Very interesting, Ray. I think my perspective is skewed by living in Great Neck, Long Island several months out of the year. The Persian Jewish community there is very much in exile and heavily anti-Iranian-government, as one might imagine.

I used to work there and I know what you mean.

However, being married to a woman born in China, I've noticed one thing, someone may hate their country's government, (My wife and her family being catholics absolutely despise the government in Beijing), but frequently the same people will "defend" their country nonetheless from outsiders. (my wife and her family are furious about what they see as anti-Chinese protests relating to the Olympics, I try to tell her, their just protesting the government in Beijing- you hate them too...)

Many people in Iran may favor liberalization in Iran, they may hate the current government and want to incorporate certain western aspects into their culture- it doesn't mean they want us to invade their country and remove their government by force. (as opposed to Iraq where many segments of the population- like the Kurds- really did want SOMEONE to invade and remove Sadaam by force- but Iraq isn't a "real" country and there has never been any reason for large segments of the populace to feel any sense of loyalty to "Iraq")

It is useful, though, to consider things from the point of view of another, and it therefore shouldn't be hard to understand that many Iranians reasonably consider the U.S. to be lead by a pack of Christians who believe they have a direct line to Jesus. Grasping this is one of the essentials of reasoned diplomacy with Iran. You may fear them, but to some extent, they fear us. Knowing why is useful, yes? And aside from being dead, Jerry Falwell did indeed hold a fair amount of political power--how did you miss this?

And if you had prefaced your post by stating that you were speaking from an Iranian perspective, you just might have a point. But you didn't, and you weren't, and you don't, ex post facto claims aside.

Jerry Falwell had control over our nuclear arsenal? How frightening! Almost as upsetting as when Pat Robertson banned abortion, executed gays, and forced women nationwide to dress according to his standards of modesty. Dark times, dark times.

If Iran looks like it's close to "going nuclear" and there doesn't appear to be any diplomatic or military solution coming from others, Israel will almost certainly solve the problem itself.

Now, is it in the U.S.'s interests for that to happen?

If Israel will take on the costs and the US will reap the benefits, it definitely seems to be in America's interests, yes.

Iraq isn't a "real" country and there has never been any reason for large segments of the populace to feel any sense of loyalty to "Iraq"

Oh whatever.

Most Iranians are Persian;

That may be literally true, but misleading. There are a lot of ethnic minorities in Iran; the largest group are the Azeri. Wiki, citing the World Factbook, has Persians as 51% of Iran's population. (That may be "most," but if so, only barely.)

(3) It weakens Israel's capability to act as the US's proxy, invading/bombing other Middle Eastern countries, because Iran will threaten reaction if it does. Frankly I see this as a feature rather than a bug though (YMMV), unless...
(4) Israel is going to keep invading/bombing Middle Eastern countries periodically, whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not. This will therefore push the region to the brink of nuclear war.

I doubt Israel has ever acted as the US's proxy in performing those acts (besides we haven't been exactly shy about directly invading/bombing countries in recent years have we?), Israel acts out of its own perceived self interest- usually in response to some provocation that no other country would tolerate either. (does Israel bring some of that provocation upon itself? well yes it does)

So yes, even if Iran has the bomb, Israel is still going to bomb Lebanon when Hezbo Rockets come sailing into Israel, or a bunch of Hezbos kidnap a borderguard or two - and unless Iran wants to repeatedly play a game of nuclear brinkmanship every time such an incident occurs, it will probably be in Iran's interest to reign Hezbollah in- so ironically, Iran having nukes may be good for Israel.

If Iran looks like it's close to "going nuclear" and there doesn't appear to be any diplomatic or military solution coming from others, Israel will almost certainly solve the problem itself.

Now, is it in the U.S.'s interests for that to happen?

If Israel will take on the costs and the US will reap the benefits, it definitely seems to be in America's interests, yes.

Well, yes, if that were the scenario, then yes. But Israel wouldn't be taking on the costs, other than the cost of some jet fuel and some missiles; do you think there might be some repercussions that would cost the U.S.?

Iraq isn't a "real" country and there has never been any reason for large segments of the populace to feel any sense of loyalty to "Iraq"

Oh whatever.

