« Grotesque Propaganda | Marquis de SeaToShiningSea's Blog | Shorter Bush not gone soon enough speech »
Cowards
Look carefully at this poll. While it is nominally about the Gaza situation, it is more significantly about the behavior of Republicans. Specifically it says (on the second page) that the Republicans view every possible international condition as more threatening than the Democrats do. Think about that. What that means is that they are cowards. Chickens. Afraid of their shadow.
Cowardice is often the seed of bully behavior, as we all know. And we all know that Republicans like to throw their weight around.
I am damn tired of cowards trying to take charge of American international policy to behave like play room bullies just to appease their own fears. Remember when everyone from Thomas Friedman to Darth Cheney swaggers and roars what they are really doing is revealing their own very wide yellow streaks on their backs.
Cowardice is often the seed of bully behavior, as we all know. And we all know that Republicans like to throw their weight around.
I am damn tired of cowards trying to take charge of American international policy to behave like play room bullies just to appease their own fears. Remember when everyone from Thomas Friedman to Darth Cheney swaggers and roars what they are really doing is revealing their own very wide yellow streaks on their backs.
Advertisement
There are two kinds of reactionaries:
1. Those who wear the jackboots.
2. Those who lick them.
January 15, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans have been the party of FEAR since 1972.
Although you can go back to 52 with Joe McCarthy. Watch out there is probably a commie running your police station.
The poll is very telling. Five points here and there can really make a difference in an election.
Couple that with the fact that a thinning rep party, as pointed out by somebody in another blog, and you are left with a really right wing fear mongering party.
January 15, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans have been the party of fear since the days of Senator McCarthy, the more wingnut ones even believed President Dwight Eisenhower was a commie sellout, (see writings JBS founder Welch).
Their 50's hero General MacArthur wanted to have nuclear war with China saying if we didn't fight a ground war against China and win we would lose western Europe. See 'The coldest Winter", Halberstam.
Repugs like war, as long as someone else does the fighting and dying and as long as they don't have to pay taxes to pay for it.
January 16, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you can go back to 1968 as a starting date for them being the party of fear and perhaps even earlier than that.
January 16, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with all but take exception to the above. These jerks make chickens look like the epitome of brave.
January 15, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree; I have always had a fondness for chickens and terms like 'chickenhawk' I have long felt unduly denigrate a fine bird.
January 16, 2009 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
'preciate it.
=D
January 16, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about 'Turkey Necks"
January 16, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I remember my Foghorn Leghorn cartoons correctly, chickenhawks are a whole other bird that actually preys upon chickens, although in Foghorn's case not very effectively. Makes for a perfect analogy to the PNAC neocon foreign policy bullshit (Chickenshit? Actually, that's more like it!).
January 16, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but what do they taste like?
January 16, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does chickenhawk taste like?
"Oh, 'bout like owl."
*******************
Thanks and props to Justin Wilson, the Ragin' Cajun
January 16, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say it's a bit of a reach connecting a heightened awareness in international affairs to cowardice.
January 15, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are not "aware" they are threatened, which is a form of cowardice.
January 15, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have a "heightened awareness in international affairs" you don't launch a war that provides your most recent state enemy with a new polity in previously unreachable territory.
Affinity to fear also explains the close relationship between the GOP and conservative Christians: "God-fearing" people who soil their pants at the idea that there might be nothing but nothingness beyond this life.
January 15, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
To what new state enemy and what unreachable territory are you referring?
January 16, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not use your "heightened awareness in international affairs" to figure it out?
January 16, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I get it now, your statement was as dumb and meaningless as I suspicioned it was when I first read it.
January 16, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran, dipshit.
"suspicioned"? The word is 'suspected'.
January 16, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran a new enemy, hah!! Ever hear of Jimmy Carter?? Crack a book every now and then
January 16, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, it's commonly known as English. Take a TOEFL course sometime. For a quick fix, I'll...go...reeeeeal...slooooow here.
The original comment said "most recent state enemy".
You managed to conflate this into, "new enemy".
That's not what the good Father said. If you're familiar with a more recent state enemy than Iran (and no, Iraq doesn't count), please enlighten us.
