The feeling is familiar. I had it four years ago and four years before that: a sinking feeling in the stomach. So? Stop eating at "discount day old curry" stands, you wanker.
I think it was Ethel's chili ...
It's a kind of physical pessimism which says: "It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."
In my head, I'm not as anxious for Barack Obama's chances as I was for John Kerry's in 2004 or Al Gore's in 2000. He is a better candidate than both put together, If I was Gore or Kerry I think I'd be insulted
Kerry was a bumbler who thought he should run for President because he was entitled. Gore thought he was entitled, but he was a pretty darned good politician who would have won in 2000 if he had run true to his roots. Obama can't run true to his and so has to be the flim-flam man ...
and all the empirical evidence says this year favours Democrats more than any since 1976. But still, I can't shake off the gloom.
Look at yesterday's opinion polls, which have John McCain either in a dead heat with Obama or narrowly ahead. Given the well-documented tendency of African-American candidates to perform better in polls than in elections - thanks to people who say they will vote for a black man but don't - this suggests Obama is now trailing badly. Had to get that racism thingy in there, didn't ya?
More troubling was the ABC News-Washington Post survey which found McCain ahead among white women by 53% to 41%. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 15% lead among women. There is only one explanation for that turnaround, and it was not McCain's tranquilliser of a convention speech: Obama's lead has been crushed by the Palin bounce. Remember....90% of blacks voting for blacks based only on melanin....good. 8% of women voting for women based only on X chromosomes.....bad, very bad, if she hasn't been vetted by NOW first.
So you can understand my pessimism. But it's now combined with a rising frustration. I watch as the Democrats stumble, uncertain how to take on Sarah Palin. Fight too hard, and the Republican machine, echoed by the ditto-heads in the conservative commentariat on talk radio and cable TV, ...
Does that include Olbermann and Matthews? Campbell Brown? Sally Quinn? I had no idea cable TV was part of the conservative commentariat. Methinks the writer uses commentariat incorrectly; it applies to the progressive types for whom commentariat is just a sub-set of the larger 'secretariat' ...
... will brand Democrats sexist, elitist snobs, patronising a small-town woman. Do nothing, and Palin's rise will continue unchecked, her novelty making even Obama look stale, her star power energising and motivating the Republican base.
So somehow Palin slips out of reach, no revelation - no matter how jaw-dropping or career-ending were it applied to a normal candidate - doing sufficient damage to slow her apparent march to power, dragging the charisma-deprived McCain behind her.
Has there been a 'career-ending' revelation in this election so far? I would have thought being associated with William Ayers was career-ending but obviously not.
We know one of Palin's first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a "rhetorical" question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m "Bridge to Nowhere" project in Alaska - in fact, she campaigned for it - but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough - but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state.
She claims to be a fiscal conservative, but left Wasilla saddled with debts it had never had before. She even seems to have claimed "per diem" allowances - taxpayers' money meant for out-of-town travel - when she was staying in her own house.
To which she was entitled, since she was commuting. Yawn. It's rather stupid for a columnist to cite things that have already been debunked -- it suggests that said columnist doesn't read the news ...
Yet somehow none of this is yet leaving a dent. The result is that a politician who conservative ???
blogger Andrew Sullivan calls a "Christianist" - seeking to politicise Christianity the way Islamists politicise Islam - could soon be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Yah, sure, cite Andy Sullivan, there's a sure ticket. Andy seems to have all the theology of Christianity worked out in his head, and if you don't believe in the authenticity of his Christianity, you're an evil Christianist.
Remember, this is a woman who once addressed a church congregation, saying of her work as governor - transport, policing and education - "really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God".
If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. Prozac helps with that, you know, along with good nutrition and exercise.
The door to Canada is still open ...
A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.
Try running Colin Powell -- in either party -- and see what happens ...
But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most.
We don't, but then again, we're less inclined to consider the reactions of Europe. As I tell my European friends, my ancestors came to America to get away from their ancestors.
For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
So run Obama for Chancellor of Germany, or Secretary-General of the UN.
If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. And if we could choose your leaders, virtually all of the mutts in office that the world has selected wouldn't be there either. Them's the breaks, kid.
The author assumes he still lives in a 'free' world, not recognizing what's happened to Europe.
The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of free beer his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war.
We got that message. Have you noticed what's been happening in Iraq lately?
McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
No, McCain has NOT peddled that lie. No one in the administration peddled that lie, either. We noted that Saddam had links to terrorists, and such links were intolerable in a day where terrorists such as al-Qaeda could attack our country.
Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. You're right. We desperately need to make sure the views of genocidal tin pot dictators are given the same respect as those of democratically elected leaders who represent the views and desires of the people.
When a group of democratic countries sit in an international forum with a group of thug states, and then try to 'get along' and 'work together', the result is usually much closer to what the thug states want, compared to what the democracies want. It's basic psychology. And then the democracies lament that they aren't trying hard enough and that their leaders don't 'understand' the world. That's basic psychology as well.
McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs. Uh, no, sweetie. (May I call you sweetie? Barack likes to call journos of the opposite sex that, so I figured you wouldn't mind.) Gov. Palin was talking about energy independence from psychotic idiots like Chavez and the Saudis, and the crowd responded.
The author focuses on one point of a multi-point energy plan. As Gov. Palin noted, we need to do it all.
If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.
Well okay then, you'll be unhappy. I think we'll just have to carry that cross ...
Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration.
Um, no, anti-Bushism has simply allowed anti-Americanism to come out more openly and more virulently. It's now acceptable for the elites in polite society to say what they've been thinking all along.
But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for. Oh dear. I think they're serious this time. They're gonna give us a few less frites in the bistro next summer if we don't do what they want! Oh, the inhumanity!
Note that the writer assumes that it's all our fault and that we're the ones who have to do all the changing and accommodating. The Euro elites don't have to change a thing, apparently.
And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. Because, as we know, America is the most racist society in the entire world.
In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".
Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."
Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem even less of a patriotic American than he already seemed. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it. Well, by all means, please start calling random voters in battlefield states in late October! The best time to call is right after we clean our guns, just before Bible study. We're generally not clinging to anything at that brief moment in time and would love to chat.
My hope is that we elect McCain and force the Euro elites to 'hear' the message, and then 'act' upon it -- oh silly me, getting the Y'urp-peons to 'act' is nonsense.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
09/10/2008 10:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I love watching these Euro Nancy Boys squirm...
What many of us Blue-State Americans have sadly come to realize is that the US has never really been "our" Country. The US has never been a country of intellectuals or sophisticates or much given to nuance and analysis. Starting from Andrew Jackson with minor detours for the Roosevelts and Wilson, and of course the founding fathers, most Americans have always taken the dim view anyone who is an intellectual is effete, ineffective, and somehow alien. Americans have always valued action over deliberation, excess over moderation, gut instinct over reasoned analysis and an excess of hyper-emotional patriotism & religious fervor. That's why Caibou Barbie Palin has generated such a huge response here. She is the perfect embodiment of the American mentality - with the added benefit that she is a mother. Nothing strikes a more perfect note in the juvenile American psyche than mom. There seemed to be a moment during the Clinton administration when it seemed that America had turned the corner. That the forces of innovation and entrepreneurialism would help us see beyond our usual narrow conceits. Unfortunately it was just attributable to the fact that flat screen TVs & SUVs finally became affordable for the Bubbas, and sated with consumer goods they could go back to their usual narrow mindset. Needless to say if Obama loses this election it will be the clearest sign of all that you can't take back what you never owned.
Also from the link, wtf is the grauniad *thinking*, chiseling it's logo into Mt. Rushmore? (The ad in the right sidebar)
#3
I want America to be the leader of the Free World (since Europe is unable/unwilling to be). And free people tend to more easily follow ones they like.
Difference is that many Republicans seem to want America to be the leader of the world without the word "Free" anywhere in the sentence; most of them barely seem to want America to be a *member* of the Free World, let alone its leader.
#4
The World's verdict will be harsh if we do elect Obama.
The world doesn't much like the US because we're filled with people that already rejected the world and voted with their feet to get here and those same folks have made the US dominant beyond all belief.
"Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities..."
Fine. When will a black man be running for office in any of these countries? When that day comes, citizens of these nations will be free to vote for him.
#8
It's time the world faced the reality that America does not belong to them, but to its own citizens. The funny thing is that John McCain is apparently fairly popular in international government circles, agreeing on many issues and disagreeing on some, but always with a core of respect. I expect more Cowboy magazine covers and headlines, just like the previous several presidents received.
#10
The world can't stand Republicans. Men like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Martin Luther King Jr. and Reagan should never have risen to prominence.
"...Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory."
And the world just loves excitement. How else can you explain famous world leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Castro, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Mugabe? Clearly the world should make this decision, not us!
#11
"It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."
Obvious a socialist to the core. Anyone who conducts a 'scientific' experiment three times and does not get the anticipated results goes back and reexamines the preface for the hypothesis. It never dawns on the socialists why their system keeps failing, either dramatically or slowly. Same concept here, ASSUMING that it was "an election they should win".
A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all.
Because socialist like you, the rest of the MSM, and their unionists teachers never told them the truth about true constitutional DEMOCRACY. Just the failed 'Peoples Democratic Republic' tripe. Checking the Constitution, I can't find anything in there that said the left or the MSM were entitled to run our government or society. They had to earn it just like anyone else.
#12
Here's one more reason why I could give a shit what the world thinks of us...
No consensus on who was behind Sept 11-global poll
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday.
The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.
U.S. officials squarely blame al Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden has boasted of organizing the suicide attacks by his followers using hijacked commercial airliners.
On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.
The poll was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in the United States.
In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians.
Respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda, the poll found.
Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians.
In Mexico, 30 percent cited the U.S. government and 33 percent named al Qaeda.
The only countries with overwhelming majorities blaming al Qaeda were Kenya with 77 percent and Nigeria with 71 percent.
Interviews were conducted in China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Egypt, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, the Palestinian Territories, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Ukraine.
The poll, taken between July 15 and Aug. 31, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 to 4 percent.
#13
My God, if we've lost Andi Sullivan, then teh terrorists will have won...or something. I could give a sh*t what this tool or similar hand-wringers and pussified Yurpeons think or who they want as our President. I despise their mealy-mouthed appeasement, social policies, willing kneeling subjugation to the EUcrats, and sneering at American culture while they trash their own. F*ck em.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/10/2008 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#14
tu3031, are you expecting all 1.2 billion Muslims to see it our way?
#19
I remember reading the Guardian many years ago, it took only one reading to realise that it was complete Crap.
I see nothing's changed, I'm frankly surprised they're still around, I thought they'd folded their tents and moved for lack of people able to read, but unable to think.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
09/10/2008 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Actually, I think there is one respect in which the world is pretty sensible on this subject. They all have one view in common - Big O should be the leader of some foreign country, as long as it's not theirs. I, too, think Obama should be some country's leader, as long as it's not ours. For example, North Korea or Sudan could certainly do worse than with a leader like Obama.
#21
If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger
You got it, punk. A big, fat upraised middle finger to you. We don't give a flying about what you think and NOTHING you can do will change that.
#22
Instead of us worrying about the world's verdict--we don't--the world should worry about our verdict of them. They should.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
09/10/2008 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American.
Bottom line, it is NOT 'incredible' at all. The average American is sick and tired of bailing Europe out of it'w own miserable kak, and could care less what a bunch of socialists and closet communists think.
#24
This article is the manifest form of the fecal stink of the post-modern, socialist, antireligious bigots that comprise the bulk of Europe (and nearly 100% of their ruling class).
Europe has lost the torch of the West because they actively detest the things that made it great. Which explains their love of Obama.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/10/2008 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#25
If I had a planet to go to which was properly governed and could watch the show I'd love to see Obama elected.
I fear the results of a Zero election, not so much because of what he would do (though that's bad enough). But what he would cause/enable in the rest of the world.
If Zero is elected I predict that there will be MAJOR War between India & Pakistan, India & China, China & Taiwan, Russia & Ukraine, Israel & somebody or everybody. Not to mention all the various permutations and combinations.
And after that, revolution in Europe in some way, shape or form. Anarchy, fascism, communism or Islamism or all of the above would take to the streets and fight for control.
I consider the US as the damper in the skyscraper that slows the vibration of the earthquake. Obama and his ilk would drain the fluid from the damper and the next small shock would bring the world tumbling down.
#27
Ya' know, if millions of young people who are going to vote for Obama become cynical and decide that voting and politics simply isn't worth the effort, well, I say good for them.
If you can't take the time and effort to exercise your franchise, won for you through the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots, handed down to you by men who, if they had been caught by the other side would have been instantly executed, exercised for you by tens of millions of previous generations of voters, and guaranteed to you simply because you are a citizen of this country - if all that means absolutely nothing to a young person (or a person of any age), well, you don't deserve to vote or have a decision in how this country goes forward into the 21st Century. In fact, I don't want you voting and helping to decide who leads this country because you simply don't care, are too cynical, or too distrustful of the system or disrespectful of it and everything else I've pointed out.
Oh, and as for how Europe and the rest of the world feels about us, screw 'em. They object to the fact that this young upstart nation without even a hint of an aristocracy leads the world in all things. They would much rather we followed their lead. After all, the Old World and its elitist rulers know precisely what's best for the masses, right? Europe's doing so much better than the US is, right? Europe confronts evil wherever it arises, right (oh, wait - Europe doesn't recognize evil, does it)?
The blue states can go screw themselves too. They don't like being part of this country, let 'em try to secede. The Constitution is not a suicide pact and the blue states do not make up the majority of this country.
#29
My daughter, who just graduated college, informs me that a lot of her friends are going to vote for Obama (of course) because of how the Republicans in CONGRESS (and Bush) have given us the 'worst economy evah!', among other things. She knows the Dems hold Congress but seriously doubts many others do. She's still going to vote Dem, poor deluded fool - so I am shipping her to Oregon.
#30
The UK media needs to mind its own business. Although saying that this is the self righteous British I'm talking about /scum
America had the misfortune of meeting one of our top wankers at the MTV video awards.
Russell "scag" Brand DOES NOT REPRESENT THE REAL ENGLISH PEOPLE but represents the asexual, incapable and opinionated, accidental celebrity misfits that plague our lives on this island.
#31
After the election, ask how many of your daughter's friends actually made it to the polls, Glenmore. And give the girl a chance -- we all were young and stupid once; I'm sure you became old and wise the way I did, by learning from the consequences of my errors.
Spolurong, some of you are utterly delightful, thank goodness!
#32
The reason for this is relatively simple. It is not that the people of the rest of the world are less intelligent or more venal than Americans; except perhaps in those European regions where any genetic prediposition to such qualities was depleted by emigration in past centuries.
No, the real reason is that the rest of the world is behind us on the saturation media learning curve. The US, after all, invented high-intensity media, specifically television, and was the first to make those media a major factor in the political dynamic. Even in supposedly sophisticated Europe such media are significantly newer on average. A majority of European households did not have TV sets until the 1970s, for example, and the perceptual kaleidoscope of cable and satellite TV is even newer. The glamorous talking heads, melodramatic visual advocacy, and multi-level manipulation have not quite lost their shine, nor has organized opposition to media rule taken root as it has in the US.
Many in the UK, for example, actually believe what they see on the BBC, receiving it not as propaganda supporting an agenda, but as divine wisdom handed down from the gods of culture.
This phenonmenon is even more apparent in the Arab world, which went from parchment and smoke signals to 80s style glitz virtually overnight.
This is all old news in the US, where we have reached a level of understanding, and consequent skepticism, that is still several years off for most of the rest of the world.
Obama is the media culture's last chance to retain power. Their grasp is slipping and that is why they are desperately and foolishly bringing in foreign reinforcements.
1. The grauniad must LIKE Gop presidents, as this does the Dems NO GOOD. Nobody in any country likes furriners telling them how to vote
2. Its ironic, in that even McCain would be a substantial improvement over Bush in US - rest of the world relations, on many grounds
3. It IS a fact that we live in a dangerous world, and the US CANNOT achieve what we want in it acting alone. Whether its troops in Afghanistan, or support in imposing sanctions
on Iran, or money to rebuild Georgia, or Intell cooperation in many places, or just the impact that offering EU membership has in someplace like Ukraine or Serbia, we NEED allies. McCain knows that, and even the Bush admin knows it these last couple of years. Whether Obama will really be better at improving relations with those allies (and also fencesitters) than McCain, and if so, how much, is a legitimate factor for debate. I expect it will influence my vote.
#36
liberalhawk,
In general, the adults who run the chancellories of Europe are considerably friendlier to the US than a few years ago. We have Merkel and Sarkozy, for example, while the many friendly leaders in eastern Europe have stood their ground.
It would be an error to confuse actual policy with poll results and the attitudes of the media-brainwashed masses.
#37
In general, the adults who run the chancellories of Europe are considerably friendlier to the US than a few years ago. We have Merkel and Sarkozy, for example, while the many friendly leaders in eastern Europe have stood their ground.
It would be an error to confuse actual policy with poll results and the attitudes of the media-brainwashed masses.
Merkel hangs on leading a coalition govt, with her party on top by the narrowest of threads. I cant see that alienating the German electorate helps give her more freedom of maneuver.
Sarkozy is a totally different thing - hes somewhat of a phenom, and of course in France its not just about how pro or anti US you are, its about French greatness - to the extent that theres really political space for Sarko to turn that in the direction he has, its largely because the weakening of the US position has made us less threatening, and left the French realizing that the other threats to French greatness are more salient. Im not so sure thats a good thing. Anyway, when Sarko goes, theres no one quite as good to replace him - we really want our position there dependent on Sarkos personal life, among other things?
But govts are ALWAYS going to be friendlier to us than populations - as long as we are the big dog with goodies to toss around -govts have to worry about the goodies, and cant be irresponsible the way populations can be. Nonetheless I dont see alienating populations as good, nor do I see the internal workings of French politics as something I would chalk up to the Bush admin.
#39
LH, keep in mind that our policies and actions should reflect OUR needs. Sometimes we need to act when it is not a benefit to others to support us (ie, the EU and specifically France, Germany and Russia). It's nice when you have others supporting your actions but that should not you to "freeze" when action is called for.
#40
My daughter, who just graduated college, informs me that a lot of her friends are going to vote for Obama (of course) because of how the Republicans in CONGRESS (and Bush) have given us the 'worst economy evah!', among other things. She knows the Dems hold Congress but seriously doubts many others do. She's still going to vote Dem, poor deluded fool - so I am shipping her to Oregon.
-------
1st generation to grow up during The Vacation Decade - have they got some hard knocks ahead.
Want to have some fun? Make them watch Miracle on Ice - I tell people you want to know what the world was like the 1st 20 years of my life?
1st 5 minutes was a real eye-opener I kept saying I remember that!
#42
"Nonetheless I dont see alienating populations as good, nor do I see the internal workings of French politics as something I would chalk up to the Bush admin."
To your first point, that depends on why the population is alienated. Foreign opinion is always a factor in policy decisions, but the masses of Europe and the Middle East are not more qualified than we are to decide our policies and we cannot allow them to do so.
To the second: If a rabid dhimmi, America-hating antisemite were elected president of France, that would certainly be chalked up to the Bush administration, or whatever administration is in office at the time. There is a monumental inconsistency.
Btw, Merkel is indeed in a precarious position, but she is better off than the opposition, which is currently out of power.
#45
Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
Well, he has had dual citizenship in both Kenya and Indonesia. In fact, I hear Obama has already had great experience campaigning in Kenya. He and his candidate were able to whip the crowds into a barn church razing frenzy. I hear the crowds really went wild.
That is what made America great. This is my opinion, that America was for a long time a Christian nation while much of the world was athiest or other and still is.
Why do we want to run with the third world? Or with countries where war has ravaged them?
#47
Who gives a shit what this asshole thinks. If europe was so f'n great my ancestors would've stayed there.
And what will the world do? Stop trading w/us? Stop asking us to send money to aids infested Africa? Stop buying levis and rock records? Make our military leave Germany? Last time that happened the German governors begged us to stay.
Now that the conventions are over, it is evident that the battle of John McCain is over (McCain won) and the battle of Barack Obama will determine the outcome of the election. Now that McCain has definitively, and I suspect irreversibly, separated himself from George Bush, he has become an acceptable alternative to Obama for voters seeking change. The question now is whether Obama's extra quotient of change -- or the different direction that change will take -- is worth the risk of electing him.
Obama was wrong to invest so much in the Bush-McCain linkage. Any candidate can define himself at his convention. And if McCain chose, as he did, to use the gathering to distance himself from Washington and from the Bush administration, there was really nothing that Obama could do to stop him. He should have focused very specifically on McCain himself and taken shots at specific votes and bills that he introduced. Now, after the massive exposure McCain got at his convention and the demonstrable commitment to change embodied in the selection of Sarah Palin, it is too late.
The Obama campaign doesn't seem to get that it is running against McCain, not Sarah Palin. It spent the entire Republican convention and the week since attacking the vice presidential candidate. That's like stabbing the capillaries not the arteries. Nobody is going to vote for or against McCain because they want Sarah Palin to be vice president of the United States, or don't. But Palin has served, and will serve, a key purpose in illustrating and demonstrating what kind of a man John McCain is. She stands as a tribute to his desire to bring change, his willingness to cut loose from the past and his courage in attempting innovation. No amount of criticism of Palin is going to stop that process. Obama needs to remember who his opponent is.
Now, the election will hinge on a referendum on Obama. Is the extra health care coverage he would pass worth the huge tax increases he will impose? Nobody buys his claim that he will only increase taxes on a few rich people and give the rest of us tax cuts. Voters can add, and they realize that his spending plans and tax cut promises come to a trillion dollars and that his tax increases represent only one-tenth as much. They know that everyone who pays taxes will end up paying more if Obama is elected. The question will be: Is it worth it?
Is his commitment to income redistribution and increasing tax "fairness" worth the risk his tax plans pose for the economy?
Is his plan to pull out of Iraq and his commitment to multilateralism in foreign policy worth the risk of putting someone with virtually no foreign policy experience in charge of our international relations in the middle of a war? Is his promise to respect the Constitution and ratchet back the intrusions of the Bush homeland security measures worth the extra risk of terror attack?
The answer to these questions will only partially depend on what Obama is proposing and on how sound we think his judgment is. They will also depend on the events that will transpire between now and Election Day.
If Iran moves closer to getting nuclear weapons or Israel attacks Iran to forestall that development, things could change in a hurry. If the current atmosphere of economic uncertainty and impending possible crisis -- signaled by the federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- deepens, it may make voters less willing to risk the high taxes and big spending that Obama will bring in his wake. If Russia continues to assert its imperial right to dominate Eastern Europe and restore a Soviet-style satellite empire, voters will wonder if they can take a chance on Obama.
But if things are relatively peaceful and uneventful, voters may bristle at the stagnation and turn to Obama in the hopes of change.
The key point is that this race is now not about Bush or McCain or Bill Clinton or Palin. It's all about Obama.
#1
Good analysis. Refreshingly clear of static. With the white women and independents rushing to join the McCain parade, Obama is now the underdog. A lot can happen before the election, but, for the first time, McCain is controlling the dialogue. It will be difficult to take it back from him. He and his campaign are working smart lately. Obama hasn't shown, to me at least, the smarts to do that. So, if he continues his pointless whines, scolds and personal attacks, the gape will widen. What a blow it will be if he loses the ear of the press.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
09/10/2008 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
On Letterman, Obama clarified his "Lipstick on a pig" comment. He said that "Lipstick" is Governor Sarah Palin and "pig" is Senator John McCain.
Now, I have an observation here. Obama, referred to as the 'man-boy" by Rush Limbaugh, is now showing us a glimpse of his very soul. And his soul is no more than the same type of soul we see in the moon bats and the code pinkos, petty tyrants who act like spoiled brats when things don't go thier way, who, at times like this, can't help themselves when they throw tantrums. His polished, "eloquent" "Front" has been torn down, and we now see one ugly, very insecure, hateful individual who almost became the President of the United States of America.
#3
His polished, "eloquent" "Front" has been torn down, and we now see one ugly, very insecure, hateful individual who almost became the President of the United States of America.
Flavinter, so true, but we still need to keep up the fight, as if we put down our guard he still could become POTUS. Scary. I'm hoping that he continues to say stupid remarks, this has been a good week.
Posted by: Jan ||
09/10/2008 23:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I believe this is the first time in American history that a majority of the population, both male and female, are so enthusiastic about a femal in the White House. This says a lot about the progress of women executives in America.
#3
Sarah Palin - no. I used to dream that I was being pursued down dark corridors by hordes of horrible monsters. And up ahead of me would be a powerful weapon mysteriously spinning in the air.
Haven't had that dream (much) since I cut down on video gaming.
. . . Obama and his supporters never tire of telling us that we should assess his ability to govern as president by his performance in the campaign. Fine lets do it.
Has he shown grace under pressure? Not exactly. Has he controlled his own message? Nope. Did his own personnel pick (the serially obnoxious Joe Biden) set this slow-motion pile up in motion? Yup.
So heres the rub: Palin has energized the GOP base, driven women and independent voters into McCains camp, and flummoxed the MSM, but her greatest accomplishment has been to unveil the Democrats true liability.
That basic liability has nothing to do with the fact that they are ultra-liberals and lack credibility on national security issues. Their biggest problem is that they have never led, never managed, never navigated during a crisis, and as a result never demonstrated calm under fire. It is one thing for the GOP candidates to state that in a speech as many did at the Republican National Convention but it is quite another to see it being played out before your very eyes.
Like water dumped on the Wicked Witch of the West, Palins popularity has melted the façade of professional competence and personal stability which cloaked her opponents weaknesses.
Now we can all see for ourselves their executive prowess. When pressured they whimper, whine, and insult.
And now the entire country in the post-Labor Day run-up to the election is watching. It is not a pretty sight. But it very well may be that we are, finally, seeing the real Barack Obama.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2008 09:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That is why you can't lead by popularity polls. That is why we had the mess of the middle east under Mr. Clinton that peaked on 9-11.
Holding your finger up to see which way the political wind is blowing is not leadership. It is craven cowardice.
#2
Or possibly the voters are seeing how easily he is flummoxed, and don't think that is someone they want up against Putin and the other crazy bastards running amok in the rest of the world.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
09/10/2008 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Heh, can't find it, P cartoon of Hillary getting the 3 a.m. phone call from Obama....
Posters - start looking at where you're filing your articles. Or else. And while you're at it, check for dupes. Or else.
The over-the-top publicity stunt of a mega-stadium for Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic convention two weeks ago was a huge risk that worried me sick -- there were too many things that could go wrong, from bad weather to crowd control to technical glitches on the overblown set. But everything went swimmingly. Obama delivered the speech nearly flawlessly -- though I was shocked and disappointed by how little there was about foreign policy, a major area where wavering voters have grave doubts about him. Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into "Star Wars" -- a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.
After that extravaganza, marking the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s epochal civil rights speech on the Washington Mall, I felt calmly confident that the Obama campaign was going to roll like a gorgeous juggernaut right over the puny, fossilized McCain. The next morning, it was as if the election were already over. No need to fret about American politics anymore this year. I had already turned with relief to other matters.
#2
I think Sarah is Sarah for an important reason. There are no cry baby's or victims of class in Alaska. You either deal with the environment and what it gives you or you die from cabin fever. You learn to hunt, fish, drive 4wd and snowmobiles and dog sleds as well as skate, play hockey, climb, hike and survive. There is no permanent government programs that keep decision making out of your responsibilities. There is self-reliance and self-discipline unlike anything the government or a bunch of "community organizer" can do for you. This is why Obama and Biden - urban community organizer and permanent Washington politician are having a hard time understanding. This is the big "culture" divide that they would only be able to understand if they had lived in Alaska most of their lives.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/10/2008 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think the world would be a much better place without 90% of "community organizers".
#4
Oh, the sadomasochistic tedium of McCain's imprisonment in Hanoi being told over and over and over again at the Republican convention. Do McCain's credentials for the White House really consist only of that horrific ordeal? Americans owe every heroic, wounded veteran an incalculable debt of gratitude, but how do McCain's sufferings in a tiny, squalid cell 40 years ago logically translate into presidential aptitude in the 21st century?
Gee, where were these sentiments when it was all about Nelson Mandela?
Cammie recognizes a strong horse. Big deal. She'll chuck her socialist harpies fellow travelers under the bus just as fast as Obama for that power thingy.
#6
Nevertheless, it was an extraordinary event with an overlong but strangely contemplative and spiritually uplifting finale. The music, amid the needlessly extravagant fireworks, morphed into "Star Wars" -- a New Age hymn to cosmic reconciliation and peace.
Geez, now I'm really sorry I didn't watch. I think I was flossing my cat that night.
No. It is a dividend, not a handout. The idea is based on pure capitalism, rather than on some namby-pambysm.
Alaska is tough, you survive, you contribute to the whole of Alaskan enterprise and get a share.
If you don't survive (like saying "f---it, I am moving out"), you don't contribute, you don't get a share.
#1
Either he knew what he was saying (words matter) or he's not as smart as he's been portrayed. I'm sort of voting on the later because he seems to be really bad when off of the teleprompter.
#2
RJ, it's definitely either or but I'm of the opinion that it was as deliberate as flipping off Hillary.
I thought that was a reach, scratching his cheek with his middle finger, until I saw a SECOND video of the exact same speech with the exact same gesture at the exact same moment BUT TO A DIFFERENT AUDIENCE ON A DIFFERENT DAT!
#3
Let's not forget that Obama is an attorney. As such he's trained, at minimum, to be precise in his use of language. He intended the double entendre as such and unfortunately McCain's campaign walked right into Obama's trap on this one. It's not going to help Obama but Team McCain could have played it much better.
#4
AzCat I think you're wrong here. McCain and company have played it well. This was a major insult to women in general and all McCain had to do was give it a little bit of attention to keep it going for a few days costing Obama all the time.
Now, McCain will drop it but that first dose of salt in the self-inflicted wound was necessary.
#5
McCain may drop it, but Charlie Gibson will bring it up again in the Sarah interview and she'll get to look gracious and presidential in direct contrast with The One's reaction. It'll still be a topic on Sunday morning.
I dont think that Obama meant to call Sarah Palin a pig. Many in the audience may have been heartened by the stray implication, since they already regard her as a hootenanny mama who drinks corn likker from a jug with 3 Xs and smokes a corn-cob pipe after the media leaves, but Obama was just being Folksy and Colloquial in that um-you-know style he reverts to when hes in Authentic Mode. In short, I dont believe a line that stupid was delivered with full knowledge of its implications. Im in a generous mood.
Or was, until I read this piece by a Canadian writer; it sums up with such delightful perfection what so many believe. So. Lets have a look.
I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted.
Hapless, confused old tool of the string yankers: check! Next, we see how its possible to put your head up your posterior while jerking your knee, a rather difficult maneuver they dont teach until the fifth year of yoga class:
She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote
Classism blended with instant clueless political analysis? Check and check. Palin added several things, including an appeal to some women and enthusiasm for a race that had come to see McCain as another Dole, right down to the war-related arm injuries. (Which are a sign of age and unfitness, of course; if a Young and Dymanic candidate had developed carpal tunnel syndrome from shaking hands or repeatedly patting himself on the back, supporters would wear slings in sympathy.) She continues to brass-band her white-trash point thus:
the demographic that sullies America's name inside and outside its borders yet has such a curious appeal for the right.
Leaving aside whether Europe would like us more if we did something about those horrible people they see in The Dukes of Hazzard documentaries, you have to love the idea of the white trash demo sullying our name inside our borders shes talking about the thin crust of coastal dwellers who regard Manhattan as some sort of precious monastery that keeps the dim flickering light of civilization alive. Why, if the hillbillies disappeared, the New Yorkers would be reduced to making disparaging remarks about people from New Jersey who take the bridges and tunnels to go clubbing in LowSoHo or MoTriVil or whatever old neighborhood has been fitted out with thudding discos and fusion-sushi joints.
Why does this demographic the white trash, I mean, not the orange trash of the Guido Jersey interlopers - have such a curious appeal to the right? Because the right, perhaps, thinks of them as voters who cast ballots in elections for people to dont consider rhinoplasty so they can look down their noses even further than God intended.
So why do it?
It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman.
Consider the joy that would reign if someone wrote that Democrats, racial guilt-mongers that they are, really believe that African-Americans will vote for an African-American just because hes an African-American. Of course Republican men dont believe that women will vote for her just because shes a woman. Its surely a factor, but theres the possibility that they will vote for her because she is not a woman like Heather Mallick.
You have to love the Sexual inadequates that they are line as well; if theres one thing thats amused me in the last two weeks, its the screechy distaste of Ms. Palin coming from men who embodied the Modern Alda Paradigm of masculinity, which is to say they are nervous around cars, think guns are icky, had their own Snugli, have wives in corporate jobs who make more money than they do, and still get dissed behind their backs because they cant figure out how to make the bed. The Lost Boys, if you will. Now, some women cant stand Sarah Palin for their own reasons, personal or ideological; same with men. Some men, however, are made deeply uneasy by her, because shes the one who ignored the sensitive poet-guys in high school for the jocks, and didnt seem to grasp the essential high-school truth that its cool to be a loser. But thats rank psychoanalysis, and we wont stoop to that. . . .
Go read the rest.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2008 08:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'd wager that Todd Palin does, in fact, own a Snugli, and will be using it this year for Trig. The cars and guns thing? Nah.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
09/10/2008 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I swear, it's media drones like the one that JL evicerates who will ensure that The Chosen One crashes and burns in the next few months, while McCain/Palin wins it all.
Keep up with the contemptious snobbery, folks. Obama Needs You!
(And that was almost as nice a Lileks put down as the Olive Garden essay, of blessed memory(
#3
What the pseudo-feminist socialist failed to grasp in their pursuit of power was that it wasn't in the acquisition and exercise thereof that real power is derived. Their concept was to castrate the male in order to garner the power and destroy those who dared contest them. Instead their strategy has only brought them a 'piece of the pie' in the structure of the system they so poorly ascertain.
Look at Elizabeth I at Tilbury. The manhood of England was prepared to die for her and the country she embodied. That is real power. Strong men love and respect strong women. That is whole pie. The matriarch of a jackal pack doesn't respect the males within the group, she only demands subservience. Elizabeth didn't demand subservience, she had earned their loyalty. It is a process that is beyond the comprehension of minions like Lilek's cited writer.
#4
The Olive Garden Screed to which Sgt. Mom refers may be found here.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2008 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They're going for broke now, they don't care if they come out of this without a scrap of credibility as long as they get this commie plant into the white house. They can work on their image later. But what if he loses? Where will they be then?
#6
Its pretty unique in that I don't remember any op-ed or column written in any American newspaper about any and all elections in Canada and their candidates (albeit they are parlimentary not national candidates). It must be nice to live in such a plain vanilla, boring, politically correct, arugala eating, cold and humorless country. The fact that the foreign press, not just idiots like Heather, are paying attention and writing hairy-scary screeds, is that they see their boy Obama in a nut crusher and there is nothing they can do about it but vent.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/10/2008 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Rending their garments and gnashing their teeth, just like today.
#8
Heather Mallick has always been like that. I remember fondly the time she denounced white picket fences. I don't know why newspapers employ people who seem to be on the verge of madness. Particularly when they're not very good writers.
Speaking of which, if y'all liked that, you'll love this. Be sure and read the comments. Take your blood pressure medicine before you do. And some air freshener, for the stench of spilled wee-wee is heavy in the air.
#9
The manhood of England was prepared to die for her and the country she embodied. That is real power. Strong men love and respect strong women.
Played golf in a foursome yesterday. Three Reagan Dems and me (sole Trunk). Bill sez..."so Z, whatcha think of Gov. Palin"? I said "she is Obama's worst nightmare: A strong, self-made, independent woman running on the Republican ticket. Woman isn't an affirmative action baby."
Bill sez..." don't know about you guys (referring to Mike and Ron the other two Reagan Dems in the group), but I think this woman is the real thing. She's no fake. I like her style. I like what she says and how she says it. I like how she lives her life."
Mike pipes and says...."aaah...you just like a woman who looks good in a skirt and heels." We all chuckle.
Bill says..."yeah...I like that too. But right now I'd be willing to take a bullet for that lady."
whoa...
Pause....
All agreed by nods of heads...yeah...yeah (all understand what Bill meant)...
I asked...."Anybody here willing to take a bullet for Obama or Biden?"
Laughter all around...no...no...no...
Just an anecdote to suggest a tide is turning....in Ohio...
#10
From Angie's link, this comment is unparodyable:
http://tiny.cc/OUb2Y
SFDavid
Sep 10 08, 2:52am (about 13 hours ago)
What many of us Blue-State Americans have sadly come to realize is that the US has never really been "our" Country. The US has never been a country of intellectuals or sophisticates or much given to nuance and analysis. Starting from Andrew Jackson with minor detours for the Roosevelts and Wilson, and of course the founding fathers, most Americans have always taken the dim view anyone who is an intellectual is effete, ineffective, and somehow alien. Americans have always valued action over deliberation, excess over moderation, gut instinct over reasoned analysis and an excess of hyper-emotional patriotism & religious fervor. That's why Caibou Barbie Palin has generated such a huge response here. She is the perfect embodiment of the American mentality - with the added benefit that she is a mother. Nothing strikes a more perfect note in the juvenile American psyche than mom. There seemed to be a moment during the Clinton administration when it seemed that America had turned the corner. That the forces of innovation and entrepreneurialism would help us see beyond our usual narrow conceits. Unfortunately it was just attributable to the fact that flat screen TVs & SUVs finally became affordable for the Bubbas, and sated with consumer goods they could go back to their usual narrow mindset. Needless to say if Obama loses this election it will be the clearest sign of all that you can't take back what you never owned.
Also from Angie's link, wtf is the grauniad *thinking*, chiseling it's logo into Mt. Rushmore? (The ad in the right sidebar)
#11
The liberal rational and thinking is on pure display now that Palin is out of the gates.
I wonder how many Americans are really going to be turned off by it. I know the blue-dogs and the independents are really getting fed up and disgusted with it.
It is a long way to go before the election, but it seems Bambi is on a steep slide down. I hope it continues.
#13
I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted.
wrong on sI assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted.
wrong on several counts
A. It wasnt the money men, it was the far right fundies
B. Joe Lieberman is not a stuffed shirt.
C. It wasnt so much a fit of pique, as a deft changing of the subject from the last 8 years
#16
Nice bait, LH, but let's leave Obama's thin gruel of qualifications out of this. Otherwise, you'll have to explain his accomplishments as a community organizer and all those "present" votes in Illinois. I wouldn't want you to have to go there.
#18
well i think Biden and McCain are hands down more qualified than either Obama or Palin. I did NOT want the Dems to nominate Obama, I voted for Hillary (and yeah, Id have liked more experience than that - in my ideal world Gore would have remained a hawk and run)
But Obama did achieve some things in the legislature, and he does show alot of potential for understanding the nuances of policy. And he had the wisdom to pick Joe Biden, recognizing his own weakness.
#21
She got one pipeline through. One damned project. You dont think there are other GOP governors whove done as much or more? Really? I mean its good she DID something as gov of Alaska, but do you really think thats why McCain picked her? Do you think if she was a male, and someone with an Ivy league degree from a big city who seldom attended church, McCain would have picked? I dont. I dont see the Republican base enthused because they care so much about natural gas pipelines. Theyre enthused cause shes ONE OF THEM, a hockey mom with a bunch of kids and a blue collar husband whos playing victim about them nasty ivy league cultural elitists.
Somebody said, from the tone of the GOP convention youd think Adlai Stevenson was president the last 8 years, not George W Bush.
#22
That's because the Adlai Stevenson-wannabes and the other liberals have been "winning" the argument about Energy policy for the last twenty to thirty years; their policies are the national policy.
We have a policy where we shovel tens to hundreds of billions a year to the likes of the House of Saud and Vladimir Putin, but that's OK, we're gonna send over more marines to stick their fingers in the dike over in Afghanistan and Iraq.
#23
'Hawk, with all due respect, where did you get this narrative of the internal deliberations of the McCain campaign from?
I've seen Sarah Palin's name being kicked around as a potential VP in the usual conservative places for several months. I've also seen the names of Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, Rob Portman, Eric Cantor, Michael Steele, Mike Huckabee, and J.C. Watts floated in one place or another. There was a cover story in National Review that argued against Ridge and Lieberman and Huckabee and a couple of others I can't remember right now, and there were other discussions of other people in other places.
There was said to have been a bunch of inquiries to party officials about how acceptable a pro-abortion running mate would have been. That may be an indication that Lieberman was being considered at one point. I suspect that maybe there was someone on the staff who kept insisting that pro-life wasn't important, and someone else tol him he was full of argula, and so they did some polling to settle the argument--or maybe it was all maskirovka to lead the Dems to focus their oppo research in the wrong place. If the latter, it seems to have worked, beautifully.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/10/2008 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#24
I think you guys need to cut LH a break. It's a fact that Gore was a hawk at one time.
If he had stayed at that and not turned AGW into a religion, he probably would have been a contender this time around. I wouldn't be voting for him, but he would have cleaned both Obama's and Hillary's clock.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/10/2008 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#25
nmr,
"If he had stayed at that and not turned AGW into a religion, he ..."
If my dog had opposable thumbs and ate bananas he'd be a monkey. Unfortunately for LH, and the rest of us, we live in the real world (except the loony left of course).
I go back to the days of JFK & Scoop Jackson. Give the Dems one of them or a Zell Miller and maybe we can talk. But now? Cripes, Lieberman is too close to the center for that crowd.
#27
'Hawk, with all due respect, where did you get this narrative of the internal deliberations of the McCain campaign from?
the same clueless MSM types who gave me the narrative that there was division in the Bush admin on Iraq, that Powell and Tenet were not on the same side as Rummy, etc,etc. I was told here at the time that I didnt know what i was talking about, that this was all scurrilous, that they were all playing good cop bad cop, and other such stuff.
Turned out I was right.
I also said Rumsfeld and the admin strategy didnt ahve enough troops in Iraq, and that this was a point of contention and a big deal. I was AGAIN roughed up on that. Well now the GOP candidates main claim to dissenting from Bush, and being especially wise on defense policy is - guess what - that he was for more troops in Iraq, and that he attacked Rumsfeld.
Well all that ive read that purports to speak to McCains decision making in the last weeks before the convention, is that he really wanted Lieberman or Ridge, and the family values crowd threatened a floor fight. Blame that on the scurrilous MSM if you will.
#28
pretty obviously Gore's "hawk"ishness was a political posture, and not a deep-seated trait. Hypocrite who got even worse with the AGW cult. *spit*
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/10/2008 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#29
AlanC and FrankG-
Sorry about the dog.
Seriously, though, Gore did support a lot of defense spending, even outside TN. Is the switch to lefty the political calculation, or was the original position? Or both? At the time Gore seemed pretty much into strong defense. In retrospect I was mistaken in all likelihood, but the data seemed pretty much in support of that conclusion.
And as I've pointed out, I'm certainly no supporter of his at this point. I've posted enough critique on the bullbleep of AGW on this site that this should be evident. In 2008, Gore is no Scoop Jackson.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/10/2008 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#30
YES Barry - did - I got a GAS TAX HOLIDAY!
And he joked he wanted his name on the pump sticker trumpeting it was from our state legislature!
#33
Speaking as one who has before, and will again, made his living off his writing skills, I must say that newspapers hire writers who agree with that newspaper's and that publisher's editorial policy by and large.
They invariably get the Columbia or Ivy League grad who's never been outside the comfortable confines of NYC or Washington or Boston or LA and don't have a clue what life's really like outside the big city. They have an innate disdain for anything or anyone who is not them and doesn't have their lofty elitist mentality that they're better than anyone else who has not had their education at their finest elitist schools.
When/If these people ever get their grand "revolution" they're a) going to switch sides faster than a rabbit evading a truck on the highway, b) mourn the loss of their precious socialist dreams, and/or c) cower under their desks as the real people of this nation round them up and march them off to Guantanamo for being the seditionist bastards and cowards they truly are.
#34
she's talking about the thin crust of coastal dwellers who regard Manhattan as some sort of precious monastery that keeps the dim flickering light of civilization alive
Some men, however, are made deeply uneasy by her, because shes the one who ignored the sensitive poet-guys in high school for the jocks, and didnt seem to grasp the essential high-school truth that its cool to be a loser.
#35
She got one pipeline through. One damned project.
Well, only one $40 Billion project, arguably the single largest civil engineering project ever in North America, one mired in red tape and corruption since she was a teenager, but I guess negotiating with the oil companies, Canada, Native Tribes, Federal Agencies, and only being Governor for less than two years, I guess that is failure.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
