No, but it is condescending to say, "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, which is why you cling to all these silly benighted things like religion and guns. I'm willing to help so that you won't feel so frustrated and you can abandon your backwards values."

The words "benighted" and "backwards" are, of course, yours and yours alone.

You libertarians would've loved it, sure. OTOH, I still think it's dangerous and condescending to make such claims. I could see some old guy, let's say Andy, say something like, "You have no idea why I'm angry." You're a lawyer - that's the kind of statement you want to be careful about. But you're right: he was careless about it (and it was more condescending) b/c he was saying to other people.

It's now "condescending" to speak with fellow party members about the traits and attitudes of the voters whose votes you're trying to get?

Give me a break.

Completely agree, Andy. That said, that's not what I find fascinating about this. I find fascinating instead the bubble of invincibility some have placed around Obama. I will not vote for Obama; yes, you're right. Almost certainly I will vote for the war hero. But you see among Chip, Dan, and others the complete inability to acknowledge what you (and Obama) were able to: he misspoke. Big deal, he speaks 1000 times a day and he misspoke. Yet, DMN is being dishonest and I'm being disingenuous when I point out that his comments were condescending (as you seem to acknowledge) and elitist. Then, I'm twisting when I point out that he expresses (in his own words) deep regret for the harm they've done and acknowledges they were clumsy.

He "misspoke" only in the political -- and tautological -- sense that he said something that will probably cost him votes. His actual words were, far from being condescending, amply supported by reams of easily-accessible sociological evidence.

I would vote for a law as a legislator which legalized most abortions. But in reading the Constitution, it is shockingly clear that the SCOTUS was acting as a legislative body, not a judicial body, when it decided that women have a constitutional right to an abortion under the privacy theory. There are numerous other examples where liberal judges just make #### up, in order to enact laws that they think would make society better. That is not their job. I would think, as a conservative, ARKI, you would understand that....

Interestingly enough, though that is a widely-held view at the moment, mostly due to the abortion cases and some criminal cases from the Warren Court era - through most of American history it worked in the opposite direction where courts usually intervened on behalf of business interests.

Andy, I voted for HRC in the primary but was starting to come around to Obama until the Wright flap. It does bother me a bit and I honestly can understand someone turning to Clinton because of that.

Yes, what better way to bring down an elitist than to change your vote to the woman whose family has made $109 million in 6 years from influence peddling and a couple speeches?

That'll show him!!!

The words "benighted" and "backwards" are, of course, yours and yours alone.

Certainly. But the attitudes behind them are Obama's and Obama's alone. (Well, not "alone," as your posts demonstrate.)

Yes, what better way to bring down an elitist than to change your vote to the woman whose family has made $109 million in 6 years from influence peddling and a couple speeches?

That'll show him!!!

"Elite" and "elitist" may sound somewhat similar, but they don't mean the same thing.

Yes, what better way to bring down an elitist than to change your vote to the woman whose family has made $109 million in 6 years from influence peddling and a couple speeches?

And who has run her campaign largely on the premise that the majority of the states are simply irrelevant, because they aren't traditionally carried by Democrats in presidential elections (or more likely, because they didn't vote in her favor).

So what was the excuse 25 years ago when the very same people embraced religion and guns?

Get a dictionary, look up the word "cling," and you'll understand better.

The working class people in PA have been promised the government's help by politicians over the years. The people's plight gets no better and generally worse. They get cynical -- or "bitter," if yuou will -- about politics and "cling to" the non-political things in their life.(**) Rather than blame the politicians who broke their promises to them, they aim their blame at the wrong parties.

This, of course, is all Obama said, both explictly and implicitly. The rest is merely projection.

(**) Lest anyone doubt the sociology here, on some morning show this morning , one of the reporters was talking to the mayor of a Central PA town of about 1000 people. The mayor said that "every family in town" had at least one gun.

Why exactly do we need more than Obama's words as evidence of Obama's thoughts?

This is fine. But then you need to look at the whole transcript, the Town Hall in IN, the "deep regrets", his campaign stops in PA etc. And look at his record of actions in terms of the interests of working-class voters. Condescending and elitist or not, it may be that they think his policies will help them more at the gas pump and at the grocery store than McCain's will.

And this goes for Wright, too: you need to look at more of his sermons, more of his record of community service, his time in the Marine Corps,etc., because it was YOU, in talking about Obama and dismissing his rhetorical skills since he lacks experience, who said it was not actions, not words, that are important.

In the Wright thread when people brought Imus into it, Andy said that "People are more than sound bites." This goes for Wright, Imus, McCain, and Obama, me, you and Peter Angelos. It is a simple point.

But the attitudes behind them are Obama's and Obama's alone.

Well, the rejoinder to that is painfully obvious: your "attitude" towards Obama in particular and towards liberal pols and liberals in general, is causing you to interpret the words in a certain way. Some will share your attitude, to varying degrees. Others won't. This is why debating what to do in Iraq and and what to do about the economy are, ultimately, probably a better use of the voters' time--and a better way to decide who they should vote for--than trying to decide "what Obama really meant" or "whether he is an elitist", and that is why people want to "focus on the issues."

Rich -

I know that you are a conservative, so your preference for Hillary Clinton for her choice of judges intrigues me. What is it about the judges she would pick that makes you favor her?

This is either delightfully po-faced sarcasm or you haven't yet realized that arki is literally the most left-wing participant in these conversations.

I think he blocked me after I offered an explanation for why I'm a conservative, so he can't even read this. Yeah, I'll admit it bugs me. I don't deserve blocking, even by apparent trolls.

Certainly. But the attitudes behind them are Obama's and Obama's alone. (Well, not "alone," as your posts demonstrate.)

The attitudes behind them are a figment of your imagination. Not yours "alone" of course.

For some reason in the past couple decades, and though the concept really has very little to do with politics, "conservatives" have taken great pains to prove how "tough" they are -- generally through means having nothing to do with toughness -- and concomitantly how "opposite of tough" non-"conservatives" are. "Elitist" is sort of the polite and socially acceptable way of saying the word(s) they really mean. The interesting part is that the vast majority of the "tough" "conservatives" would never say those words to the faces of a whole lot of non-"conservatives" ... unless of course the "conservative" was carrying a gun.