January 16, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Boyd, for saving me the trouble. I really feel like I'm taking an unfair advantage with dear Spric. But we all know what happens when you expose a troll to sunlight...
January 16, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't need to crack a book, I served in the Navy during those days. I trained at Great Lakes Naval Technical Training Center alongside sailors and officers of the Iranian Navy, just before the fall of the Shah of Iran. I manned a secure comm watch during the Iranian hostage crisis, all 444 days of it. I remember Rumsfeld and the other neocons sucking up to Saddam because the enemy of our enemy was our friend. I remember Reagan pimping out our weapons industry and lying about it to Congress. I also remember the CIA pumping the progenitors of Al Qaeda full of cash and weapons in our little Afghani proxy war against the USSR.
Lesson's over, bell's ringing. You may go home to your mommy now.
January 16, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The international affairs on what planet, in what century for fictitious deities sake?
January 15, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about all the things e now have to do to get on a plane and then think about that proposal. This Adminstration was so terrified, they attacked the wrong country because they looked like the hijackers.
January 16, 2009 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bwhahahahaha!
No, really....Let me say something,
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
January 16, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, the same heightened international awareness that caused the Bush Maladministration to ignore it's own NIE and launch a trillion-dollar war/occupation - on the WRONG COUNTRY???
You and your ilk are a like a blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat that isn't there. Fortunately, most voters see your stumbling, bumbling incompetence now for what it is: juvenile overcompensation. (The question of what lacking component causes the overcompensation is left as an exercise for the reader.)
January 16, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The invasion of Iraq wasn't a tit-for-tat for 9-11. When the proposition to invade was placed before the democrat controlled senate, it was understood to be the first step in a broad-based, long-term strategy to limit 9-11 like events in the future. So far, it has worked famously. We haven't had any more genocidal attacks here, and Iraq has a popularly elected stable government with a throbbing economy!! No one has been hurled off a roof since the successful interdiction!!!!
As Americans, if that's what you are, you should rejoice in the success of the Bush administration. Just watch. The incoming administration will change zero of existing policy. They plan on building on existing policy.
If you're not American, or anti-American, I can understand your ruing these resounding sucesses.
January 16, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. My. God. Do you even read what you write?
The rationale for going into Iraq was that they had WMDs and that they had a role in 9/11. Period. Save the "Saddam was a bad guy" bullshit for someone who doesn't remember the run-up to the invasion. It was all about terrorists and nukes. (Incidentally, Iraq didn't have nukes then, and doesn't now - but they sure have picked up a few terrorists since we went there!)
Oh, and there was some oil and war profiteering involved, too. My bad for leaving that out. (How'd Halliburton do, I wonder?)
The war in Iraq was undertaken against the advice of our own intelligence agencies, who advised that Afghanistan was the real central front in the "war on terror". We started out in Afghanistan, and then all but ignored it while we went in ratholes to look for WMDs that weren't there, and killed upwards of one million Iraqis - not one of whom was involved with 9/11. In case you missed this, Obama's demonstrated opposition to the Iraq War was what gave him credibility on the national stage to begin with.
The Senate was presented with what is now known to be false rationalizations from the Bush Maladministration. In the face of 9/11, the Senate couldn't possibly turn them down - aside from being political suicide, it would be borderline traitorous to deny the President what he's asking for after such an attack. (Of course, this presumes that we're, you know, actually going after the real attackers.)
The problem was not taking swift, decisive action. The problem is that we've essentially destroyed a country that we then had to help rebuild. Unlike Japan and the Marshall Plan, though, IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK US. Every other consideration is utterly unimportant.
And meanwhile, there was The Decider, giving aid to a Musharraf-led Pakistan, while Musharraf himself basically gives over the northern regions of his country to al-Qaeda. (Remember them? The people who really DID attack us?)
Now, al-Qaeda is known to be as strong as it was before 9/11. As an extra crowning dingleberry on this Bush moose-pie sundae, Iran is now a major Middle East player, thanks to our destabilization of the region.
(Say, didn't King Hussein of Jordan warn us of EXACTLY this problem BEFORE going into Iraq? But what the fuck would he know about the region, right?)
When it comes to the war on terror, George Bush and Dick Cheney have been the two most effective recruiters that terror groups could have possibly imagined. Innumerable civilian casualties? A country reduced to rubble? Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? The VP, SoS, AG and other top officials discussing effective torture techniques - IN THE WHITE HOUSE? Ashcroft had it right: "History will not look upon this kindly."
I am an American, incidentally...but I'm not part of Caribou Barbie's Real America™. I prefer reality, if it's all the same to you. (So do about 63 million of my closest friends.)
January 16, 2009 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Masterfully laid out, Boyd!
January 16, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo, Boyd!
'tis a shame to spend time even arguing with a troll fencepost like prick. He does not so much care for facts when a good story is about to be told. Nevertheless, you really nailed the case against the post-Iraq, post "Mission Accomplished" revisionist bullshit spewed by Bush/Cheney and their sycophants like prick, here. They seem to misunderstand the fact that some of us were paying attention all along.
January 16, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
a to z! And against the war before it started!
January 16, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
'tis a shame to spend time"... dreaming up ad hominem attacks and ugly epithets in leiu of rebuttal to irrefutable accounts such as I posted.
January 16, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I left the irrefutable accounting to Boyd. He absolutely trashed your talking points that would have been more appropriately "distributed" on toilet paper.
As for ad hominum attacks, I suggest you get used to it, troll. I've grown accustomed to enjoying reasoned debate and factual discussions on issues here at TPM. Your attempts to instead interject fantasy excuses for GOP failures and your inciteful (rather than insightful) commentary with all the keen, political worldview of a Sara Palin sans testosterone is really not appreciated.
Drudge calls you home now, prick. I suggest you go.
January 16, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just nasty.
January 16, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jezus has spoken! And he handed you your ass in his sleep, spic. How many conspiracies do you bellieve?
January 16, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well done, SJ!
January 16, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watch ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC 'news' with a bit of humor. Until now, I didn't believe anyone took their agenda oriented talking points seriously.
But you've shown me better. You can quote their half-truths and biased dogma chapter and verse. Don't put too much sugar in your Koolaid now, it'll rot your teeth!!
January 16, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your alteration of the chain of events is breathtaking. If you really believe we are restructuring history here, do some research on the web because your memory fails you. I am sure you won't believe any of the commentary is factual. It was probably all recreated in some massive Left Wing MSM conspiracy, but listen to what George II is saying in his press conferences, and that alone. It says it all.
January 16, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't accused you of restructuring history, just ignoring so much of it.
January 17, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD STUFF BOYD. Iraq did not attack us, Iraq did not pose a threat to us, Iraq did not in any manner help those who attacked us.
We supported Iraq and Sadaam at one time.
Ahhh, anyone who questions that w was wrong by now is not worth talking to any longer.
January 16, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was about 9/11, right up to the moment they could no longer keep a straight face when trying to sell that as the reason. The ONLY reason it is not about 9/11 now is that these dastardly Dems called BS on that proposition.
As for the WMD, the only WMD existent was the one walking over to the CIA regularly to fix the "intelligence".
PS: On what planet do you reside where you have any say whatsoever as to whom is American and who not. If the issue is being un-American, then I suggest you ask yourself whether treating George the Second like a king is in the spirit of the Founding Fathers who dared to speak truth to power.
January 16, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote anti-American. Un and anti are not interchangeable prefixes. And you're the one with the jumbled time line.
January 16, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, provide ONE major news citation, ONE major quotation, ONE document...ONE shred of evidence that shows the Bush Maladministration's rationale for going into Iraq was ANYTHING BUT 9/11 and WMDs.
By the way, that citation will need to be dated 2003 or earlier.
January 16, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anti-American assumes I oppose this country. Wrong. I love it and that is why I am so adamant and upset there has been an idiot running it for eight years and there are still idiots in this world who believe in him. I believe people of your persuasion from the last poll were around 6% of the population. But I'm sure you know that you know better then the other 94%.
January 17, 2009 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heightened awareness of international affairs. Yeah, that's what it is.
This from the party whose leaders didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites before they invaded Iraq, and whose rank and file still thinks Saddam was BFFs with Bin Laden and behind 9/11, thinks Iranians are Arabs and thinks its possible for a country with a population of 100,000,000 and a GNP one trillion to culturally overwhelm a country of 300,000,000 and a GNP of 13 trillion. And those are the educated ones.
January 16, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duhh,,,, Wasn't it your president-elect with his affirmative action legal degree who said there weren't enough Arabic speakers in Afghanistan?
Yar! har har!!
January 16, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it Bush, at the APEC Summit in 2004, who said this?
Or this gem, loosed in my town of Pittsburgh in 2003?
We could do this all day, if you like. (Well, I could, anyway. *snicker*)
January 16, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
this reminds me of tweety's unamerican bloviating "well, what about these guys who don't have any evidence but we know they're bad guys. can't we just lock them up indefinitely?" he doesn't deserve to live in this country.
January 15, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Chris Matthews's finest hour, to be sure.
January 16, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Republican.......BOO!
January 15, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree with you more that the Republicans fundamentally are cowards and not just in foreign affairs. The problem for those of us who recognize this is not simply understanding what a bunch of fraidy cats they are, but in finding Democrats who, in the face of the Republican bluster and bravado, don't come off as a bunch of cowardly wimps themselves. The Republicans know people are not paying all that much attention and so they rattle the saber and talk tough all the time. The typical Democratic counter to this sort of thing comes off so limp-wristed and wimpy that it causes people to think that it's our side that is cowardly. It's supremely ironic, but there you are.
January 16, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really! Take a look at the list of neocons at PNAC. Kristol, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, etc.
Every one of them reminds me of the smartass idiot who always got his ass handed to him by the bullies on the playground in grade school.
Tough hombres, these chickenhawks. It's absolutely revolting to listen when they start talking all tough and macho-like.
January 16, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point well taken. Is this better?
Hey Republican. Ya you. Fuck you ya pussy!
January 16, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, I think that would work better than the pitiful, hand-wringing and whining the Democrats usually do. The academic sort of approach Democrats favor is politically very unattractive to the average person.
January 16, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over at emptywheel there's a poster, freepatiot, who excels at troll-bouncing! Perhaps you've seen him in action! If not... wow!
January 16, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Face facts~ John Wayne gives young republicans boners. They even named the airport in oh so conservative Orange County CA after him. The truth is more like how boy George looked like he pissed his pants when they told him about the world trade center attack. Anyone with any brains and balls would have gotten up immediately and swung into action. George looked scared and sat still.
I must object to your use of the "limp-wristed" description of a typical coward ..... I honestly know lots of guys who are not macho at all but are as brave and smart and clearminded in the face of danger as you could hope a friend to be. I also know many many muscle bound meat bags who panic and scream at the sight of a mouse. It is the time of Obama my friend, we look to the content of one's character not the superficial stereotypes to choose our friends and leaders now.
January 16, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Content of character?? Hah!! How laughable. Tony Rezko, currently on his way to jail, set Odumba up with that sweetheart real estate deal. William Ayers, of Weatherman terrorist fame, ghost-wrote Odumba's books because Odumba's affirmative action education didn't allow for much book learning. Character? BS
January 16, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you wonder why you get the ad hominem treatment. Blithering idiot.
Shall we discuss the number of Bush Maladministration officials either convicted (Libby, Foggo) or headed for conviction (start on Observatory Hill...head over to the Interior Department - take a prison bus for that one...swing by and grab Alberto Gonzales...)? BTW, the Chicago Tribune (just this side of the WSJ for conservative rags) did more digging on this issue than anyone else...and found nothing. Even Comedian Rush Limbaugh has moved on from it.
Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's books? Sure...and Jerome Corsi was the proof-reader. (Since the words were spelled correctly, and sentences formed in conformation with MLA guidelines, we can safely eliminate you as being the proofer.)
Affirmative action education? You're right. Affirmative action has plenty to do with receiving two Ivy League degrees with honors.
BTW, Sidley Austin - that small, piddling, insignificant law firm where the Obamas met - is known to hire unqualified lawyers...at all of its sixteen offices in nine countries. Moron.
January 16, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're foolin yourself. It may be the time for Obama but people haven't changed. They still view things through the very same lens and wimply, overly intellectual, know it alls are off-putting and not respected by the general public. I'm not saying it is right. I'm saying that is reality. You can either deal with or not. Democrats for decades have chosen not to deal with it and look where that got us.
January 16, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it sad how we have lowered the bar so much that the average Joe,[Who? Joe the Plumber or some other Joe?] can not listen long enough to understand. Or, maybe, that ship has sailed and Americans have woken up! Maybe it is all about who votes? It will be the intelligent brave souls who go to the polls that will determine whether the Reich returns sooner or later. As for the average Joe, he is not a voter, usually.
January 16, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll be listening to Joe the Plumber alright!!! I realize you're not exposed to much of what goes on in the real world, but Joe the Plumber has just launched his meteoritic career in journalism. Watch him and weep!!!!
January 16, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) That's "m-e-t-e-o-r-i-c". You're welcome.
(2) I can only presume your "real world" is a lot like the Drilla From Wasilla's "Real America". In both of those fantasy lands, McCain won the election. So you must be wondering, who's this skinny black guy, and why is everyone calling him "President-elect"?
(3) Listening to Joe the Plumber? I do that twice daily - at 7am and 11pm, when I flush the toilet. Much more informative than the real thing, and better for my health too.
"This is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, tax cheatin', welfare-receivin', deadbeat-baby-daddy signin' off. Drill, baby, drill!"
January 16, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boyd,
You'll be seeing Sara Palin again. Not on a snowmobile this time, but a steam roller. All the King's news anchors, and all the King's sitcom one liners can't hold back the inherent forces of American morality forever. Sorry.
January 17, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
A woman who has the unmitigated gall to preach to us about the benefits of abstinence-only sex education - while her underage daughter gets knocked up by a high-school dropout with a profane website - has no place in any discussion on "morality".
A journalism major who can't identify a single major news source she reads - or a single Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade with which she disagrees - isn't smart enough to be in a morality discussion.
A woman who would brazenly use the power the people of Alaska vested in her to fire a public safety director who, by all accounts, has been a loyal and trusted Alaskan public servant - because he refused to settle a family score for her - renders the very concept of "morality" absolutely alien to her.
A politician so shameless as to cry crocodile tears to the national media about how her family is being attacked - while using them for her own political purposes - should never speak of "morality", save for her admission that she lacks it in any measurable quantity.
Sarah Palin's "American morality"? That's the ultimate bridge to nowhere.
January 17, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey spric. It's time for you to run home. Yo mamma's callin ya.
January 16, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meteors: detritus from outer space that briefly glow as they fall to earth.
Yeah, that's him: Joe (not his real name) the plumber (not a licensed one, anyway), who got famous (?) for asking a question that was based on a lie (whining about how he couldn't buy his business -- totally bogus!). I guess if he can be a fake plumber he can also be a fake journalist; just like you are a fake.
And BTW, drop the "affirmative action law degree" thingy -- it makes you look so obviously stupid that it makes me think you got a "legacy high school diploma" like W. Oh, and the ghost-writing? Maybe the legacy diploma you got was from your highest achievement --> Kindergarten!
January 16, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you had more class than to come off like that.
January 17, 2009 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Kettle? Pot calling..."
January 17, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
spric -- you have class, but it's all LOW. So don't be casting stones. You have so much to learn. I hope you stay around. Maybe our knowledge and honesty will eventually rub off on you. (Not much hope, but I can promise you that your ignorance will not rub off on this site. BTW, calling people "Marxists is so Reaganesk, and intelligent people know what an affable, tragaic, and pathetic loser he was.)
*Google Iran-Contra for an education. Ooops! Sorry. Education is not your thing. Is there something about dinosaurs living with cavemen that we can tie to screwing our country during Reagan? Oh, well, there is ONE fiction we don't have to worry about.
January 17, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's so wrong with calling Marxists, 'Marxists'? I realize the term has unfortunate connotations, but I'm not responsible for it's reputation. I find the alternatives for 'calling a spade a spade' unacceptable and ultimately, dangerous.
January 18, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
FEED THE TROLLS *sung to the tune of 'Feed the Birds', http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHrRxQVUFN4
Early each day to the blog TPM
The little old troll persons come.
In their own special way to the people they call,
"Come, read my lines full of shit.
Come feed the little trolls, show them you care
And you'll be sad if you do.
Their psyches are angry,
Their thoughts are so spare;
All it takes is tuppence from you."
Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag.
"Feed the trolls," that's what they cry,
While overhead, more trolls fill the skies.
All around the website the posters and commenters
Look down as they spew their dross.
Although you can't see it, you know they are smiling
Each time someone shows that they care.
Though their words are simple and crude,
Listen, listen, they're calling to you:
"Feed the trolls, tuppence a bag,
Tuppence, tuppence, tuppence a bag."
January 16, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a rendition of:
♫ Starve the trolls...♫
I notice I used the word "rendition." Yes, especially let's it as a rendition!
January 16, 2009 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya! That was meant to be sung with tongue firmly implanted in cheek!
January 16, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kinda suspected that.... :)
January 16, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I see him and hear what he says it makes me weep for my country. That anyone gives him any consideration is clear evidence that the educational system of this country is failing and there are more morons out there then I ever imagined, most of whome went to the Failin' Palin rallies.
Question for you, spric. What kind of liberal media allows such a clearly delusional individual to get in front of a microphone? Or, maybe the press is not liberal. Check out the owners of the networks and we can discuss that another day.
PS: If I am not in your real world, to whom are you talking, also?
January 16, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is sad but you have to deal with reality. The reality Democrats have refused to deal with honestly is that people have emotional reactions to their leaders. Republicans offer bad leaders that elicit a more positive and reassuring emotional response among more voters than Democrats do. The overly cerebral, overly wordy, overly intellectual language and demeanor isn't something that gives emotional reassurance to most voters most of the time. Look at the election results over time. It is pretty obvious. Had the economy not collapsed it's not clear that even Obama would have won this year.
January 16, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I agree with you somewhat. Maybe having a smart and inspiring leader will change the metrics for the better.
January 18, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smart and inspiring is important to you and me. It is not what moves voters. What they prefer is a leader who seems strong, unafraid, and decisive. All the qualities that most liberal/intellectual Democrats like most and find most attractive are those that are interpreted by most people as being a wimp, indecisive, and weak. That's why Democrats keep nominating people who have such a hard time connecting with average voters. We want what we like to see but that most voters don't. They misinterpret thoughtful as indecisive and hesitatingly weak, They see weighing the options and discussing it in realistic terms as the mumbo jumbo of a vascillating, unsure coward. They see coming to terms with the opposition not as being statesmmanlike and finding a compromise everyone can live with but as getting pushed around and not being resolute.
Obama's brains alone will make no difference to the mass of voters. The American people as a whole are not very impressed by intellectual power by itself. They will want to see strength. That is what will inspire them. Lash the two together as JFK did and then you're in business. Strength and a vision they understand and can grasp. If he keeps it simple and exudes confidence they will like him. If he acts like a typical Democratic Senator it will not be as favorable. He is lucky in that he's following the worst President in history and people know it. But he will still need to demonstrate overall confidence and strength. If he doesn't we'll just be back to the same old scenario.
January 18, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments should be collected into special spiral-bound books! Or maybe you can just publish a weekly blog containing links or entire comments.
Kudos!
January 18, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great point. If the Democrats knew how to go for the juggular, they would include the term WEAK with every mention of "George W. Bush" and "Republicans" for the next 4 years. The public needs to identify them with weakness - on policy, economics, foreign affairs, and even defense.
January 16, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Point! We need to get the script ready!
"George Bush weak approach to the economy..."
No, it doesn't work, because it was worse than weak. It was malevolent and intentionally destructive. Weak isn't strong enough.
January 16, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you people are just mean and nasty.
January 16, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes we are, now shut the fuck up and get out of here~
January 16, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spric: Bottom line here is that you have brought nothing to the conversation except these unfounded accusation about a bad real estate transaction, for which you have nothing to support the assertion and ghost writers.
How on Earth can you suggest Barack Hussein Obama has anything less then a stellar education when he provides such insiteful remarks at every interview.
I believe you are seeing ghosts and I have some ocean front real estate to sell you in Arizona because it is perfectly clear you are extremely gullible.
January 17, 2009 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor,
You put a teleprompter in front of just about any of the simpletons in Hollywood and they can awe you with their profundity, sincerity, and 'insightful remarks'.
If your leader isn't rehearsed and scripted, and without the benefit of softball questions, he's reduced to uncontrollable stuttering. I watched it the few times he found himself unprepared during the chaos of the campaign. I felt a little sorry for the guy. Live, unscripted press conferences are going to get rare.
You just wait and see, you believe your ideology won a big victory the last election, and in some pretty important ways, it did. But as far as a meaningful ideological shift in the way we handle international situations, you're in for a big disappointment. Nothing is going to change, Just the actors. Even before the inauguration, they're posturing to justify continuation of each and every Bush policy they decried as criminal during the election.
I'm going to be disappointed right along with you.
January 17, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Pentagon is preparing withdrawal options that are in line with Obama's 16-month campaign promise.
Gitmo will be closing.
The AG-designate, the WH spokesman-designate, and the President-elect have all stated that torture will not be allowed.
But you're right. Nothing's going to change. *derisive laugh*
January 17, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just wait and see. All that unconstitutional 'wire tapping'?, the courts carved that in stone even before the inauguration. Gitmo closing? Hah! He's now giving himself four years. Why would it take 48 months to shut down a jail?
Our presence in Iraq will continue being dictated by current policy. That 16-month withdrawl crap isn't any mandate.
Odumba is suggesting an expansion of operations in Afghanistan. Another 'surge' sounds like. As far as a promise to end 'torture', that only means the AG won't be pouring the water personally.
We'll experience 'change' internally, I fear debilitating losses in our standard of living and freedoms due to the Marxist mindset indicated by key appointments. But not internationally in any substantial way. Wait and see.
January 17, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Mackerel, spric. This is the first time I recall seeing anything like a sensible discussion from you instead of simple, juvenile sniping. There's hope for you yet.
I still think you are full of shit, but at least you provide some things of substance upon which to discuss differences. Keep it up, and perhaps Quinn will some day let you out in public without an escort.
January 18, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, quinn's about my favorite too. Led the lemmings with the skill of a pied piper on that inane atoms thing. His leadership skills are scary. But it was entertaining.
January 18, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went to your blog page to see what kind of essays you would post - just to do a comparison and to determine your qualification for critiquing others. Interestingly, it shows you have contributed nothing. A review of your comments show that in fact your contribution here has been pretty abysmal and of no value whatsoever.
It's a pretty tight world you live in, having your head shoved square up your ass as it is.
But, no, I will not report you for abuse - even though the argument to do so has been pretty adequately made. I enjoy practicing sarcastic wit, at times, and you provide a good foil. Like Quinn, I think we'll just keep you around fer shits and grins.
January 18, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Truly.
January 18, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and by the way... "Led the lemmings with the skill of a pied piper?"
You're going to have to do better than that if you are ever going to get your English prose grade raised from an "F" by wwstaebler. Mixed metaphors are signs of a lack of creative thought or of a diseased mind. Take your pick.
January 18, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sleepin', he gets the blood aboilin' Now that is enough to wake me up from a nap. Just don't get to much into him. Or you will need a transfusion.
January 18, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The highly respected, UK Jewish MP, Gerald Kaufman, said in the British Parliament last week, ‘the Israelis are acting like Nazis in Gaza’. He was right. The young indoctrinated soldiers of the IDF, certain that all Palestinians are inferior to Israelis, killed 1300 of them – men women and children, with no mercy. The ones that were not killed by F16 bombers were shot in the head and tens of thousands injured and made homeless. No amount of propaganda from Israel’s embassies in New York, London and Paris can hide the truth that these were war crimes and the ministers responsible must be brought before the international court to face charges. In the meantime, the European Union must stop trading with Israel until such time as all illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are closed and substantive moves are made towards the early establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Until then, let Israel trade exclusively with the US and let us hope that President Obama will order an immediate ban on arms sales to the region. If these war crimes in Gaza are ignored, then democracy and the rule of law will both be damaged irreparably and Obama’s great hope for peace and an end to terrorism will be dashed for the period of his presidency and for years beyond.
January 20, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink