http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschultz/2770492919/in/set-72157606782577302/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschultz/2770493991/in/set-72157606782577302/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschultz/2771341316/in/set-72157606782577302/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschultz/2770494745/in/set-72157606782577302/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschultz/2770495269/in/set-72157606782577302/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dschultz/2771342804/in/set-72157606782577302/

My challenge to you involved “circa 1997-2000,” not just 1998. Again, since you apparently feel it is wrong to talk about a president who is not running for another term, did you feel the same way when the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world were bashing Clinton during the four years I mentioned? Or you have a blatant double standard in this regard?

I tried that for 7 years. It didn’t take.

That, plus it gives you a ready-made excuse to support Obama without having to, you know, say why he’s good. Instead, you can focus on why the other guy’s bad.

Such is the folly of a 2 party system.

The last two times I actively supported a candidate, and didn’t just figure “he’s the least bad,” were Fred Thompson and Bill Bradley. (I was just barely too young to vote for Reagan.)

You don’t seem to have a problem with doing it, why should I?

That, plus it gives you a ready-made excuse to support Obama without having to, you know, say why he’s good. Instead, you can focus on why the other guy’s bad.

The last two times I actively supported a candidate, and didn’t just figure “he’s the least bad,” were Fred Thompson and Bill Bradley. (I was just barely too young to vote for Reagan.)

J.

Well, the ultra cons have been doing it to me for the last 7 years, so I’m doing it to them for the next 70.

So, why do you want to talk about Bush so much this election cycle, anyway, to the exclusion of Obama? I thought he was all about the future and the new politics and leaving the past behind? One would think that people who believe in him and that would be eager to talk about that.

Could it be that you’re voting for Obama for the very same reasons I voted for bush, and why I’m leaning towards mcCain — that “at least he’s not as bad as the other guy?”

How very enlightening.

J.

So it’s illegitimate to talk about a president still in office who is not “running for anything?” Did you feel that way when the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of America were discussing Bill Clinton (in exclusively negative terms, of course) circa 1997-2000 (when, of course, Clinton wasn’t “running for anything.”)?

Oh, and Roe v. Wade is an absymal ruling. Some of the worst “thinking” in law since… god, I dunno, Plessy v. Ferguson?

J.

Look, I understand that you’re busted up that Bush didn’t make homosexuality and abortions punishable by socialized vengeance. Really, my heart goes out to you.

*Plays a violin*

Fixed.

Poor Jay (Tea), why do you hate America so much?

(Expecting Jay to run with his tail between his legs in 3-2-1…)

So why isn’t anyone leaping to the defense of this great Constitutional scholar and explaining just how he can simultaneously support the DC gun ban AND the Supreme Court decision striking it down? Why is everyone so eager to let that slide, and instead change the discussion to George W. Bush (who, I believe, is not running for anything this time) and me (which I find extremely flattering)?

Your emperor has no clothes, folks. Wake up and see the empty suit.

J.

Like Jay is jumping at the bit to talk about McCain’s (many) weaknesses and failings.

What I’m saying is that I find your judgment suspect, and your views on double standards to be laughable. Bush had proven himself even before 2000 to be exactly the sort of “petulant child” you claim Obama is (again, over piddling nonsense like media photography), but you gave him a pass. Twice. Your reasons for that are your own, but it makes certain arguments you have against Obama unconvincing.

I’ll play along with your little diversionary tactic for a moment, though. I voted for Bush twice because I looked at his Democratic opponents each time and said “good god, Bush can’t be worse than that bozo.”

If you’d like to discuss the issues I have raised about Obama, Spider, please, feel free. If you’d rather turn the discussion to Bush or me or anything else but those issues, Spider, have fun monologuing. I’ll pass on that one — except, perhaps, to note your desire to not talk about Obama’s weaknesses and failings.

J.

I haven’t followed your politics with grim fascination for the past eight years, Jay Tea, so I can only assume you’re one of us folks who saw the same things in our current leadership and were shouted down for two separate elections. I feel your pain.

I mean, if you were a Bush supporter and still able to write the above sentence with a straight face, you’d have to be dishonest at best and deranged at worst.

J.

Yes, well, I think a swarm of locusts will scour the land if your guy is elected.

Obama said “lay off my wife.” He said “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.”

“Attacking my wife” is his interpretation of “paying attention to what she says and does while campaigning on her husband’s behalf, treating it as serious, and responding to her as we would any other person acting in a political fashion.”

Contrast that with how Cindy McCain is being treated. Her addiction to painkillers years ago (for which she pleaded guilty and paid her debt to society) is constantly brought up. Her family’s money is always discussed, negatively. John McCain’s first wife is hounded all the time, even though she has said she bears him no ill will and doesn’t want to be involved in this mess. (Witness the story elsewhere on this site about the lawsuit between McCain’s mother and ex-wife.)

The Obamas invited a TV gossip show into their home, to film them and their children. Then Obama said that was a mistake, that he wouldn’t be using his kids for any more publicity stunts. And then they all posed for the cover of People Magazine.

Or for another parallel, Obama on the Heller decision on the DC gun ban. He was a staunch supporter of the ban all the way, right up to the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. At that point, he said he said he supported the Court’s ruling. But he still supported the ban. So he supports a measure that he agrees is unconstitutional.

Or back during his legal career. Editor of Law Review, professor of Constitutional Law. Not a single paper ever published. Not once did he express his opinions and findings and thoughts on a matter of import, in a way that would open him up for review and criticism and examination. He went to great strides to remain a tabula rasa for any and all to project their own aspirations.

It all ties together. And it’s not simple flip-flopping. It transcends that. It’s having it both ways — and, occasaionally, more than two ways — at the same time. It’s the petulant demand of the child, not the attitude of someone who wants to be entrusted with the leadership of the free world.

Thanks, but no thanks.

J.