Funny how that is.

I don't deserve blocking, even by trolls.

Well, this is interesting--freedom of speech vs. freedom of not to listen to speech. Another conundrum to be hashed out by the geniuses at BTF. ;-

This is either delightfully po-faced sarcasm or you haven't yet realized that arki is literally the most left-wing participant in these conversations

.

Rich is one of the sharpest tools in the shed here; if he agrees with you (have no idea if he does) it is sarcasm.

Well, this is interesting--freedom of speech vs. freedom of not to listen to speech. Another conundrum to be hashed out by the geniuses at BTF. ;-

I agree that I have only a questionable moral case, but I do think there's something graceless about someone who broadcasts their own (highly inflammatory views) on a forum, but then selectively shuts out those most likely to respond to them. That said, I know I don't have much of a leg to stand on - you can't force people to behave the way you wish they would. All I know is that I would never place anyone (except an actual spambot) on block as a matter of moral principle. I consider it to be socially fascist behavior. My attitude is that if you're going to talk, you owe it to your interlocutors to listen as well...even to people who aren't going to say things you necessarily want to hear.

Rich is one of the sharpest tools in the shed here; if he agrees with you (have no idea if he does) it is sarcasm.

I figured that it was either:

1.) sarcasm
2.) a clever attempt to draw out arki on a subject he's been notoriously cagey about
3.) a result of Rich not being around much lately, and missing those other threads

All I know is that would never place anyone (except an actual spambot) on block as a matter of moral principle. I consider it to be socially fascist behavior.

I find it useful on a temporary basis if I think I'm going to respond to an inflammatory post from a poster whom I find distasteful in a manner that I know I ought not do. I suppose I could conceive of a scenario where I permanently blocked someone, but I'd prefer to in general know what people are saying.

AG: "Interestingly enough, though that is a widely-held view at the moment, mostly due to the abortion cases and some criminal cases from the Warren Court era - through most of American history it worked in the opposite direction where courts usually intervened on behalf of business interests."

What are you trying to say? And how does that relate at all to what I wrote on this topic?

Also, if you know of a recent case (say since 1958) in which conservative justices "intervened on behalf of business interests" in a way which demonstrates their "making #### up" in an extraconstitutional manner, please enlighten me. I am not certain that this has not occurred. However, it is my general sense that in the last 50 years, whenever a court has actively written legislation from the bench,* it has been liberal judges doing so.

The Kansas City "school desegregation" case is a good example of it. From this article, you get the outline:

"In 1986 a federal court ordered Kansas City, Missouri, to implement what may well be the most expensive remedial plan in history. Kansas City had been operating a desegregation plan since the late 1970s. But in 1986 the court ordered an expanded plan involving extensive construction, renovation, and the addition of magnet programs to most of the elementary and all the secondary schools, whose purpose was to attract suburban whites into this 70 percent minority school system. With a unique court-ordered tax levy and court-ordered funding from the state, total school expenditures reached $10,000 per pupil by 1990, withtotal funding exceeding $1.5 billion over approximately an eight-year period."

If that is not judicial activism, I don't know what is.

* I know that some Gore-partisans like to point to Bush v. Gore in 2000 as an example of "conservative activism." Beyond that it was not is the problem that even had the SCOTUS gone along with the Florida courts, the recount method that Florida court made up would not have given Gore a win in that state. As such, Bush v. Gore was not determinative of the 2000 election and ought not be viewed as a conservative example of the KC courts.

The interesting part is that the vast majority of the "tough" "conservatives" would never say those words to the faces of a whole lot of non-"conservatives" ... unless of course the "conservative" was carrying a gun.

Funny how that is.

This is either the funniest or the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. Or both.

I'll give him this, he might have set the record for most scare quotes used in one posting.

I think he blocked me after I offered an explanation for why I'm a conservative, so he can't even read this. Yeah, I'll admit it bugs me. I don't deserve blocking, even by apparent trolls.

Deserves got nuthin to do with it.

Seriously, Arky is awesome, one of my favorite posters. Apart from his love of linking to spittle-flecked rants against anybody to the right of Noam Chomsky, he's one of the most unpredictable posters on BBTF. Besides, he once said something that could have been construed as paleoconservative if you kind of squinted, so the jury's still out on his conservative bona fides!

Seriously, Arky is awesome, one of my favorite posters.

I like him, too--he is very different than most of us who talk politics here in a number of ways.

I figured that it was either:

1.) sarcasm
2.) a clever attempt to draw out arki on a subject he's been notoriously cagey about
3.) a result of Rich not being around much lately, and missing those other threads

It was sarcasm. However, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" do change over time, so ARKI could claim that his brand of conservativism is an 18th Century variant or some such thing. Also, even if ARKI is on the left on almost every topic, it's not unlikely that he holds some views which (even in contemporary parlance) could be called conservative. Very few of us are rigidly ideological, even though in political argument that often appears to be the case.

This is why debating what to do in Iraq and and what to do about the economy are, ultimately, probably a better use of the voters' time--and a better way to decide who they should vote for--than trying to decide "what Obama really meant" or "whether he is an elitist", and that is why people want to "focus on the issues."

Well, the people who want to focus on the issues generally want to define the issues as things they care about and not things other people care about. For instance, we've heard some talk in this thread (expressed directly by posters and indirectly by quoting James Webb) that many things that other people consider "issues" -- God, gays, guns, abortion, etc. -- aren't really "issues" at all.

But even if we can agree on what the issues are, I'm not sure your premise is valid. The specifics of what to do about a particular issue are highly contingent, and we don't know what the circumstances will be when the candidate is in office. Attitudes are far more meaningful because they're less contingent.

To put this into concrete terms, suppose a baseball team is choosing, right now, a GM (or manager) for the 2009-2012 seasons. (Okay, the analogy doesn't fit perfectly, since you can fire a GM but not a president. Assume this GM can't be fired.) Which would you rather know: (1) what the GM proposes to do about the players currently on the roster, or (2) the GM's attitude towards roster building?

Of course I care about whether Andy MacPhail says he wants to get out of Iraq ASAP or says he wants to stay there until the job is done -- but whether he thinks, generally, that it's better to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late is ultimately more useful to me.

My attitude is that if you're going to talk, you owe it to your interlocutors to listen as well...even to people who aren't going to say things you necessarily want to hear.

If you want to listen to everyone, that's your right. But I don't understand the apparent negative moral judgement you seem to attach to those people who do not feel obligated to listen to every person's opinion. I strongly agree with the idea of listening to all sorts of opinions from all sorts of sides, but I don't see why you would have me feel obligated to listen to every opinion out there. With a limited amount of time, why should I be forced to wade through prolific but inane posters -- why grant them the same attention I would the people with real insight/humor?

If you want to listen to everyone, that's your right. But I don't understand the apparent negative moral judgement you seem to attach to those people who do not feel obligated to listen to every person's opinion. I strongly agree with the idea of listening to all sorts of opinions from all sorts of sides, but I don't see why you would have me feel obligated to listen to every opinion out there. With a limited amount of time, why should I be forced to wade through prolific but inane posters -- why grant them the same attention I would the people with real insight/humor?

I figured that a response like this was inevitable. Look, I'm not demanding that everyone feel the same way as I do, I'm merely explaining the imperative I feel compelled to observe (and phrased it that way). Everyone can make their own choices. Yours works for you. Ultimately, the only person to which I would attach a negative moral judgment about this matter is myself.

Incidentally, in the case of "prolific but inane posters" I find that it's really easy to just scroll through them quickly if necessary.

For instance, we've heard some talk in this thread (expressed directly by posters and indirectly by quoting James Webb) that many things that other people consider "issues" -- God, gays, guns, abortion, etc. -- aren't really "issues" at all.

No, actually, you haven't.

I'll give him this, he might have set the record for most scare quotes used in one posting.

Many conservatives I know and read, do, in fact, try to use rhetoric and explain their positions in terms that suggest being "tough" and perhaps less loadedly, "practical" and have an investment in seeing themselves as such, in the same way that many of us who are liberals have an investment in seeing oursleves as "aware" and "compassionate." (Where do you think the slogan "compassionate conservatism" came from?).

And the imagery here--Obama off the PA/IN/NC trail at a fundraiser in San Francisco with the rich, wimpy agnostic/atheist libs, talking about the small-town churchgoing, gunowners--was easy to exploit, so McCain, and Clinton, (as Obama is in the unusual situation of running against two opponents at once, one inside and one outside his own party)--did.

But there is something to what SBB is saying. I think it is a real thing, and the irony of Kerry who was in the VN war, getting painted as a wimp by the Swifties in juxtaposition to Bush, who wasn't there--was a recent example.

In Caro's great biography of LBJ, he is taking to George Brown, of Brown and Root, about why Brown's brother Herman, a hardcore rightwinger, was so tight with LBJ and gave him so much money. Part of it was money and power, of course, but GBrown says (paraphrase but close) "Lyndon was for the nigggers, he was for the little boys, but when you got down to it, to nutcutting, he was as practical as anyone."

Seriously, Arky is awesome, one of my favorite posters. Apart from his love of linking to spittle-flecked rants against anybody to the right of Noam Chomsky, he's one of the most unpredictable posters on BBTF.

Maybe his baseball posts are; I confess I don't remember those. Certainly not his political ones, which are standard doctrinaire left-wing grad student.

Just in case you didn't already think there was a whiff of "that uppity negro" in the comments of some of the elitists charging that Obama's comments were elitist, we get this from Geoff Davis, a Republican congressman from Kentucky, as quoted today by Josh Marshall:

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."

The quote's undated, though, so perhaps it was made before this story broke.

The quote's undated, though, so perhaps it was made before this story broke.

Which of course doesn't stop you from alleging that there's something racial now.

BTW: You've also virtually guaranteed the thread will live another week, and for that alone you should be shot.

Many conservatives I know and read, do, in fact, try to use rhetoric and explain their positions in terms that suggest being "tough" and perhaps less loadedly, "practical" and have an investment in seeing themselves as such, in the same way that many of us who are liberals have an investment in seeing oursleves as "aware" and "compassionate." (Where do you think the slogan "compassionate conservatism" came from?).

Obviously, words like toughness, practicality, and compassion can mean different things to different people, and both sides of the political aisle use rhetoric to try and get elected. Honestly, I kind of detest the whole "sound bites" and "word games" aspect of politics that increasingly occupies more and more of the modern dialogue. The harder it becomes for people to agree on what words even mean, the more difficult it is to have an honest and legitimate debate on issues. But the modern age is increasingly about image and the sound bite, and that's probably not going to change.

And Obama's campaign has been extremely successful based off of rhetoric and the sound bite. I've heard tons about "hope" and "change", but precious little from him in the way of actual substance on the issues.

I can certainly understand why it's difficult for him to focus on his record. Because let's be honest: he has one of the thinnest resumes of any serious contender for the Presidency in modern times.

Which of course doesn't stop you from alleging that there's something racial now.

I can only go by the fact that Marshall posted it today.

So if you've got a problem with the allegation, take it up with him.

Attitudes are far more meaningful because they're less contingent.

Well, I think that is debatable, but the problems with that are, like I've said:

1. Attitudes do change--in part based on facts related to specific issues. I don't think it is binary.
2. They are hard to define, and hard to know in depth, unless you really know the person well, which is an impossiblity in the context of a presidential election. In this case, you appear to be operating on the assumptions that:

a) Obama's relationship with Wright, due to its length and closeness, in and of itself, nullifies his speech about it, and is a very bad thing. The speech Obama made about it was just spin, and the relationship means what you think it means, not what Obama told the voters it means.
b) What Obama said in SF means that he is arrogant and condescending, and what he said later was again, just spin, and BY FAR the key sentence was the one you have quoted, not the ones leading up to it or coming after it, nor his rephrasings of it in the days following.

And you may be right about Obama. But there is no way to know, so I think it is, generally, better to look at "What Candidate X said s/he will do about Issue Y" than "What kind of a person do I think this individual is?"

To put this into concrete terms, suppose a baseball team is choosing, right now, a GM (or manager) for the 2009-2012 seasons. (Okay, the analogy doesn't fit perfectly, since you can fire a GM but not a president. Assume this GM can't be fired.) Which would you rather know: (1) what the GM proposes to do about the players currently on the roster, or (2) the GM's attitude towards roster building?

Of course I care about whether Andy MacPhail says he wants to get out of Iraq ASAP or says he wants to stay there until the job is done -- but whether he thinks, generally, that it's better to trade a player a year too early rather than a year too late is ultimately more useful to me.

That's fine--but to me, "roster-bulding" = "foreign and domestic policy positions" and "general political philosophy" not "being tight with an inflammatory preacher" or "saying some poorly-worded stuff about blue-collar Pennsylvanians."

Now, if you think that Obama's stated policy positions are bad for America and I am sure you do, I disagree, but fair enough. If you think his relationship with Wright means that he will engage in dangerous and "anti-American" foreign policy actions that will foment more terrorism and endanger national security, then I strongly disagree, but again, fair enough. But if you think what Obama said in SF or his relationship with Wright gives you a window into Obama's mind and makes you objective about that, while someone who sees him in a more positive light is blinded by bias, then we part company.

Well, the people who want to focus on the issues generally want to define the issues as things they care about and not things other people care about. For instance, we've heard some talk in this thread (expressed directly by posters and indirectly by quoting James Webb) that many things that other people consider "issues" -- God, gays, guns, abortion, etc. -- aren't really "issues" at all.

Of course each person has a right to define what "real issues" are to him.

My only rejoinder to that is that I get a little tired of hearing people who consistently vote on the issues of "God, gays, guns, abortion, etc.," and then come back a year or two later and whine about how dissatisfied they are with the guy they voted for, or complain about the cost of health care---only to then say that they're going to vote once again for someone who vows to continue in that same guy's ideological footsteps.

Of course in truth this segment of the population may only amount to less than 10% of the voters, and we may hear so much about them only because they often like to boast how "independent" they are, and hence up for grabs, like Lucy's football.

But if any voting "bloc" has less standing to complain about anything, it's these folks. They got what they wanted in 2000 and 2004, and now they're stuck with the whole package. You can't cherry pick your candidate's positions on an a la carte basis. You vote on nothing but "social" issues, and you're going to get the whole enchilada. And that's fine, but don't whine later if that enchilada gives you a little bellyache, and your insurance bill has just tripled. There's always the emergency room.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."

The quote's undated, though, so perhaps it was made before this story broke.

... and went on to say that "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

Yes, he really said "simulation."

It isn't John Milner taking five in a depo (I attended in my early legal days) on the grounds that answering the question may tend to "intimidate" him, but only because it isn't as funny.

I've heard tons about "hope" and "change", but precious little from him in the way of actual substance on the issues.

David Nieporent tried to make this claim a few weeks ago, until someone pointed out that there's a 60-page PDF on Obama's Web site explaining his "substance on the issues."

I don't expect people who spend most of their time discussing whether Obama hates America or just really strongly dislikes it to pay much attention to his stance on the issues, though.

So if you've got a problem with the allegation, take it up with him.

Why? YOu're the one who posted it here, or don't you take responsibility for the things you post and the allegations you make?

Which of course doesn't stop you from alleging that there's something racial now.

Well, let's see, a Republican from Kentucky publicly called the odds-on favorite (at British punters) to be the next President of the United States, "boy."

And it just happens that the guy he called "boy" is ... black.

Move on. Nothing to see here ....

I've heard tons about "hope" and "change", but precious little from him in the way of actual substance on the issues.

This was addressed here months ago. One could argue he needs more substance on the stump, but his website goes over just about everything in very typical wonkish detail. He is a pro-choice Liberal Democrat, much like HRC, with something of a populist message and a message of people trying to talk across the various divides.

Which of course doesn't stop you from alleging that there's something racial now.

Well, ok JC. We've got a guy from Kentucky, where all my relatives live, and where I have spent tons of time, and where I can tell you there is plenty of grassroots racism, including among my relatives, calling Obama "boy." So, what do we do? Write Davis off as a racist? Assume he "misspoke?" And if at some point THIS goes national on Davis, and he apologizes, do we write that off as spin? This is not a gotcha, but Chip's comment didn't seem to sit right with you.

Marshall has added a link. It turns out that Davis made the comment Saturday - after the "bitter" story broke - in remarks at a Lincoln Day Republican Party fundraiser in Kentucky:

Lincoln Day event

(And to SBB's comment, the "simulation" that Davis referred to was some exercise they put Congressmen and Senators through, which both Davis and Obama participated in.)

Sugar Bear, McCain will obviously denounce that sort of nasty and demeaning comment, as well he should. But McCain himself didn't make it, and he doesn't endorse the sentiment. I'm not sure what more to make of it than that who routinely engage in that sort of thing when they're among their hardcore base. It's just one stupid congressman using inflammatory rhetoric, one out of many. I wouldn't want Obama to be held to the complete oratorical oeuvre of Alcee Hastings or Cynthia McKinney myself. These things have to go both ways.

But there is something to what SBB is saying. I think it is a real thing, and the irony of Kerry who was in the VN war, getting painted as a wimp by the Swifties in juxtaposition to Bush, who wasn't there--was a recent example.

Well, there were two dynamics at play there. The first was part of the 2004 campaign: Kerry put his military service at issue ("Reporting for duty," which was one of the most cringe-inducing entrances I've ever experienced.) while Bush never mentioned his. If you say, "Vote for me because I'm a war hero," you have to expect more scrutiny of your military record than if you say, "Vote for me because I want to cut taxes."

The second was history: Kerry had angered a lot of veterans/Vietnam supporters long before 2004 -- back in 1971, when he was seen by some as calling American soldiers war criminals. They had been looking for a chance at payback for years.

Why must we continue to play these gotcha politics by totally disregarding the context and nuance of what Davis was saying? It's obvious he was being inclusive by referring to Obama as "boy," which is simply short for good ol' boy. Anybody who thinks otherwise is simply a biased democrat who had no intention of ever voting for Rep. Davis anyway.

Well, there were two dynamics at play there. The first was part of the 2004 campaign: Kerry put his military service at issue ("Reporting for duty," which was one of the most cringe-inducing entrances I've ever experienced.) while Bush never mentioned his. If you say, "Vote for me because I'm a war hero," you have to expect more scrutiny of your military record than if you say, "Vote for me because I want to cut taxes."

The second was history: Kerry had angered a lot of veterans/Vietnam supporters long before 2004 -- back in 1971, when he was seen by some as calling American soldiers war criminals. They had been looking for a chance at payback for years.

I am aware of that. Kerry was in VN; Bush wasn't. It is a dead issue now, but SBB's point holds, and the Swifties were an example, IMO, regardless of how one sees the legitimacy of it.

Look, I'm not demanding that everyone feel the same way as I do, I'm merely explaining the imperative I feel compelled to observe (and phrased it that way). Everyone can make their own choices. Yours works for you. Ultimately, the only person to which I would attach a negative moral judgment about this matter is myself.

I hear ya... but I think it's understandable to read "I would never place anyone (except an actual spambot) on block as a matter of moral principle. I consider it to be socially fascist behavior" as a fairly strong suggestion, if not quite a demand, that we act as you do lest we be considered fascists. I tend to react to the implication that I'm a fascist for not bothering to read every poster's every word.

I don't read every published author on every subject in which I'm interested. I don't listen to every speech on every subject on which I'm interested. I don't see why it's fascist to not read every person's opinion in this (or any) thread. Not everyone has interesting things to say all the time. (God knows I'm probably proving that right about myself as I type, if I haven't proved it in a gazillion posts here and on usenet). And some people say interesting things even less often than that (again, I may well be one of those people). At some point, one gets tired of waiting for Godot to arrive, for the Professor to make a boat, and for certain posters to say something worth reading. I'm not saying they can't and don't, but if there's too much signal and not enough noise, I get tired of listening, and there are lots of really great posters here who can argue the same points well (or with more humor). Why waste limited time reading the least impressive of the redundancies?

It turns out that Davis made the comment Saturday - after the story broke - in remarks at a Lincoln Day Republican Party fundraiser in Kentucky:

With charity toward none, with malice for all, with firmness in "the right" as God has given us "the right", let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to open up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have been borne with a silver spoon, and for his wife and his mistress, to do all which may achieve and cherish an interest-adjusted and lasting inheritance among ourselves and with all aryan nations.

Why must we continue to play these gotcha politics by totally disregarding the context and nuance of what Davis was saying? It's obvious he was being inclusive by referring to Obama as "boy," which is simply short for good ol' boy. Anybody who thinks otherwise is simply a biased democrat who had no intention of ever voting for Rep. Davis anyway.

This sarcastic analogy works only if you remove the part of your brain that understands the history of Southern racial politics.

My only rejoinder to that is that I get a little tired of hearing people who consistently vote on the issues of "God, gays, guns, abortion, etc." then complain around a year or two later and whine about how dissatisfied they are with the guy they voted for, or complain about the cost of health care---only to then vote for someone who vows to continue in that same guy's ideological footsteps.

I'm sympathetic to your frustration on this matter, but, at the same time, elections aren't Burger King. You don't get it your way. You get to pick from what's on the menu, and if you aren't completely satisfied with any of the limited selection of items, that's just your tough luck -- you hold your nose and pick the least offensive one. Sometimes this means you get a sprig of parsley on the side of your plate, and you can set it off to one side and ignore it. Sometimes it means the vegetables that come with your steak are cooked in a sauce you're allergic to.

I find it hard to believe that many people are ever completely satisfied with the candidates they vote for -- whatever basis they have for picking those candidates. If they are, they probably haven't looked closely enough at those candidates' positions.

Why must we continue to play these gotcha politics by totally disregarding the context and nuance of what Davis was saying? It's obvious he was being inclusive by referring to Obama as "boy," which is simply short for good ol' boy. Anybody who thinks otherwise is simply a biased democrat who had no intention of ever voting for Rep. Davis anyway.

Somewhat clever, but it misses the point several ways. One question is how much we judge Davis on this statement, which is far less open to interperetation than anything Obama has said, as your sarcamsm shows, or if we look at Davis' whole history and record in deciding about him. Another is whether we use it to smear other people who may share Davis' ideology and/or work closely/have close relationships with him.

So, same questions I have for JC. Is Davis just a racist? Does he get any slack on this? What if we find out McCain and Davis are tight? (highly doubtful).

Well, let's see, a Republican from Kentucky publicly called the odds-on favorite (at British punters) to be the next President of the United States, "boy."

And it just happens that the guy he called "boy" is ... black.

Move on. Nothing to see here ....

Give me a break, don't be so stupid. I didn't say the comment was or wasn't racist. I said, how can you allege that there's an "uppity black thing" in THIS CASE when you acknowledge, as Chip did, he didn't know when the quotation occurred. Is that hard to understand?

Sugar Bear, McCain will obviously denounce that sort of nasty and demeaning comment, as well he should. But McCain himself didn't make it, and he doesn't endorse the sentiment. I'm not sure what more to make of it than that who routinely engage in that sort of thing when they're among their hardcore base. It's just one stupid congressman using inflammatory rhetoric, one out of many. I wouldn't want Obama to be held to the complete oratorical oeuvre of Alcee Hastings or Cynthia McKinney myself. These things have to go both ways.

Agreed. I wasn't hitting McCain with it; I was hitting JC/DC -- who I thought might be mocking the thought that there might be something racial -- with it.

I can certainly understand why it's difficult for him to focus on his record. Because let's be honest: he has one of the thinnest resumes of any serious contender for the Presidency in modern times.

Can't you say the same for McCain? He's been in the Senate for a much (much, much) longer period of time. What's he done during his tenure that's marked him as presidential? Off the top of my head, the only significant floor fights where he's led the charge in are campaign finance, torture, taxes, and immigration. He's since reversed/backed off on both torture and immigration, and the less said about McCain-Feingold the better. He was tough on military spending during the Clinton years, but that's taken a back seat to Iraq now.

I've gone through McCain's website and read the personal history and his positions. The man's personal integrity is admirable, but his political/public reversals over his recent history don't speak well of him.

Good questions, Rich, and ones I've wrestled with often. I see judges currently on the right so regularly willing to shred Constitutional guarantees in favor of false governmental imperatives that I believe we'll need about four presidential terms worth of appointments from the left to bring that back into balance. While it may also be an unusual opinion, I find as many activist judges on the right as I do on the left. There's no such thing as an original document, by which I mean, to read the Constitution is to interpret the Constitution. Thus I find "strict constructionism" largely a ruse, meant to serve agendas, and deny protections, rather than some greater truth. I do agree with you in re Roe v. Wade. The basis for Blackmun's opinion is no basis at all. Where we might differ is that I find the right makes #### up as much as the left does.

I'm also surprised that you want a heavier hand of the government in regulating business.

As above, it's partly a matter of balance. Unregulated business quickly becomes viciously antidemocratic, and I consider myself a conservative in part because I favor maximizing personal liberty. (I do find that puts me on the side of certain elemetns of the left more often than I might like, or have expected.) Big government and big business, imo, are enemies of maximized personal liberty. I therefore see regulating business as essential to creating a thriving democracy where that liberty flourishes. Unlike many on the right, I don't consider the "right" to make as much money as humanly possible the most sacrosanct of rights. I also believe in personal responsibility, and in our contemporary corporate climate, such is sadly lacking. Since we're not about to revert to granting only extremely limited corporate charters, reining in business by increasing oversight seems the best means available to both restrain its antidemocratic tendencies, and to compel corporate responsibility.

edit: I posted this, then started catching up from post 300 on. Rich: I'm intrigued by your post 319 and will take a shot at finding something apropos later this afternoon/evening. My recollection is that last year's SCOTUS decision limiting suits with regard to pay discrimination is an example...

Why must we continue to play these gotcha politics by totally disregarding the context and nuance of what DavisObama was saying?

FTFY.

McCain has also been very strong on earmarks.

Give me a break, don't be so stupid. I didn't say the comment was or wasn't racist. I said, how can you allege that there's an "uppity black thing" in THIS CASE when you acknowledge, as Chip did, he didn't know when the quotation occurred. Is that hard to understand?

Fair point. My snarkiness and overpersonalizing is withdrawn, along with 353.

Now that we know the date, we can proceed -- and I think my substance still works.

Can't you say the same for McCain?

Or Bush, frankly, whose only elected office was to two terms as governor of a state that treats its governors as figureheads. Obama's got a lot more experience as an elected official than Bush did in 2000.

(Yes, DMN, I'm aware Bush isn't on the ballot this year; I'm guessing, however, that Joey B wasn't chiding Bush for his "thin resume" [particularly in comparison to Gore's] 8 years ago.)

Look, I think the experience stuff is usually nonsense, but the notion that McCain or Bush have less or comparable experience to Obama is ludicrous.

Look, I think the experience stuff is usually nonsense, but the notion that McCain or Bush have less or comparable experience to Obama is ludicrous.

Possibly, but Obama circa 2008 likely has significantly more foreign policy experience than Bush circa 2000, ne?

Any credit you're going to give McCain on earmarks has to wiped away many times over by the war(s) he want(s) to start which is going to be a lot more costly in every sense of the word than a Bridge to Nowhere or two.

Look, I think the experience stuff is usually nonsense, but the notion that McCain or Bush have less or comparable experience to Obama is ludicrous.

You care to back this up with actual facts, or are you going to declare, as you often do, that anything you disagree with is "ludicrous?" How is it, in your view, that Bush had more "experience" than Obama pre-2000?

Somewhat clever, but it misses the point several ways. One question is how much we judge Davis on this statement, which is far less open to interperetation than anything Obama has said, as your sarcamsm shows, or if we look at Davis' whole history and record in deciding about him. Another is whether we use it to smear other people who may share Davis' ideology and/or work closely/have close relationships with him.

Clearly my post was made tongue in cheek, but my larger point was to demonstrate how ascertaining what politicians say depends on whose ox is being gored. Davis' comments are somehow clear and unambiguous to the same people who thought Obama's recent utterance was Delphic in its depth and complexity, even though it wasn't. Words mean stuff. Blinding oneself to their meaning through a devotion to ideology is unwise at best.

And lest there be any doubt, if Davis did indeed refer to Obama as "boy," his word choice was inappropriate and has no place in American politics.

How is it that Bush had more "experience" than Obama pre-2000?

He organized way more keg parties as his frat's treasurer.

You care to back this up with actual facts, or are you going to declare, as you often do, that anything you disagree with is "nonsense?" How is it that Bush had more "experience" than Obama pre-2000?

He had run more businesses into the ground on the dime of his father's friends?

By the way, nobody here has remarked on the irony of this part of Obama's speech:

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Obama has spent the campaign competing with Hillary to see who could pander more on "anti-trade sentiment." He was pandering so much that his own economic advisor felt the need to assure Canada that he didn't really mean it.

He had run more businesses into the ground on the dime of his father's friends?

Well, I can't say he didn't apply that experience in his capacity as POTUS.

Well, Bush served as the executive of a major American state, winning two elections, including the first from a very popular Democratic foe. BO beat hell out of Alan Keyes and has been a junior Senator. John McCain's been in public service as a Senator since what, '82?

Give me a break, don't be so stupid. I didn't say the comment was or wasn't racist. I said, how can you allege that there's an "uppity black thing" in THIS CASE when you acknowledge, as Chip did, he didn't know when the quotation occurred. Is that hard to understand?

Well, if the quotation occurred when Obama was seven or eight years old, it might not be racist.

Just for the record: at the time of the 2000 election, Bush had served ~6 years as governor of Texas. At the time of the 2008 election, Obama will have served ~4 years in the U.S. Senate, and 8 years as an Illinois state legislator. Just sayin'.

Now, if you want to argue that Bush's 6 years as governor of Texas is more meaningful than Obama's 12 years as a legislator, go ahead, but don't just state nakedly that the contrary argument is "ludicrous."

Can't you say the same for McCain? He's been in the Senate for a much (much, much) longer period of time.

You of course chose to completely ignore his 23 years of military service. I understand this may not mean anything to you and most others here, but it means a lot to me and a lot of other people, especially when, as you know, we're at war.

(Yes, DMN, I'm aware Bush isn't on the ballot this year; I'm guessing, however, that Joey B wasn't chiding Bush for his "thin resume" [particularly in comparison to Gore's] 8 years ago.)

Well, in 2000, in an echo of Ralph Nader, I was too busy complaining that there wasn't any difference between the candidates. (But as for experience, Bush had executive experience and private sector experience; Gore had neither.)

Possibly, but Obama circa 2008 likely has significantly more foreign policy experience than Bush circa 2000, ne?

After all, he lived in Indonesia when he was six years old!

So, retro, just to be clear, since you haven't yet appealed to the McCain part of the statement, are you conceding that that makes the statement "ludicrous?"

Bush served as the executive of a major American state

The Texas governorship is a considerably less powerful position than most governorships.

Though Obama's never held an executive position, he has more experience as an elected official at both the state and federal levels than Bush did in 2000.

And I'm not the one making the argument that Obama has more "experience" than McCain, JC. (Which should've been obvious, since I neither stated anything to that effect, nor argued in support of anyone who did.)

It is ludicrous to suggest that Obama has comparable experience to McCain. Even people who can't stomach the idea of voting for McCain generally concede that his resume is, at least, far more extensive than Obama's.

But it's not ludicrous to suggest that Obama has experience comparable to what Bush had in '00. It might be wrong -- I honestly don't know enough about their individual records to say for sure without research -- but it's not ludicrous.

Well, if the quotation occurred when Obama was seven or eight years old, it might not be racist.

Or maybe if Davis was old enough to be Obama's grandfather. That was actually the first question in my mind -- how old is this guy, anyway? Turns out he's three years older than Obama is.

John McCain's been in public service as a Senator since what, '82?

Then it should be easy to suss out all the major policy decisions McCain's been the lead on, right?

Apart from military spending (which are part of the earmarks DMN alluded to), I can't think of any significant policy issue in the last, what, 10 years?, where McCain's taken some principled stand on something then ultimately reversed himself on to fall in line with GOP orthodoxy. So again I ask, what's on John McCain's Senate resume that marks him as presidential?

(But as for experience, Bush had executive experience and private sector experience; Gore had neither.)

OK--I suppose it's literally true that Gore didn't have "executive experience" insofar as he was VP rather than the POTUS for 8 years, but most of the world apart from Dick Cheney considers the VPship to be part of the Federal executive branch. I'm thinking that's slightly more relevant "executive experience" to the position of POTUS than 6 years as the Governor of Texas, but YMMV.

And I don't recall Bush's private sector experience being too heavily touted during his campaign, which in light of its level of success isn't terribly surprising.

Weird, retro, b/c I thought you agreed with Softball and extended the critique to Bush. As in, "Can't you say the same for McCain," said he, to which you replied, "Or Bush, frankly..." I don't recall you saying anything like, "Well, I don't accept that about McCain, but a good case could be made ..."

most of the world apart from Dick Cheney considers the VPship to be part of the Federal executive branch.

It's part of the executive branch, but I defer to LBJ's assessment of the value of the Vice Presidency. :)

And lest there be any doubt, if Davis did indeed refer to Obama as "boy," his word choice was inappropriate and has no place in American politics.

Davis has now reportedly apologized, according to a story posted by The Hill newspaper this afternoon, although they don't have a quote.

Of course, there's still the ugly little matter of his Lincoln Day audience laughing and applauding when he delivered the line.

You of course chose to completely ignore his 23 years of military service. I understand this may not mean anything to you and most others here, but it means a lot to me and a lot of other people, especially when, as you know, we're at war.

I don't ignore it, but the presidency isn't just about military matters. And apart from the fact that McCain hasn't been very open about just how he plans to get us to a point where we can have a peaceful military presence in Iraq into impertuity, he's also been pretty clear that he doesn't have much of an understanding of economics (It begs the question of how it is he claims to know what America's economy needs moving forward, doesn't it?) and he's spent the last four years making a lie of his maverick reputation, I ask again: What exactly has McCain done in his career as an elected official that makes him presidential?

Or maybe if Davis was old enough to be Obama's grandfather. That was actually the first question in my mind -- how old is this guy, anyway? Turns out he's three years older than Obama is.

Any chance Davis is a Jew and referred to Obama as "Goy?" Otherwise, that's a tough crack to spackle.

Weird, retro, b/c I thought you agreed with Softball and extended the critique to Bush. As in, "Can't you say the same for McCain," said he, to which you replied, "Or Bush, frankly..." I don't recall you saying anything like, "Well, I don't accept that about McCain, but a good case could be made ..."

Jesus H. Christ, JC. Fine. I hereby hire you as my editor. In addition, I hereby denounce and reject the suggestion that Barack Obama has a comparable level of experience to John McCain (unsurprising, given that McCain's 25 years older). Happy now?

And I note you've been too busy parsing my non-response to the McCain bit to support your assertion that comparing Obama's experience to Bush's is "ludicrous."

Jesus H. Christ, JC. Fine.

Exasperated b/c I took a plain-face reading of what you wrote? I don't get it.

And, to remind you, I really don't give a #### about "experience" arguments.

I don't ignore it, but the presidency isn't just about military matters.

It isn't, and being in the military isn't an absolute requirement for the office, nor should it be. And it does bother me somewhat that none of the three candidates left has any real business or economic experience in the private sector to speak of. But the President is not the Micromanager-In-Chief of the economy, nor could he be even if he wanted to be. He is however the Commander-in-Chief of the military, and let's face it, our country is going to continue to be at war for a while regardless of who gets elected.

If anything, I would think that the Bush presidency would be proof of the dangers of electing a tyro, especially during a dangerous time in world history. In my opinion, it's pretty apparent in hindsight that the Republican party nominated the wrong man for the job eight years ago.

as you know, we're at war

So Joey, considering that we are at war, do you want to respond to the points I made about McCain's misconceptions about Iraq, or do you just want to call me a Jackass again and ignore that McCain's Iraq policy is seriously screwed up?

And lest there be any doubt, if Davis did indeed refer to Obama as "boy," his word choice was inappropriate and has no place in American politics.

Davis has now reportedly apologized, according to a story posted by The Hill newspaper this afternoon, although they don't have a quote.

Of course, there's still the ugly little matter of his Lincoln Day audience laughing and applauding when he delivered the line.

I said right away that you can't pin Davis's remarks on McCain, because no candidate can control everyone. All you can ask of him is that he distance himself from Davis the first time he hears about it.

But from Davis's audience's reaction you can sure tell quite a bit about the oh-so-pious GOP base, at least those who were there and doing the laughing and applauding. I'm sure that most of them would undoubtedly describe themselves as "Christians."

But the President is not the Micromanager-In-Chief of the economy, nor could he be even if he wanted to be.

That's true, but he does have a heavy hand in managing the federal budget. He'll have to deal with health care, of course, and he's shown no indication of having a plan to attack that problem. Despite his good past work against pork, his reversals on ethanol and farm subsidies indicate that he's not going to be much better than his predecessors at using subsidies for votes.

(I'll repeat: McCain 1999 was a fearless primary candidate. McCain 2008 is a deep disappointment to me.)

If anything, I would think that the Bush presidency would be proof of the dangers of electing a tyro, especially during a dangerous time in world history. In my opinion, it's pretty apparent in hindsight that the Republican party nominated the wrong man for the job eight years ago.

Yes. Also in retrospect, your vigorous defense of the President's decision-making over the last few years doesn't hold up very well. Until McCain tells us how he's going to get us from where we are now to being able to keep a peaceful, permanent military presence in Iraq, there's nothing there for us to see except a continuation of the existing policies that quagmire us in Iraq. It's not a compelling reason to vote for him.

It's part of the executive branch, but I defer to LBJ's assessment of the value of the Vice Presidency. :)

That was John Nance Gardner. And yes, that's my response as well: yes, VP is part of the executive branch, but so's postal worker. That isn't really the sort of "Executive experience" we're talking about. The veep has no formal duties, no accountability to anybody, no buck stops with him. (Yes, except breaking ties in the Senate.)

But from Davis's audience's reaction you can sure tell quite a bit about the oh-so-pious GOP base, at least those who were there and doing the laughing and applauding. I'm sure that most of them would undoubtedly describe themselves as "Christians."

Which puts me in mind of the laughter and applause Ann Coulter received upon calling John Edwards a faggot at a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting. Oh, those merry, loving Christians.

As for McCain's vaunted experience, his inability, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, to understand the political situation in Iraq is an automatic disqualifer. If that's what he's done with his experience, he's unfit to serve.

Which puts me in mind of the laughter and applause Ann Coulter received upon calling John Edwards a faggot at a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting. Oh, those merry, loving Christians.

Yes, there was a smattering of laughter, but mostly shocked silence. And then she was denounced by virtually everyone, and wasn't invited back next (this) year.

He'll have to deal with health care, of course, and he's shown no indication of having a plan to attack that problem.

He doesn't actually "have to" at all. He could, correctly, realize that it's a private matter.

He doesn't actually "have to" at all. He could, correctly, realize that it's a private matter.

While I don't think experience is a disqualifier, it always comes to this when the left asks for "qualifications". They seek "accomplishments" not realizing that to many conservatives (of the old style, again) a guy who hasn't done anything might be just the candidate they want. As for McCain, I wouldn't mind if his signature legislation hadn't actually passed. He would then, IMO, be a better candidate. Which is why "experience" is really out of place in an election. These folks are bright and thoughtful and they've served. Any of the three could do the job. The issue is what decisions they'll make and if you will like it, not can they hold up.

Or maybe if Davis was old enough to be Obama's grandfather. That was actually the first question in my mind -- how old is this guy, anyway? Turns out he's three years older than Obama is.

If that's true, this is one of the most racist public utterances by a federal politican since (at least) 1980.

But from Davis's audience's reaction you can sure tell quite a bit about the oh-so-pious GOP base, at least those who were there and doing the laughing and applauding. I'm sure that most of them would undoubtedly describe themselves as "Christians."

Really, this sort of thinking is just childish. Both parties are made up of people, good and bad, and there are loathsome characters on either side. One could just as easily point out Rev. Wright's congregation enthusiastically applauding while he damns America and blames AIDS on government conspiracies and say that's the democratic base. Heck, Fred Phelps is a democrat and it's tough to get much lower than him. Neither party has a monopoly (or, IMO, a toehold) on virtue.

Of course, there's still the ugly little matter of his Lincoln Day audience laughing and applauding when he delivered the line.

Please don't condescend.

Davis is evidently backtracking.

We need more integrity in our attack politics. I'm sure a lot of these folks don't like one another. It'd be really refreshing if they'd just come out with how they feel instead of talking around it and then apologizing. Forget a cleaner election, let's have a truly dirty election. Just get both sides to vent.

Yes, there was a smattering of laughter, but mostly shocked silence. And then she was denounced by virtually everyone, and wasn't invited back next (this) year.

From the videos I remember seeing, she got quite a bit of laughter and applause, just not from the whole audience. A few moments later she concluded her speech, and got a big round of applause. How big you thought the applause was probably depends on where you happen to sit politically.

The real point isn't that Coulter said something nasty at CPAC last year, it's that she's been saying nasty, bigotted things for many, many years, yet CPAC had no problem inviting her to speak last year, or the year before that, or every year since 1998.

Yes, there was a smattering of laughter, but mostly shocked silence. And then she was denounced by virtually everyone, and wasn't invited back next (this) year.

This is true. Instead she gave a speech to a packed house on one of the days the conference was held, in the same ballroom CPAC used for its headline speakers, at an event produced by five of the CPAC co-sponsors (including Townhall, Young America's Foundation, and the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute). And also did a reception and book signing. She was a centerpiece of the conference in everything but official CPAC labelling.