagine thinking that majority rule was what democracy is actually all about. No room in the Democratic party for them. Did you know that rotten RACISTS were demanding a democratic vote on offshore drilling. Good thing the Dems have Pelosi and Reed to stop any of that neocon, racist nonsense. Next thing you know they will ge questioning B -Puff the magic Dragon (wind energy, and the hilary slayer) - O (BO for short)'s choices for his presidential advisers. That great spiritual advirser - patriot and champion of racial harmony Rev Wrigt. Or his trusted anti terrorist adviser (you can't beat hands on experience) Richard Ayers. Or his financial adviser (and real estate adviser and Fund raiser ) Tony (I may need a presidential pardon) Rizko. Thank heavens there are people like you to keep people like me from becoming cynical.
Oh and good news for Democrats. Howard Dean has officially won this elections Jebb Bush - Katherine Harris award for disenfranchising Florida voters! He even went one better and got Michigan as well. Let those rotten RACIST republicans match that.
September 9, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And I know why RACISTS and neocons and the abortion-obsessed will vote Republican. But why would any normal patriotic American vote for the continuation of a status quo that, we pretty much all agree, sucks? "
Here's a few statistics for you MJ. 93% of blacks polled indicate they will vote for the black candidate. Dem Rep thing? Well they did so in their own Democratic primaries - against a candidate that has better minority rights credentials than possibly anybody since MLK. If one STATISTICALLY removes this clearly non racial vote, the 50-50 poll sudenly becomes 56-44 (a landslide). It is clear that outside of this clearly non racial block vote, that the majority of those other rotten RACISTS do not want the "messiah" - B Robin Hood (take from the rich - give to your supporters) O - to be president.If i was just a cynic, I'd perhaps conclude that these non racist black voters were attempting to pull off a "coup d'etat". I'm glad you wrote your little piece - now I know it's just those rotten RACIST Republicans that are trying to steal this election. Imagine thinking that majority rule was what democracy is actually all about. No room in the Democratic party for them. Did you know that rotten RACISTS were demanding a democratic vote on offshore drilling. Good thing the Dems have Pelosi and Reed to stop any of that neocon, racist nonsense. Next thing you know they will ge questioning B -Puff the magic Dragon (wind energy, and the hilary slayer) - O (BO for short)'s choices for his presidential advisers. That great spiritual advirser - patriot and champion of racial harmony Rev Wrigt. Or his trusted anti terrorist adviser (you can't beat hands on experience) Richard Ayers. Or his financial adviser (and real estate adviser and Fund raiser ) Tony (I may need a presidential pardon) Rizko. Thank heavens there are people like you to keep people like me from becoming cynical.
Oh and good news for Democrats. Howard Dean has officially won this elections Jebb Bush - Katherine Harris award for disenfranchising Florida voters! He even went one better and got Michigan as well. Let those rotten RACIST republicans match that.
September 9, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does Sarah Palin get a pass for being unknown and yet the much better known Obama still causes doubts ... ?
Posted by MrSmith1
You are absolutely correct. Except BO has actually be running for years. And imagine questioning the "anointed one", the "giver of sermons in football stadiums". We all know what he stands for - wind energy - he's going to put a roof on every stadium in the country and go on tour - the hot air captured alone will allow the US to EXPORT energy to Canada, and Mexico! And when he gets Ahmadinejad, and Chavez, and Kim jong Il, and Assad, and Putin, and ALL the leaders of Hamas and hezbollah (I believe he has aletter of injtent form Bin Laden himself - but that's still hush hush), for one of his sermons and a little chat - well the love fest will make Woodstock look like a girl scout outing!
And that Sarah Palin. Well the press have just been fawning al over her - lousy little mayor of a pissant little berg in Alaska, full of those rotten, bitter gun toting, religious zealots. Bet she never did any community organizing in her life. How would she stand up to oil companies. Or earmarks. She's probably a rotten mother. Good thing that last one was actually her 6 year old daughters - she can look after it. You are so right. How dare they actually ask BO anything. It isn't good enough to just promise to turn water into wine - he's expected to tell us HOW. OUTRAGIOUS.
September 9, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would any sane person vote Republican?
I wanted to share an article from the Financial Times columnist Clive Crook with you. Crook, who has been very supportive of Obama for most of the campaign so far, has some very interesting observations about the Democratic genius for losing elections. Here are some excerpts from his column:
It is ironic that, among leading Democrats the only one who seems to fully understand what Crook is driving at is the born aristocrat Howard Dean.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com
September 9, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of microsoft hyper v training, vista iscsi initiator
April 5, 2011 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability database
May 4, 2011 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink