Back before I started this blog (eight years ago), I assumed that the pundit class clearly knew more than the rest of us. They were surely tuned in, highly educated, certainly that had to be true for them to go on television and make snap interpretations of the mood of a nation as large and diverse as ours. After reading Eric Alterman’s Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy and by actually getting my hands dirty, offering up opinions of my own on an almost daily basis I came to realize most of the people on television have no idea what they’re talking about.
We’ve been told in the last couple of days that Sarah Palin is the roaring lion, the clarion call to the great unwashed that they have a home in the GOP. But what many, including myself, noted was that Palin’s speech was great… for conservatives. Mostly anyone else watching is likely to be repulsed by its content and tone like liberals were or find it simply off-putting for other less inclined to have a political “side”. This is key, because the first generation of Palin spin was that she was designed to appeal to the lingering Clinton vote out there. In her first words as McCain’s running mate Palin paid lip service to Sen. Clinton. After Clinton’s name was booed at a subsequent event I’m guessing that piece will now be downplayed or removed entirely.
Some new data is coming in from Washington Post/ABC:
Palin’s ratings are highest among the groups already likely to be in the Republican camp, limiting the potential impact of the choice. Among conservative Republicans, 89 percent view her favorably, as do 81 percent of white evangelical Protestants. In both groups, large majorities hold “strongly favorable” opinions.
The poll, conducted the night after Palin accepted the second slot on the GOP ticket at the party’s national convention in St. Paul, Minn., finds that 55 percent of all Americans said the Palin pick makes no difference in their support for McCain. Even more — 67 percent — said so of Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s choice of Biden. In both cases, those who said the vice presidential choices would increase the odds of supporting one of the newly minted presidential nominees are those who were already predisposed to supporting that candidate.
As the Democratic convention showed us, the “PUMA” voter is largely a media-created phenomenon. Surely there are a few disaffected Clinton voters who will go for McCain, but there is likely an equal amount of people who believe aliens are controlling our minds with flouridated water. The vast majority of Sen. Clinton’s supporters are going to vote for Sen. Obama, who while they may not be as big a fan of him like folks like myself, understand that on the major issues of our time that Sen. Obama is about a nanometer away from Sen. Clinton – and these are what these voters care about. A pick like Palin is likely to excite some parts of the Republican base, but these were mostly McCain voters to begin with — maybe they just won’t be holding their noses at the ballot box.
The base vote plan is the same brilliance that has led Bush to be sub-30% for most of his second term. The Dobson/Chamber of Commerce alliance is nice and all on election day, but it isn’t a governing coalition of any sort. Sen. Obama has the Democratic base, moderate Republicans, and independents who aren’t being fooled by McCain’s recent attempts to extricate himself from the death grip of George W. Bush. Nothing is a given, but the latter coalition is more likely to win an election in 2008.
I figured this to be the case once I was clear on who she was. There’s no way someone with her background and beliefs is going to seriously appeal to anyone outside the seriously far right. You have a few who might be willing to ignore some differences to follow her to the McCain ticket, but I don’t see the Independents rallying behind McCain.
It’s strange that he attempts to cut into the “change” message, when he has in fact embraced the most conservative and old-fashioned area of the party.
I was amazed at how consistently out of the loop the pundits seem to be.
They make these suppositions and then come back in two weeks and make MORE suppositions totally ignoring the fact that they were DEAD ASS WRONG about all the suppositions they made last week.
Another insightful piece, OW.
I think part of the problem is that tv personalities are not chosen for their command of any particular subject, even journalism; rather, the producers seem to be not so much bringing in a journalist as casting a role. If somebody delivers in an interesting, charismatic, perhaps even so-dumb-he’s-hilarious (we all know to whom that refers, I presume), then it doesn’t much matter to the suits or the advertisers if what they’re saying is relevant or even true. It’s the fast food lunch of news. The viewer will likely forget all but a few tidbits to repeat at work the next day, and this shit they peddle just gets reinforced.
Let’s try this again, so even the liberals get it …
The general theme of all Presidential Elections , in the eyes (and hearts) of the MSM anyway , is : Our guy is gonna win this thing!
[Please NOTE that I did NOT say "We WANT our guy to win" - that would be ... ahem ... biased]
To reflect that judgment, the Media Darling will NEVER – not ever, ever, ever, ever, ever — did I mention “never” depicted as far behind the (Boo! Hiss!) Other Guy …
What Palin has done is energize the Base (somebody explain what that means to those who don’t know – such explanations are “below my pay grade” — you know, like the details of Obama’s Plans?)
This means that people that would have stayed home for a McCain – Obama race, will get out and vote …
Thus, on Election Day, there will be a whole bunch of “surprise” voters (”surprising” only to the Media)
And, once again , we will be told that the Republican victory was an upset, and due only to logistical and campaign failures — not an outdated , “tried and failed” , basically NON American ideology, which is consistently rejected when presented openly for a vote …
I agree with Parthenon on the insightful post.
But speaking of pundits: was anyone else struck by the different density of pundits on MSNBC during the Democratic, as vs. the Republican, Convention? During the DC, there were so many talking heads constantly interrupting the speeches (that they assumed we DIDN’T want to see, their “filtering” being so much more important) that I had to turn to C-Span. It seemed that for the Republican Convention, on the other hand, the pundits snoozed in their rooms most of the time and we were afforded a direct view of the event.
Why the diff? Were these anointed ones bored? Worn out? Intimidated by the possibility of a storm of neocon write-ins if they interrupted too much? Under orders from on high? Or was this perceived disparity only my imagination?
Just wondering.
Maybe the pundits were all watching the Weather Channel during the Republican convention. I know I was keeping an eye on Gustav.
I agree and I’ve wondered why. I think it is because the McCain campaign believes that when a sured up base is combined with voters who would never vote for Obama, no matter what McCain says or does, McCain wins. How would he govern if he wins after pursuing this strategy?
Eventually it will become obvious to fence-sitting voters that Palin is a Bush Republican. With his voting record, McCain has firmly established his status in that group. These people own the current state of affairs in this country. And false anecdotal accounts of selling the governor’s jet on ebay, and saying thanks-but-no-thanks to earmarks will be ridiculed as were Republican predictions of Iraqis greeting our troops as liberators.
anotherbozo: Why the diff? Were these anointed ones bored? Worn out? Intimidated by the possibility of a storm of neocon write-ins if they interrupted too much? Under orders from on high? Or was this perceived disparity only my imagination?
From what I’ve read, the RNC convention was timed to give very little room for discussion between events.
Well… you’re right and your wrong. I’m one of those bitter Clinton supporters who was set to vote for McCain. (I’m a very liberal, college-aged voter who seems more like a typical Obamaniac.) Two of my friends, both male, were also CLinton supporters set to vote McCain. And then to my bitter disappointment, he picked Palin and reminded me why I’m a Democrat. I will now vote Obama this November as will my two friends.
The things is, I don’t think the Palin selection was a panders to PUMA’s or to women. I think it was a calculated move to rouse the base whom you claim were already in his camp, but some believe would have stayed home had McCain picked Lieberman. I’m voting Obama, but with Palin, I’m more afraid than every of a McCain victory.
“Let’s try this again, so even the liberals get it …
The general theme of all Presidential Elections , in the eyes (and hearts) of the MSM anyway , is : Our guy is gonna win this thing!”
Do you have any clue how favorable the media has been to McCain? And for how long is has been going on? The media has been far more critical of Obama during this election.
Clearly, it is the Trilateralists who are controlling our minds by flouridating our drinking water. They just want you to *think* it’s the aliens.
Otherwise, spot on.
“I was amazed at how consistently out of the loop the pundits seem to be.”
Political Pundits are like the people getting laid at the Special Olympics. They are all fucking retards.
It’s the only job you can have where being wrong is considered a plus.
For the most part, I agree with political pundits being morons. One person, however, stands out among the rest. Rachael Maddow. I like how she uses facts and reason to back up her opinions. It’s quite refreshing. As they say, “the truth has a liberal bias.”
This blogger is engaged in what I call “wishcasting”, i.e., he wishes his view of what he thinks is happening is, in fact, what is actually happening. Clearly it is not.
Of course, McCain is also engaged in some wishing of his own. He wishes that left wing bloggers would either viciously attack Governor Palin (which clearly backfires and increases her visibility and popularity) or underestimate the affect of her candidancy on voters across America. This blogger’s latest entry clearly places such blogger in the later group.
More than 40 million viewers tuned in to write Governor Palin speak. Many others read snippets of such speech the next day online or in newspapers, or viewed portions of it on cable, or read or watched extremely favorable commentary regarding her speech. And all this attention for a Vice Presidential candidate.
Underestimate her at your own risk. Americans are not what the small, self-appointed group of left wing media types and bloggers think they are. You have no idea what is attractive to us and interests us. But you will learn in this election. Expect a McCain/Palin landslide in November.
“For the most part, I agree with political pundits being morons. One person, however, stands out among the rest. Rachael Maddow. I like how she uses facts and reason to back up her opinions. It’s quite refreshing. As they say, ‘the truth has a liberal bias.’”
I don’t even consider her a pundit. She’s too smart to be considered a pundit.
I dunno, I thought Murphy and Noonan sounded pretty lucid the other day in one of their more candid exchanges.
Kate, if you shared a majority of your beliefs with Sen. Clinton, why in the world would you consider switching your vote from her to Sen. McCain? As OW points out, Sens. Clinton and Obama espouse a very similar center-left agenda. Sen. McCain is center-right.
Put pictorally–
{McCain}——{Center}—-{Clinton}-{Obama}
Sorry to all for repeating the question (I’ve asked it probably three other times on three other threads). But no disaffected Clinton supporters have as yet answered.
I’m not wishing anything. As I noted during the primaries, McCain was the best pick for the Republicans because true or not he was the most prepared candidate and least identified with traditional Republicanism. It is only in part because McCain and the media have the propped up maverick mythology why the race is so close.
Cons (like Frank) have themselves convinced that America is a conservative country. I’m a realist, and know that this is a moderate nation that has a far more complex ideology than we would like to think. Idealogically someone like Palin is as if the Dems had nominated Dennis Kucinich to be Obama’s running mate. It helps that Palin comes across as shrill to anyone but the already converted. Will the running mate be the determinant in this election? Highly unlikely. The title card is still John McCain vs. Barack Obama.
Two years ago we were told Dems couldn’t win the House and Senate. A year ago we were told Obama couldn’t beat Clinton. Now we’re being told Obama/Biden can’t beat McCain/Palin because James Dobson is in heat.
Okay.
“You have no idea what is attractive to us and interests us.”
Can you enumerate 10 to 15 things that you find attractive and interesting. Any topic, sector of reality. Personally, I admit having no idea what makes conservatives, who come off as liberal haters, tick. I’d actually like to know. Off the table of things that are attractive and interesting: Liberal bashing in any form.
I’m being serious in my question. If you wanna plays games, then you only have yourself to blame for our lack of understanding.
Best…
An addendum to my question to our conservative brothers and sisters: can you enumerate 10 to 15 things that you believe a liberal, often coming off as a conservative bashing gotcha gamers, finds attractive and interesting. I’d be curious as to how well your understanding of ‘the other’ actually is.
I’ll remove two items from the potential list: wishcasting and conservative bashing. Speaking as liberal, proudly liberal and progressive, I don’t engage in wishful or magical thinking even when I’m balancing my checkbook. In all activities, I try to maintain a measure of prudent thought and action. As for conservative bashing, there’s no sport in antagonizing someone. It’s much more productive and interesting to try to engage ‘the other’ … it can lead to surprising results for all.
O-Dub, you have been on fire the last couple of days. I think you should give TV a shot. You’re always better informed than Tim Russert ever was.
[...] on television don’t really know what they’re talking about. He’s right. Except as he goes on however, he ironically repeats the same talking points those very pundits and blabbermouths on television [...]
hollow man head full of hollow straw
“You have no idea what is attractive to us and interests us.”
1) I don’t speak for all conservatives, and they don’t speak for me …
I believe that even stupid Congressman are well-intentioned boobs, who got that way, because they now think they have a career, when they were originally meant to serve a term or two, and go live REAL lives.
2) I like movies where the underdog takes X amount of crap, then, when he has had enough, he wails the tar out of the villain / bully / crime lord …
3) I like to see women treated with care and respect, not like “one of the guys”
4) I like to see families walking down the street, not a single mom struggling with a bunch of kids looking all pissed off and bedraggled
5) I like movies about the details of history, like the Indian who walked across America, years before Lewis and Clark.
6) I favor the Constitution, and the Preamble , over the Declaration of Independence.
7) I have read the Bible three times, cover to cover, and kinda know what’s in it.
9) I believe that, on some levels, all groups in America do OK some of the times, and they get the shaft some of the time …
I believe all people try to good, but fail, some times.
10) I believe it’s more important that people go to a House of Worship regularly (myself included) than vote every Election.
11) I believe war is a necessary evil, and they are not, in this day and age, fought for any one politician’s / party’s / economic sector’s convenience.
12 ) I believe that what this country wants is better and more important than what most countries want — all countries are not alike.
13) I believe everybody should live where they want , if the landlord approves; work where they want, if their employer approves; and go to school where they want, if they can scrounge up the money to pay for it, and the Admissions Department approves
Is 13 enough?
You have no idea what is attractive to us and interests us. But you will learn in this election. Expect a McCain/Palin landslide in November.
Shorter: Keep digging! That pony’s got to be in here somewhere!
Interesting that you phrase it that way, though. Us vs. Them. Why do you hate America?
McCain closed his speech with a warning that “Change is coming!”
I wonder what change McCain will bring.
Changing his position on immigration? on off shhore drilling? on how easy/tough things are in Iraq? on how far to follow binLaden? his favorite 70s football team? his personal VP pick?
Will he run on issues or personality?
McCain/Palin might still win. Enough Americans are more than capable of voting against their best interests out of fear/stupidity/greed for another tax cut.
But a landslide? This is how Electrical-Vote.com has it right now:
Obama 301 McCain 224 Ties 13
McCain and Palin might squeeze in and fuck the world up for another four years. But it’ll be by a handful of electrical votes if they do.
Also, if they do, seriously I’d move to Canada. Towels thrown in and all that.
Since most of us are realists, and are not over in England playing politics, we know there is no point in moving…
Even those fabulously rich movie stars — even the ones who pledge to move — never do, when they hear about the incredible price of fuel, the inept medical supply systems, and mind boggling taxes and tax rates.
Johnny Depp did.
Stupid quality-of-life index and its stupid, stupid liberal bias.
Anybody want to guess which continent had 11 of the top 12 nations in 2005?
*Ten of the top 12. I can count. Really.
CSS: Political Pundits are like the people getting laid at the Special Olympics. They are all fucking retards.
I get the point you are making, the context in which you are saying it and the people you were intending to insult. I realize no offense to those with “special” needs was intended and so don’t really take offense at your words.
(I don’t think I’m going to be able to make my point here as well as I’d like to, but let’s forge ahead anyway.) However, as someone who has been involved with the Special Olympics and worked with the people who participate in them, I do find it offensive and insulting that the participants are used as something unfavorable to be compared against. Just wanted to bring that to your attention in hopes that, in future, derogatory terms like “retard” and other “sub-human”-type labels will only be directed toward those who actually deserve them.
Thanks Frank, I appreciate the list. I think slowly, and feel slower still, so I’m going to take some time to churn this around in my ol’ noggin’.
Partisan reporting. Let America decide, not journalists.
1) I value reasoned opinions over the hollow views of those who repeat only what they’ve been told. This is true even when the reason leads someone to a view I strongly disagree with and the repeaters are saying something I go agree with.
2) When entering a discussion with someone I disagree with I want the other person to be able to change my mind. I want to be challenged in my beliefs so that I can more thoughtfully review them and ultimately be stronger in my convictions because they are the result of considered contemplation.
3) I believe people can strongly disagree on core matters and still respect each other and treat each other appropriately.
4) I believe there are many people who are idiots and/or lazy and that there should be no hesitation in pointng that out when you encounter one. However, if you do so by simply saying “you’re teh moron” dismissively only shows that you also are an idiot or lazy.
5) I believe that organized religion has been one of the greatest detriments to human relations and progress ever invented and am aware of how much that statement will offend or piss off some.
6) I believe the purpose of religion was to provide comfort to the individual in the face of great unknowns or uncertainties and to draw people together. I believe it has been an utter failure on that second part as more suffering has been caused in the course of human history because the vast majority of people just can’t accept someone who’s beliefs are different than theirs on things which, almost by definition, are unknowable.
7) I believe being involved in the here and now is vastly more important than preparing for a next life, and find most of those who put church attendence over community involvement to be hypocritical.
I believe I have biases and prejudices and unsupportable opinions and am as likely as the next person to give in to them at times. I believe most people will deny that they are the same.
9) I believe far too many people will continue to support something they have said than ever admit they are wrong.
10) I believe that what consenting adults do in private is their own business and not mine or the government’s or anyone elses.
11) I believe that your happiness is not my responsibility, but that I do have an obligation to not be selfish or to cause others pain that I can avoid.
12) I believe that those who have benefitted most from a society owe a great deal back.
13) I believe that nobody needs more money or cars or houses than they can really actually use and that anyone who could lose a major part of their net worth and not notice an real change in their lifestyle should be ashamed.
14) I believe the people need help at times and should be provided support to get up and running. I believe most will work to support themselves if given the chance. I believe there is a limit to how many chances someone gets before they get written off.
15) I believe we can be better than we are and that those who believe wars and suffering are inevitable, that there will always be poor, that we can’t live in a world where everyone’s basic needs are met are the ones who keep of from progressing in that direction.
16) I believe that some people just need to be taken out and shot.
So, where do I fall on the spectrum?
Just fell into this site and find it hilarious.
I love how “progressives” talk all about how low the President’s approval raiting is but somehow overlook the abysmal rating of Congress of which Obama and Biden are part of the majority.
You have 2 of the most liberals Senators running on the Democratic ticket – is that not pandering to the base? Can we at least be honest on this site? Palin definitely excited the base – good, they needed to get excited. She will probably bring some people out to vote who were less than enthusiastic & considering not voting. Whoever else she brings out to vote for the ticket is all surplus.
If you don’t remember and don’t realize what you have written, Bush/Cheney won by more than 3 million votes in 04! Maybe appealing to the base wasn’t a bad idea then either.
As for Sean – you fit well with the Obama remark about small town folks clinging to religion and guns. Your “I believes” are full of opinion and very little reason…
Slightly to the Left of Crash Davis.
Gino: You have 2 of the most liberals Senators running on the Democratic ticket
They are the ONLY Senators running on the Democratic ticket. So they are also the 2 most conservative Senators running on the Democratic ticket.
But thank you for unthinkingly echoing the (false) right wing talking point so nicely.
Gino: As for Sean – you fit well with the Obama remark about small town folks clinging to religion and guns. Your “I believes” are full of opinion and very little reason…
In what way? Where did I say anything about anyone clinging to anything? And, yes, what I believe is full of my opinions. (News flash: The atmosphere is full of air.) I didn’t get into the reasons behind my opinions; the brief list wasn’t intended as a pages-long rational for each bullet point.
You have 2 of the most liberals Senators running on the Democratic ticket – is that not pandering to the base?
Your flawed logic aside, I don’t believe it is, no.
Sean, thanks for your time in listing these things. In fact, belief-in-the-raw is exactly what I believe(!) folks need to come to terms with both within themselves and between others. I appreciate the time and the candor.
I’ll list my few items about what I believe(!) about interests and attractions of the ‘other’. This is not a reaction to anything I’e read here. A stupider straw man has probably never been brought to life. Oh well…
*) There is a strong desire for self-determination and autonomy, while serving obediently a higher power and/or cause.
*) Hierarchical organization must be observed.
*) Family plays a significant role in creating a context for their life.
*) Pleasure is worthy of its seeking, but pleasure is usually not identified as pleasure, but ascribed upon in other terms.
*) Taxation is a fools con that has exploited the working class and corrupted the political system. Put in a better way, I am largely not my brothers keeper, except under a variety of exceptional circumstances.
*) Evil exists and must be avenged through both a priori and ad hoc methods. The means justify the end. For one’s adversary, the means and end are largely understood to be evil.
*) There is a willingness to play as a team player and suppress individual urges to serve the greater good of the team.
*) Chaos must be held at bay. Change is reasonable when gradual and when it reinforces agreeable social values.
*) There is a public willingness to mock and intimidate the ‘other’ while within a more intimate and personal interaction, a willing desire to listen and interact in constructive ways.
*) Zero sum games and social Darwinism are the rules of the road. It’s played hard. It’s played for keeps. And there is a strong sense that these rules apply to ones self. (Outside looking in on this one: there is a lot of hypocrisy I’ve observed on this; I speak from much personal experience as I happen to have many interactions with conservatives. And hypocrisy is big no-no for many liberals who themselves fall short as well.
*) The world/reality/what ever your personal model is, exist through scarcity and conflict for which the universe provides in abundance.
*) Consistency in ethics and morals is a daily practice, often times revealed in language such as doing God’s will.
*) Virtue is a daily practice.
*) Country can trump all or most personal ethical or moral judgment.
*) God is in control or has the ability to take control of all matters in the universe including it creation and its ultimate demise.
*) Authority must be obeyed with minimal questioning and maximal trust.
*) Redemption is available to all. But, there are structural gates one must pass through to achieve it.
*) Hard work is the enemy of laziness. Laziness is the enemy of living a meaningful and bountiful life.
*) America is the greatest nation, for it has served the greatest number of human beings with the greatest of aspirations: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Codified and observed by the constitution.
*) Arguing with a liberal is largely a waste of time for liberalism is akin to a disease of mind and spirit. Angering a liberal is sport and entertainment but serves no other purpose than these needs.
*) The expression of curiosity is opaque to my cultural adversaries.
I could go on and on, y’all get the idea how I think I see these things today. I admit, I’ll flip flop in a heartbeat. I’ll change my mind on a dime. And yet, I’ve been exceeding decisive and fruitful in my life. We all carry within us some weird and contradictory standards I believe(!)
Very cute snide remarks – yes, they are the only Senators running on the Democratic ticket. But they are also 2 of the most liberal Senators in the Senate – that wasn’t too hard to figure out, was it?
Also, how is picking Palin pandering to the base but going with super liberal Joe Biden not pandering to the liberal Democratic base? Duros, maybe you did not understand why I wrote that but let’s be real – if picking a conservative is pandering to the Republican base, don’t you see how picking Biden is the same?
Sean, I was responding to your very 1st point. “I value reasoned opinions over the hollow views of those who repeat only what they’ve been told.” After that, all you gave was opinion without any substance. I thought it was pretty funny especially in light of point 5 (there’s my Obama reference). I could write more but I’ll hold off for now…
Frank DiSalle,
“Even those fabulously rich movie stars — even the ones who pledge to move — never do, when they hear about the incredible price of fuel, the inept medical supply systems, and mind boggling taxes and tax rates.”
I lived in Canada for many years and it doesn’t fit your description. Canada leads the US on the Human Development Index (Canada 4th, USA 12th).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
You speak with such authority, but I’m wondering where you get your information…
hollow man, Thanks for your list as well. This is the kind of discussion I really enjoy getting into sometimes. One where I hear others views and have to defend some of my own (and suprise myself sometimes with finding out my defense isn’t as solid as I thought it was).
I’m curious as to how you reconcile some of the things you mention. Taxation is a fools con and I’m not my brother’s keeper vs willingness to suppress individual urges to serve the greater good. Zero sum games vs the universe provides in abundance.
I’m not picking at or necessarily disagreeing with your thoughts, only trying to understand them. Although this is the kind of exchange far better served while relaxing over a couple of beers than thru the comments section of a blog board.
I don’t recall mentioning Canada , nor did I mention any one’s index … Health delivery system , in my uneducated opinion is judged not by life expectancy which can be increased by simply running an effective antismoking campaign , getting people to drive more carefully, and paying more attention to nutritional and other alternative therapies for disease …
Medical delivery systems , in my view, reflect availability of medical care , prescriptions and surgery. The tax rates in nearly all “industrialized nations” are higher than in the US; and gasoline has been over USD $4.00 all over Europe for years …
Look that up in the
World Book Encyclopedia of the InternetWikiPediaHow was the Human Development Index validated Vanessa?
What does it actually measure, and what do those measurements mean?
The number one country is Iceland, what does that mean?
You speak with authority, I KNOW where you get YOUR information, and you have no idea what your talking about…..
Gino: But they are also 2 of the most liberal Senators in the Senate – that wasn’t too hard to figure out, was it?
Actually, it seems it may be hard to figure out. I’ve heard it said, of course. Exactly as it was said of Kerry four years ago. I just haven’t seen it supported.
Gino: After that, all you gave was opinion without any substance.
I can see your point. But mine, again, is that it was a list of beliefs and was (I would have thought obviously) not intended as a thesis paper where facts are presented to lead you to a final, supported conclusion.
Gino: …point 5 (there’s my Obama reference).
Ah. But I didn’t say or suggest anyone clings to religion for uncomplimentary reasons. (Neither did Obama, BTW, and that folks continue to say he did only goes to show just how much more willing they are to believe what they’ve been told than make the effort to think for themselves. but I digress.) I acknowledged that I was touching on a very touchy subject for some and expect folks would disagree with my view. Look back to my point 1 for my willingness to listen to and discuss their and my views.
duh: What does it actually measure, and what do those measurements mean?
duh: I KNOW where you get YOUR information
You just can’t be bothered to actually read it.
Sean: But thank you for unthinkingly echoing the (false) right wing talking point so nicely.
Gino: False? Why? Because you don’t like The National Journal? They’ve been doing these ratings for over 25 years. In 2007, Obama was 1st and Biden 3rd. That’s not a talking point but using facts.
I’m sure the libs will show how McCain voted with Bush 99% of the time – I’ll keep waiting.
And Duros – the Dem ticket is so far left that they must believe that the base needs them to be this way. If Obama wanted balance he would have selected Evan Bayh or even Hillary, but instead he went ultra-liberal. Must be for a reason just like McCain’s choice…
Sean: I have to run but have enjoyed the exchange. If I in any way misunderstood or offended you, I apologize. There is no doubt we have different views – you would call me a religious fanatic because I believe Jesus died on the Cross and rose again. But I am also a Chem Eng and MBA. I do think that Christianity can be a highly intellectual endeavor but it does not often begin there. As I have read the Bible and lived my life, the claims of Jesus make more sense, not less. I do not believe that all religions are equally valid or are equal, thus your point #5 makes little sense. Should I judge or make statemetns about all atheists by the standards of Lenin and Stalin and Mao? Would that be fair to you (if you are an atheist)? Can you really compare Jesus (love your enemies) with Muhammad? If you cannot see the difference between Christianity and other religions, then it’s probably because no one has adequately sat down with you and discussed – I hope that happens soon.
I’m outta here. Good day & yes, God bless.
Gov. Palin is an authentic American. She fought against “the old guard”, she succeeded. She tried to reduce stupid costs (e.g. e-bay jet) She hammered the Rep. estalishment and renegotiated a deal on oil revenue and the gas pipeline. She insisted that an abuser be fired from the Akaska police. She preferred to raise a Downs syndrome child rather than murder it. She has a child that didn’t take the “Abstinence” warnings.\
Sarah is a very bright, tough lady that has faced a lot of political and personal problems- can that be said about ANY of the Democratic candidates?
Uhm … err … Obama has almost NO moderate republicans.
This is one of the few blogs I have responded to. Mostly I am a moderate and am off put by the vileness ( Dhimmicrap/Rethuglican ) diatribes.
Moderate republicans can basically be stated as keep your hands off my wallet, your nose out of my bedroom, your religious views ( including atheism ) out of my classrooms. And we can talk about the rest.
How does Obama appeal to me? Or any moderate.
Why wouldn’t us moderates LOVE to rub the noses of the conservative base that all their hyperbole about McCain losing the base means doom in the fact that he won?
Why would we abandon our most prominent moderate?
And understand — no one OTHER than us moderates get to decide who is one of us.
And to be frank. None of us consider Sen Obama a moderate at all. He is an extremist hewing to the center to win, so he can shift back far left when he wins.
Furthermore, read the polls. Without fail ( except Oregon which he would carry anyways) in state by state McCain gets 10-15% MORE crossover vote ( Dems for McCain, Reps for Obama ) than Sen Obama.
In many states Sen. Obama’s crossover vote is almost NONE.
Again — ignore the pundocracy — definitely.
But the polls from state to state to state show the effect.
McCain gets moderate Democrats by a slim 15-18% margin.
Obama gets as much as about 3-4% of moderate Republicans.
Senator Obama will win if he can get the Democrats to show up to the polls in larger numbers.
Otherwise he looses.
At this point, baring major breaking gaff/ new scandal — it is ground game, ground game, ground game.
And Sen Obama has a 6-8 month lead on that.
His only problem in ground game is in Michigan. Which hurts.
Since he did not compete in Michigan, he is creating a ground game there.
But he doesn’t have precinct by precinct results to know which blocks to poll.
And the loss of Michigan could be a deal breaker for him. He would need Ohio or Viginia to get back on plan.
Uhm … err … Obama has almost NO moderate republicans.
Survey says… BZZZT.
By what standard is Sen. Obama an extremist? Because he didn’t make Bill Ayers wear a big scarlet “T” around his neck? Because he wants to install a health care system similar to the one enjoyed by the rest of the industrialized world (most of whom have lower GDP’s per capita than the U.S.)? Because he believes diplomatic black holes are a bad thing? Because he wants taxes to go back to rather close to what they were under the centrist President Clinton?
Really. How is he extreme, and by what standard?
I read it sean, now what does it mean?
So far you are just parroting a bunch of useless statistics, without any evidence that they add up to anything. It is called “validation” and it is science…
“And to be frank. None of us consider Sen Obama a moderate at all. He is an extremist hewing to the center to win, so he can shift back far left when he wins.”
As the self-appointed King of All Moderates, what extreme positions does Obama/Biden have?
Yeah, come on. What are these “far left” policy positions? What is so horrendously far to the left about Barack “Militant Tendency” Obama?
Wait, don’t tell me. He wants to tax rich people as much as poor people.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, shut up.
Moderate republicans can basically be stated as keep your hands off my wallet, your nose out of my bedroom, your religious views ( including atheism ) out of my classrooms. And we can talk about the rest.
How does Obama appeal to me? Or any moderate.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because he wants the government to keep its nose out of your bedroom and religious views out of the classroom, while returning the tax system to what it was before Bush & Co ran up a huge national debt my kids’ kids will still be paying off?
Just a thought.
Sean D. Martin @ Sep 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
No problem. I think you might have misunderstood the intent of my list, but maybe not. I was enumerating my understanding of ‘the other’ which in this case is the cultural conservative right. Instead of offering my own personal views, I was offering my viewpoint and understanding of the other, in this case using the monolithic, stereotypical, culturally, conservative strawman.
I suspect my list is woefully incorrect. I expect this. I’m willing to listen, rethink, reformulate, flip-flop, admit errors in judgment and move forward.
“Although this is the kind of exchange far better served while relaxing over a couple of beers than thru the comments section of a blog board.”
I tend to agree. And should have probably censored my urges. Though I did briefly discuss the matter with my wife before plowing ahead. The motivation for this was a commenter (tas I think) made the charge that there is ignorance (willfull?) on the left about understanding the conservative outlook (my rephrasing and understanding). Fair enough charge. However, the language becomes weaponized for damage if those who make the charges are not willing to participate in explaining themselves. Indifference in the face of such dialog is further weaponized. We can stay in the dark about these matters or try to bridge some understanding. Playing gotcha games with another person’s belief system is not only counter productive, it is a form of violence (you can imagine my opinion of psycho-therapists, preachers, and insurance sales personal). All-in-all, the opportunity presented itself, and I pursued the matter. I am unaware of where the best forum for such dialog, but willing to hit the virtual road and not bog down the flow here, and offer apologies to all if this has become a hair clog in the internet tubes.
I read it sean, now what does it mean?
Ah, the usual ultra con argument: “I don’t understand your argument, therefore, you are wrong.”
As for Obama and Biden being the two most liberal members of the Senate, I think Russ Feingold might consider them fightin’ words!
Sarah is a very bright, tough lady that has faced a lot of political and personal problems- can that be said about ANY of the Democratic candidates?
Of course!
(But they might wonder why you’re calling them Sarah.)
I am a Clinton Democrat who will not vote for Obama, and I don’t think I am alone. The arrogant supporters of arrogant Obama are kidding themselves to think differently. But again, they keep spinning everything to try to make us believe that Obama is the anointed one.
Gino: They’ve been doing these ratings for over 25 years. In 2007, Obama was 1st and Biden 3rd. That’s not a talking point but using facts. I’m sure the libs will show how McCain voted with Bush 99% of the time – I’ll keep waiting.
Biden at 3rd. So he and Obama AREN’T the two most liberal in the Senate. By your own statement, at best, Obama and someone else are the top two.
But even then the ratings are based on just the one year, and don’t include a Senator’s votes if they didn’t vote often enough. To actually make a reasonable statement as to who is the most liberal you’d really need to consider the overall record and the votes they actually did make. Obama, for example, was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006. McCain didn’t even get an overall rating in 2007 because he didn’t vote frequently enough.
As for McCain voting with Bush 99% of the time, I’d like to know where you saw any legitimate source say that. I’ve wondered how the figure was being figured and, since both 90 and 95% have been inconsistently used, am double skeptical that the number is legitimate. But never heard as high as 99.
(For more on the lack of validity to the National Journal ratings several sources are available. One reasonably concise description of it’s flaws and notes a pretty clear example:
Gino: Sean: I have to run but have enjoyed the exchange. If I in any way misunderstood or offended you, I apologize.
Enjoyed it greatly myself, and similarly mean no offense. Perhaps someday we can have that further discussion.
‘night
hollow man: I think you might have misunderstood the intent of my list, but maybe not. I was enumerating my understanding of ‘the other’ which in this case is the cultural conservative right. Instead of offering my own personal views, I was offering my viewpoint and understanding of the other, in this case using the monolithic, stereotypical, culturally, conservative strawman.
Ah. Yeah, I didn’t realize you were giving your understanding of the “other” view. Gotcha now.
Thanks.
She tried to reduce stupid costs
And failed miserably.
Gov. Palin is an authentic American.
As opposed to a synthetic one?
She preferred to steal a Downs syndrome child rather than murder it.
Fixed
The following link is to a COMMENTARY — an Opinion Piece…
It explains very clearly what a conservative (not all conservatives, but many) believe has happened as a result of the Palin nomination…
I agree with him.
It means absolutely nothing to me if you insult him or me.
I would like you all to take time out to “assess the assessment” if you will.
I hope you can limit yourselves to that simple task.
To gauge the reaction to the piece, there are over 150 comments, which I have not read
Here’s the link : { Do yourselves a favor, and read it slowly, and think about it }
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/patrickpoole/
I’m a moderate republican (pro choice, pro gay rights) and I LOVED her speech–as did all of my friends who are moderates.
There is a portion of the GOP that votes on abortion, but it’s not the majority of the party. The pundits grossly exaggerate how many people vote on abortion.
I’m going to start volunteering for the ticket this week.
The pundits are so out of touch with normal people that they have no clue why moderates like Sarah Palin.
She preferred to steal a Downs syndrome child rather than murder it.
Fixed
Huh?
So her daughter got knocked up and had the baby. I’m fine with that.
But where’s the political consistency here? Republicans have been chastising godless liberals for decades now about how sex education and access to real birth control (LOL “abstinence education”) are immmoral acts and such.
I’m fine with Sarah Palin’s daughter having her kid and raising it with love. Frankly, that’s a universal quality that the Democratic party has been for since Clinton said abortion should be as rare as possible (not in the mood to google it, but you get the picture).
But you don’t get to have it both ways — if Sarah Palin wants to “tell” the rest of our country what to do in the bedroom via killing off sex-ed and contraceptive funding for teens, why was it “OK,” if not absolutely wonderful, that her daughter was having sex as an unwed young woman? Why are we supposed to be excited by that? More to the point, now that moderates are rejecting her and it’s clear that she has no appeal to the middle (bully for you that you’re and “undeclared Republican,” but you were going to vote for McCain all along), why isn’t it fair to ask some simple questions:
If the sanctity of marriage is so important, why not insist that her daughter marry the guy who got her pregnant? If it’s OK for unwed teens to have babies, why don’t the Republicans support programs like Planned Parenthood, free pre-natal care for expecting teen moms, subsidized daycare so they can work, etc?
Personally, I think I know the answer (yet another bout of IOKIYAR). If Chelsea Clinton was unwed and preggers, or one of Obama’s daughters was older and unmarried and pregnant, we’d here no end to the “immorality” of Democratic candidates.
But you guys are Republicans. You are hypocrites who can’t stick to single message for even a second. You want to tell the “little people” who make up 99% of our country how to conduct their personal lives, but in private you guys think laws and rules are only for the working class (those making under 5 million a year and who own less than six mansions).
Frank DiSalle: The following link is to a COMMENTARY
Uh, no. It links to the home page of the commentary site. Where there are several articles referring to Palin. If you want to provide links to make a point, please make sure they point to what you are referring to.
Frank DiSalle: To gauge the reaction to the piece, there are over 150 comments, which I have not read
Which says something, doesn’t it? You would like us all to “take time out to assess the assessment”, but can’t take the time yourself to read any comments from folks who already have.
Oliver,
And like most of the moderate to liberal punditocracy, you’ve clearly missed why Palin was absolutely necessary to rallying the base of the Republican Party. If you’ve been reading or viewing most of the vitriolic posts from moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans during the paset few days, they contend that they were blindsided by the conservatives in the Republican Party. Nothing could be further from the truth.
After the longest primary in recent history, the liberals in both parties fervently believed that they could successfully manipulate the populace into believing that there were no other choices for the Presidency outside of the socially liberal attorneys of the Democrat and Republican Parties. Information that was being disseminated from the White House was that liberal Republican organizations (RNC and RSCC) had been successful in manipulating the Republican base once again and their support would no longer be necessary to attaining the White House. Fortunately, the Republican electorate turned away three socially liberal Republican attorneys (Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani) due to their concerns of collusion among the three branches of federal government to collectively help the liberal bodies of the APA(s) and the ABA in the process of normalizing neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias using gay marriage and civil unions as a means to knowingly promote the placement of children in “borderline” caretaker environments, regardless of the gender or socioeconomic status of the caretaker environment. The conservative base set forth to demonstrate that their support would not include acquiescence of the culture to the LGBT community. This would not have been possible if not for Oncale vs. Sundowner Offshore Oil Services, March 1998. You have to love the delusional behavior of LGBT Democrats and Republicans to actually believe that the conservative bases of both parties are not wise to their histrionic and passive-aggressive behaviors.
With the nomination of Palin , which was done out of necessity to prevent the splintering of the Republican Party, John Mc Cain solely recognized that it was imperative to draw them into partnership to help him win the Presidency. If you recall the extreme ralcitrance of the liberals to negotiate with the social conservatives in either party during this election cycle, social conservatives were fully willing to abandon the RINOs and liberal Republicans within the party and to seek out a third party as well as allowing the social liberals to assault them economically as both political parties at the time were clearly moving toward socialism and the socially liberal anarchy of the EU, Canada, and Scandanavia. Here’s to the fight at the election boxes and eventually, the SCOTUS.
It doesn’t say a damn thing, except I did not read ALL the comments … And yes , I do believe that taking 5 minutes to read the thing carefully does not create for me a requirement to read 135 comments …
I was indirectly asking that you not respond to the comments
Here is the precise link:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama’s-existential-crisis/
Now , if you read it , your head will not explode…
If you don’t read it, my head will not explode …
It is not going to the right place
The article is located here :
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/patrickpoole/
and is entitled :
Obama’s Existential Crisis
and there are now 146 comments
I don’t know how anyone who lives in America can support McCain; he did not address one issue that helps the country in his convention speech. The VP pick of Sarah Palin was a major misstep. Americans are not interested in personalities contest.
We are interested in the same issues of what can our government do to make our lives better, the republicans have been pushing for the wrong issues for years. Everytime they are in charge they leave us with a list of miseries on a whole range of issues. Yes, we should ask our government what they are doing for us, with OUR TAX MONEY not theirs. How is that selfish? I say it’s about time to ask that question and to ask it everyday.
Unfortunately, for the republican party, they do not have what the nation needs this time. And trying to dress up a pitbull with lipstick is not going to work this year.
OBAMA-BIDEN ‘08
“this campaign is no longer a referendum on Barack Obama.”
When was it ever? If (if) it’s a referendum on any one person, it would be on Bush.
“Instead of a promise of future change and breaking with politics as usual, McCain has delivered it.”
Buy the single act of cynically picking an unqualified woman as his running mate? So all those lobbyists running McCain’s campaign and all the adamant support for Bush’s failed policies are going to be offset by picking a running mate who hold positions held by the conservative base? What kind of change does she really represent?
Seriously, Frank. The article you refer to was clearly written by someone who made their conclusions and is making up facts to support it. I’m sure it may “explains very clearly what a conservative (not all conservatives, but many) believe has happened as a result of the Palin nomination” but that they believe it doesn’t have anything to do with reality.
I can believe McCain is “frantic” and “shameless”, but does that mean it’s true?
“Sarah Barracuda” is allowed to revel in her pit bull status and be sarcastic, snarky, biting and contemptuous of her male opponents in her speech, but if her male opponents or the media do not treat her with kid gloves, the social conservatives say the opponents are being sexist and mean. Which is it?
The social conservatives say women should stay at home or sacrifice high-powered careers because they do not allow enough time to spend with the children, but when Sarah Palin goes in for just such an ultra high-powered career, they say there is no reason she cannot do it–even with her problematic family situation that would require above-average parenting time–then they accuse the left of hypocrisy on this issue!
If, by her very belief system, she should not be careering, then why is everyone wrong to question her on it? Is she distancing herself from that belief, is she going on in hypocrisy, or does she plan to have 9-to-3 hours as VP? We have a legitimate right to know.
Jaim: I have seen this argument postulated by a number of individuals trying to gain political mileage. The reason why the argument has not and will not gain traction is as follows:
1. No parent, consevative or liberal wants to have one of his/her children to become pregnant when she is 17.
2. Conservatives and liberals have a different view on sex. Liberals believe in birth control and conservatives abstinance. Let’s agree for the sake of discussion that each perspective has its pluses and minuses.
3. Every parent knows that his/her child will make mistakes.
4. If a minor child gets pregnant, Conservatives would prefer the child have the baby because of their pro life view while Liberals would encourage abortion.
5. When Governer Pailin’s daughter became pregnant,the parents announced their love and support for their daughter(which is what one would expect) and her decision to have the baby. I would expect any liberal parent to act similarly whether their child decided to have the baby or abort.
6. Loving your children unconditionally transcends politics and party affiliation. All parents(and clear thinking people) know this.
7. The parents can’t “make” a 17 year old, soon to be 18, marry anyone unless you believe we should have arranged marriages.
I’ve used the terms conservative and liberal very generally and for the purpose of making a point as to why the argument you and others have advanced as to the so called hypocrisy of conservatives and Plain won’t fly. If fact,in my view, the argument only diminishes the standing of its proponent(s). You may want to think this through should you decide to continue advancing this argument as a purported criticism of the Palins.
SOme have asked me to name one thing Obama is extremist in.
The thing is, extremism is usually NOT a single issue.
Taking the hypothetical liberal checklist, you could have someone go down the list mark by mark and be right in line.
Protection of all species regardless of consequences to man, economic redistribution ( read high taxes to pay for social means ).
Straight down the checklist. Only that person could be catholic. And so into their faith they can not condone abortion.
Would that person be an extremist conservative … just because of that one issue?
Obama is an extemist liberal only in the totality of all his views.
Well that and he admits he is a “mainstream progressive”.
Sorry I live and grew up in the San Francisco region. I KNOW what progressives are like and what they believe.
I know the some who chose the term progressive. As a replacement for the word liberal.
I also know many progressives who honestly believe if you are NOT progressive. By definition you are regressive.
So maybe I am tar and feathering him with his chosen association with progressives in the area here. You know the ones who slash the tires daily of a Teacher who DARES to admit he is a republican. Because they do not want someone like that as a co-worker.
Or the one who brough a harrassment lawsuit against a person who went to a confirmation of her godson, because her being Catholic created a hostile working environment, since he knew her faith disapproved of his gay partner ( and she never spoke about her faith, just took a day off once ).
Maybe that is unfair. But moderate after moderate I speak to does ask “Why should I work with progressives like Obama wants us to, when THEY don’t want to work with us. Just call us names.”
Oliver Willis
Sep 6th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Uhm … err … Obama has almost NO moderate republicans.
Survey says… BZZZT.
Basically go here : http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_electoral_college_update
Scroll down to the chart where they assign states and click on any given state.
State by state by state that pattern is clear.
and as a quote from PENNSYLVANIA ( which obama cannot lose or forget about it ).
The data in Pennsylvania reflects patterns seen elsewhere in recent polling. McCain has more support from Republicans than Obama does from Democrats, and McCain also wins more crossover votes from the other party. The two candidates are even among unaffiliated voters.
Uhm … err … survey state by state across the whole nation says?
You do not know what you are talking about.
Huh?
I don’t blame you for not being “in the know”, but remember the whole thing about Palin flying from Dallas to Alaska to deliver her baby? Well actually, she stole the baby from a Dallas mother and fled to Alaska.
The pundits are so out of touch with normal people that they have no clue why moderates like Sarah Palin.
Then tell us, oh great Swami, why DO moderates love Palin? Also, you say you’re pro-choice and pro-gay rights, but those obviously take the back burner on issues that are more important to you. What would those entail?
Shorter Chrome: Sure I can’t name a single extremist position that Obama/Biden hold, but I know an extremist when I see it. Liberals suck. Hmmmrphf.
“Well actually, she stole the baby from a Dallas mother and fled to Alaska.”
Of course she did …
Just name one issue on which Senator Obama’s position is extreme and outside a reasonable definition of ‘mainstream’ for the politics of the United States. A legitimate issue, btw – none of the lies. A legitimate one.
Liberals define mainstream a slightly to their right and left… as they can be “on the left” and “in the middle” at the same time…
scary idea #1
Tell, me, Frankie, do you actually agree with that tripe? What about this. Boy, you sure can pick ‘em.
I didn’t like Palin INSTANTLY for her radical Christian Reich anti-choice views even for women who are raped or victims of incest. I wasn’t watching the weather channel during Gustav, Gustav had already taken my power. therefore I didn’t see the speeches of the GOP convention until several days later. I have an even lower opinion of Palin with her vicious COMMON speech, and the information I’ve gained about her 6 years in a rabidly anti-gay church which promotes HATEFUL and HARMFUL “reparative” therapy, which EVERY major medical association has vehemently discredited.
The biggest issue concerning Palin doesn’t actually concern Palin, it concern’s McCain’s SERIOUSLY incompetant vetting of a co-candidate, and making a rash dangerous decision which will train wreck his campaign in weeks.
Parthenon
Sep 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Just name one issue on which Senator Obama’s position is extreme and outside a reasonable definition of ‘mainstream’ for the politics of the United States. A legitimate issue, btw – none of the lies. A legitimate one.
Fine.
Abortion.
Main stream America considers abortion …
“at will” first trimester
“with cause” second trimester
and “why aren’t you having a c-section?” third trimester.
main stream America also supports parental notification of teens who seek abortion ( since no notification is in essence the statutory rapists protection act as 90% of all pregnant teens the father is over 18 ).
In fact the latest polls ( website to be added later ) show 67% of WOMEN believe in parental notification.
Sen. Obama according to the videotape of “announcing” his reason shortly after voting against the “born alive” act stated
“It would be inconvenient to have a 2nd Doctor come in and evaluate the fetus’ viability and in essence over-rule the original decision of the mother and her doctor.”
Mainstream America does not find that inconvenient.
Then Senator Obama denied that was the reason. That it was because there wasn’t a clause in the law to protect abortion rights.
Then the DOCUMENTS came out that that clause WAS in the law, it was voted into the law unanimously, including Sen Obama’s vote minutes before Obama voted against the law anyways.
Simply put, voting to let infants ( they are now out of the mother’s womb they are infants ) die after a botched abortion is NOT mainstream.
In fact it was AGAINST NARAL’s position and recommendation.
Which is why on that vote he was one of only 2 or 3 to vote against it.
Zython: Do you ever actually argue (i.e., disagree) with anything?
All you ever do is change the subject…
Do I believe the article I ACTUALLY CITED contains facts and actual quotes from real people ?
Yes .
Does it have some significance for me (and, incidentally, every other “American Thinker” who reads it)
Yes .
Does the existence of another article that I have not read have any relevance to the article I ACTUALLY CITED?
I don’t know .
Do I care about that other article?
No.
Do I automatically disbelieve the article I ACTUALLY CITED because you express unwarranted, undocumented, disbelief?
Nope .
Better luck next time — you might want to try formulating an argument.
Oh, and do me a favor ?
Pass this on to Nimrod “If it’s Frank, it must be wrong” Gently ?
Thanks
thinker, nice points and reasonably balanced acknowledgement of they views of the other side. Something I’d like to see happen a bit more often here.
But I think you went partisan with #4. “If a minor child gets pregnant, Conservatives would prefer the child have the baby because of their pro life view while Liberals would encourage abortion.” I’m sure there is someone out there who holds the view that an underage mother MUST have an abortion (we are an exceedingly diverse society) but overall Liberals would not encourage abortion. Liberals want the mother to have a choice.
“If a minor child gets pregnant, Conservatives would prefer the child have the baby because of their pro life view while Liberals would prefer the mother be able to have a choice.”
Frankie, to be honest, I was fearful for my health considering what happened last time I tried to read “American” “Thinker”. Hopefully, my constitution can hold out. Let’s begin.
Do I believe the article I ACTUALLY CITED contains facts and actual quotes from real people ?
Yes .
The link about Obama’s quote links to another AT article, which in turns links to WND, which provides no links. This, of course, raises some red flags. The link to the WSJ article about the speech also provides a dead end.
Does it have some significance for me (and, incidentally, every other “American Thinker” who reads it)
Yes .
Actually calling yourself an “American Thinker” is laughable at best, pitiable at worst. Also, jangling shiny keys would probably have some significance for you and your ilk (see: Palin).
Their best argument is a hypothetical scenario involving the defense budget. Now, hypotheticals make for decent arguments, but they only work as a support for a main argument. Otherwise, the entire opposition seems, well, hypothetical.
By the way, the article I linked was also from AT, and it was about how acting based solely on fear is a good thing, and that the Civil Rights Movement was a scary time where the Negro race rose up against the White Man. You know, things you can identify with.
Poor Frankie, why do you hate America so much?
Newspapers don’t use links — but you knew that…
They report stuff that people say, and if they lie , the people they lie about ask for a retraction…
No one has , because they can not …
Because you missed it , I will restate it : The article was not about me .
The article was not quoted to trick you into reading American Thinker …
Try it again, and see if there is something about a “civilian military force” and a huge budget increase for organizations like the Peace Corps and VISTA, to replace the military, while drastically reducing military spending for the traditional military that might prove disturbing to conservatives .
Unless, and until , you are ready and willing to discuss the article , please insult someone else , or go insult the developmentally disabled, or whatever it is juvenile liberals do for fun ..
I will not respond to you again..
Newspapers don’t use links — but you knew that…
World Net Daily’s a newspaper?
Unless, and until , you are ready and willing to discuss the article
I DID address the article. I pointed out that their source for the quote don’t even have the quote itself. I said that the WSJ was a “dead end” because they don’t even mention the quote in the article (I searched). The quote isn’t even in the official transcript of the speech. In fact, apparently, the only newspaper that DID print that quote was the Chicago Tribune.
I know what you’re “thinking” now: “AHA! So the quote DOES exist!!!! I winzorz!!!” But ask yourself this: what’s more likely, that every other major newspaper in the country was part of some big cabal to cover up the quote, or that one reporter at one newspaper may have misheard or misinterpreted the quote? Occam’s Razor and all…
or go insult the developmentally disabled,
I’m pretty sure that’s what I’ve been doing all along?
You have to admit, you pretty much walked right into that one.
I will not respond to you again..
If I had a nickel for every time you said that…
[...] few weeks ago, when the unvetted Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, I said she was a “base pick”. Some of my readers on the right disagreed with me, arguing that [...]