Iraq is various bits and pieces stuck together by the Europeans, it's divided by religion and ethnicity, it has no history. A cobbled together country can become a "real" country, but Iraq has never taken any steps in that direction. If the PA were to declare statehood tomorrow, it would be a more real country than Iraq ever was. You would have a people with a shared history (1946 to the present), the vast majority who see themselves as Palestinians.

When the Ottoman empire was carved up no one asked the various people of what would become Iraq what they wanted- instead what you got was a "country" where a minority segment was allowed to lord it over the rest for 70 years. The Kurds have never believed in Iraq, the Shiite populace believes in it "now" because they see it as their turn. The populace from which the former ruling class came from probably see themselves as Iraqis, but now they believe their country has been stolen from them (by the Shiites whom they did not see as true Iraqis)- their are other sub-groups like the so-called "marsh arabs" who have never had any loyalty towards the Iraqi state (and no reason to ever have any such loyalty).

So no Iraq is not a real country, perhaps it could have been one once upon a time, other middle eastern countries with similar backgrounds have progressed towards a cohesive nationhood, but not Iraq, that's water under the bridge now.

Very interesting, Ray. I think my perspective is skewed by living in Great Neck, Long Island several months out of the year. The Persian Jewish community there is very much in exile and heavily anti-Iranian-government, as one might imagine. I am not sure at all what things are like on a daily basis for Jews who stayed in Iran, whatever the obvious policies of the government are.

Bob, it just so happens that my friend and his wife live in Roslyn, which is right next to Great Neck, I think.

So, are all muslims too crazy to be allowed WMDs? Or only ones living in theocratic states?

Everyone is too human, not crazy, to have a nuclear option. Only one country has ever used them on an enemy, and that's the United States, so I'm not saying we're any better.

We're not uncreating them, so from a selfish perspective, the U.S. should be using its power to prevent those with ideological differences from having the capacity to "equal the playing field" by gaining this technology. I'm not particularly concerned with fairness so much as maintaining the power advantage, which benefits Americans directly.

There is, of course, political fallout for exercising that power to basically keep other nations in a disadvantaged state. For this reason, you'd consider very strongly whether you can picture a disagreement with the potential new nuclear power leading to war. I don't see the U.S. going to war with France or Germany without a tremendous change in philosophy, but I can imagine non-farfetched scenarios where Iran and America are in conflict that ultimately leads to combat.

It's because the country is run by undeterrable nuts who have publicly pronounced a desire to use their nukes offensively

I think people need to understand that Ahmedinajad does not control Iran's military, Khamenei does, and Khamenei specifically said after Ahmedinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" comment that Iran was not threatening any other country. Now, i'm not saying Khamenei is completely trustworthy or is really a moderate, but he's been Iran's leader for almost 20 years, so it's not like Iran is suddenly run by a new breed of fanatics.

Also, as I noted before, Iran's implementation of a nuclear program and their rise in power over the last few years coincides with the Bush administration's increasing hostility towards them. Iran wasn't a huge worry before 2001, but since we've stepped up our rhetoric they have become far more powerful and influential. Iran cooperated with us in the early going in Afghanistan until Bush labeled them a member of the "axis of evil", and there are reports that after the invasion of Iraq they attempted to open talks with us but were rebuffed(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html). I think it's more likely that Iran is trying to attain nukes because they're afraid of a US attack than it is that they're going after nukes for offensive purposes.

Many people in Iran may favor liberalization in Iran, they may hate the current government and want to incorporate certain western aspects into their culture- it doesn't mean they want us to invade their country and remove their government by force

Exactly, JPWF13. My sense is that if we tried a March-'03 style invasion of Iran, we would see resistance on a scale that would make Iraq look like Grenada.

Wiki, citing the World Factbook, has Persians as 51% of Iran's population

I see the data there, DMN, but it also seems that some groups (Gilaki and Mazandarani) that speak Iranic languages are separated out there. They tend to speak Farsi as well as their own languages, and (like the Azeri minority) they are all Shi'ite. I am no expert, but I do get the sense from Iranians that I know that it's a much more homogeneous place ethnically and culturally than Iraq or Lebanon or Afghanistan.

Iraq (as you certainly know, I'm just talking generally here) is an arbitrary slice out of the Arab world. Iran seems to me much more a nation in the traditional sense, as JPFW13 points out. The notion that there is an "Iraqi people" is to some extent a wishful projection. The notion of an "Iranian people" is quite accurate.

Roslyn, which is right next to Great Neck

Not far at all, yes.

Iran cooperated with us in the early going in Afghanistan until Bush labeled them a member of the "axis of evil", and there are reports that after the invasion of Iraq they attempted to open talks with us but were rebuffed

It is true that we had common enemies with Iran, neither of us like the Taliban, they hated (and still hate) Sadaam more than We ever could (for obvious reasons).
The regime in Iran is composed of scum, but there was a window of opportunity in 2001/2002 to reach some kind of less hostile arrangement with them- I think that opportunity is gone.

JPWF13 - you don't know what you're talking about. All countries are creations in some sense, of course. Iraq is not "various bits and pieces" it is the Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra (minus Kuwait), which was already known as Iraq and already had a shared history and polity pre-Mandate. There is a real Iraqi nationalism and if you do any poll right now in Iraq the overwhelming majority of every ethnic group (with the exception of the Kurds) are strongly, strongly against any partition of the country. The Sunni have never regarded the Shi'a as not being "true Iraqis" and in fact Sunni and Shi'a alike use the word ajami as an insult. Kurdish separatist feeling dates from 1958 and the declaration of Iraq as an Arab state. You're right that Iraq's a patchwork of religions and ethnicities but so is every country in the world - and what's more the people have always intermarried, and continue to do so.

Saying that Iraq is not a "real country" is both (1) false and (2) incredibly insulting. So once again, whatever.

Only one country has ever used them on an enemy, and that's the United States

Who had 58 posts in the pool? You are our lucky winner!

Also, as I noted before, Iran's implementation of a nuclear program and their rise in power over the last few years coincides with the Bush administration's increasing hostility towards them. Iran wasn't a huge worry before 2001, but since we've stepped up our rhetoric they have become far more powerful and influential.

I think this is a huge point. America reminds me of that crazy old aunt everyone has who makes the most outrageous, offensive comments and can't understand why people think she's mean.

if you do any poll right now in Iraq the overwhelming majority of every ethnic group (with the exception of the Kurds) are strongly, strongly against any partition of the country

A full partition, sure, but ISCI's support of a southern "super-province" is kind of a soft partition.

There is a real Iraqi nationalism and if you do any poll right now in Iraq the overwhelming majority of every ethnic group (with the exception of the Kurds) are strongly, strongly against any partition of the country.

########

I was thinking of simply saying are you sure about that, but no, complete ########.
A majority of just about every major ethnic group will support partition as an alternative to just about every other plan that comes along at this point.

People there oppose partition the way the various groups in the old Yugoslavia said they opposed partition right up to the day they entered into outright rebellion- in the end only the Serbs opposed partition - in Iraq in the end the only group opposed to partition is going to whichever group sees itself having the upperhand in the new Iraq.

A full partition, sure, but ISCI's support of a southern "super-province" is kind of a soft partition.

Come to that, Iraqi Kurdistan is fairly independent minded, from everything I've heard.

Come to that, Iraqi Kurdistan is fairly independent minded, from everything I've heard.

hell even Alougoodbye agrees with that...

Andy: Yes, I really do mean Doyle Nave. But he didn't live into his 90's; he died in 1990. See here: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/individual/331769 . He turned down offers to play in the NFL and had a long career on the technical side of the movie industry.

Wow, that is so cool. But I hope that he wore a disguise if he ever set foot in Durham....

I was thinking of simply saying are you sure about that, but no, complete ########.
A majority of just about every major ethnic group will support partition as an alternative to just about every other plan that comes along at this point.

Well why don't we ask? Oh wait, there are loads of opinion polls taken in Iraq. Let's go to the biggest and most authorative*, which has regularly asked:

Which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future?

Answers for March 2008 (most recent):

One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad: 66%
A group of regional states with their own regional governments and a federal government in Baghdad: 23%
A country divided into separate independent states: 9%
Don't know/refused to answer: 1%

I couldn't find the breakdown by denomination for the March 2008 survey, but I have it for the September 20007 survey**. I won't repeat the exact categories just give shorthand:

Sunni Arab: Centralist Iraq: 97% Federal Iraq: 3% Divided Iraq: 0%
Shi'a Arab: Centralist Iraq: 56% Federal Iraq: 42% Divided Iraq: 2%

So the 9% of Iraqis who want partition are virtually all Kurds***, and the Sunni and Shi'a are united in wanting a unified Iraq, although almost half the Shi'a (i.e. the ones who live in the South) want lots of federalism. Note by the way that the majority even of Shi'a disapprove of a federal Iraq (which is the current setup). This is why Moqtada Al-Sadr has so many followers.

Of course none of this is any surprise to people who knows what they're talking about.

*the BBC/ARD/ABC/NHK poll, most recent can be found here.
**Link here.
***Or more precisely, non-Arabs, almost all of whom live in "Kurdistan." The ones worthy of mention are the Assyrians and the Turkoman.

SBB #3772: "There's a very good chance Israel will bomb Iran's nuke facilities, which would be an eminently justifiable course of action."

Just because a military action is justifiable, does not make it wise.

Israel's responsive war in Lebanon -- which followed Hezbollah attacking Israel and capturing two of its soldiers, both of whom were likely sent to Iran to be tortured and murdered -- was justifiable. After all, they were unprovokedly attacked by Hezbollah, and Lebanon’s military sat back and allowed Hezbollah to molest Israel. However, the decision to enter that war was unwise. (I wrote that in my newspaper column before Israel responded. After the war, I think most Israelis would have agreed with my column.)

In a rough sense, a country has to do a cost-benefit analysis (short and long term) to see if, even though justified, the course of action is wise. When going to war, I think either the likely benefits must be far greater than the costs, or the costs of not going must be far great than the costs of actually going to war.

I believe this framework is useful in looking at the Iraq War, circa 2003. Even though the public case for going to war with Saddam was largely based on this mistaken belief that Iraq had WMDs -- I discount this idea that Bush/Cheney/Powell were intentionally lying, though I don't discount the idea that they were marshalling the "facts" to fit their conception of the truth -- I think the case can be made that the Iraq War was justifiable on moral grounds: the idea being that Saddam was a ruthless tyrant who had murdered large numbers of his own people (even using chemical weapons against the Kurds); that he was widely hated and feared by most Iraqis, but they were powerless to turn him out of office; that he had invaded for no good reason Iraq and Kuwait; and that he was a perpetual threat to the rest of his neighbors, particularly Israel, where he was rewarding terrorists' suicide bombings ex post facto. All of that justifies an invasion, if you don't consider a) other possible courses of action and b) the costs of that action in the short and long run, especially when things don't go as wel as you had hoped.

Israel, in my opinion, would harm itself a lot more than it would harm Iran, if Israel tried to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. I don't think there is a good answer for Israel in this mess. However, Israelis should at least take some solace in the fact that Iran (under the Ayatollahs) has never invaded any of its neighbors and has never launched any direct wars. It is true that Iran has funded, trained and armed a lot of the bad actors in the region, and that has harmed the interests of the U.S. and Israel (and others). However, that is a long step from Iran being a bellicose power along the lines of Saddam. Iran's using proxy actors to further its perceived interests is frankly the same game that every power in the region, including Israel (which armed, trained and funded the Christians and Druze in Lebanon), has played.

Rich,

I knew Chris Paul was awesome, but he has been even better than I thought and has gotten help I didn't foresee, making my Hornets-related predictions for crap so far.

I am not counting the Spurs out yet, though--they are as tough to kill as Nixon or a Clinton.

Back to foreign policy. Pardon The Interruption.

ALOU: (5) Iran will use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the Gulf States.
(6) Iran having nuclear weapons will result in a domino-chain where more states feel obliged to obtain nuclear weapons.

The thing is that Iran already has 2 neighbours with nuclear weapons (Pakistan, US army in Iraq), and a hostile regional power with nuclear weapons (Israel). It's really quite legitimate for Iran to want nuclear weapons.

I think these points are right on, particularly the point about Pakistan. Even though most of us consider Pakistan as simply squaring off with India, as nuclear powers, the Iranians don't see it that way. The Pakis have actually funded a terrorist group in Iran. Pakistan is (unofficially) very prejudiced against Shia Islam. Pakistan is actually a more natural enemy (and threat) to Iran than Israel is. (In fact, Iran has no good reason to hate Israel, other than its psychotic religious hatred of Jews ruling over Jerusalem. Israel is small and somewhat distant, unlike big and close Pakistan.)

Second, as ALOU points out, the Iranian bomb will probably cause Saudi Arabia (likely in partnership with the Sunni emirates) to respond in kind, building its own.

"that he had invaded for no good reason Iraq and Kuwait"

My mistake. Should read, "that he had invaded for no good reason Iran and Kuwait"

"I knew Chris Paul was awesome, but he has been even better than I thought and has gotten help I didn't foresee, making my Hornets-related predictions for crap so far."

I agree on CP3. I saw him play maybe 5 games (on TV) when he was at Wake Forest and I didn't realize how good he would become. The Hawks could have drafted him, but went for Marvin Williams, instead. Oops.

I also think David West is a much better player than I thought he ever would be. I just looked up the 2003 draft, and note that West (picked 18th) was drafted after these players: Darko Milič*, Michael Sweetney, Jarvis Hayes, Mickaël Piétrus, Nick Collison*, Marcus Banks, Luke Ridnour*, Reece Gaines, Troy Bell, and Žarko Čabarkapa*.

* Never trust whitey.

I knew Chris Paul was awesome, but he has been even better than I thought and has gotten help I didn't foresee, making my Hornets-related predictions for crap so far.

Paul is a brutal matchup for the Spurs. They really don't have anyone with the speed/quickness combo to even slow him down a little.

(In fact, Iran has no good reason to hate Israel, other than its psychotic religious hatred of Jews ruling over Jerusalem. Israel is small and somewhat distant, unlike big and close Pakistan.)

Henry the K used to make the point that Iran's antipathy towards the US was geopolitically unnatural for them and eventually they would come around and do what made sense.

It may still turn out that way but I'm doubtful. Regardless, the neocons sure ain't helpin' any.

I was a big CP3 fan - thought my Hawks should have tabbed him over Marvin, but never thought he'd be this good either.

On a (semi-)related note (and not to pick on AlouGoodbye):

but I have it for the September 20007 survey**

if this was the old Primer, Kyrylo Fesenko would be posting this.

So you think the reason that no black politician has ever come anywhere close to securing a major party nomination is that none of them have ever had the political skill of John Edwards?

This is so stupid.

Firstly, it's not a question of "ever." 100, 50, maybe even 30 years ago, there really were insuperable obstacles for a black man (or woman) to be elected President. Secondly, most black politicians are on the far left of the political spectrum (at least as concerns modern American politics). So they aren't going to get elected based on their policy choices, regardless of their skill or race. And finally, blacks are actually quite a small proportion of the population - somewhere around 12%. So it would be very surprising if there were lots of black Presidential nominees.

EDIT: Oh, and of course, most blacks are Democrats. So realistically it's only one major party nomination that's open.

You said that if Obama were wight, he'd be John Edwards. First, no one who has listened to both of them speak would say such a thing. Second, Obama's a vastly superior fundraiser, and I doubt that has much to do with race. Third, Edwards is a mediocre politician, at best. He's won, what, one state in two primary campaigns and had to self-finance his Senate run.

The reason most black politicians are very liberal is because they come from very Democratic areas; nearly all politicians that come from very Democratic areas--whether white or black--are very liberal. The reason blacks aren't elected from other areas without large black populations is because it's been very hard for black politicians to win non-black votes. Obama has managed to do that, and it should be attributed to his vast political skill.

"You said that if Obama were wight, he'd be John Edwards."

Every summer we can rent a cottage in the Isle of Wight
If it's not too dear
We shall scrimp and save
Grandchildren on your knee
Vera, Chuck & Dave

Send me a postcard, drop me a line
Stating point of view
Indicate precisely what you mean to say
Yours sincerely, wasting away
Give me your answer, fill in a form
Mine for evermore
Will you still need me, will you still feed me
When I'm sixty-four?
Ho!

I assume that typo in 3829 was intentional.

Will you still need me, will you still feed me
When I'm sixty-four?

Hillary Clinton's 2012 campaign theme song if Obama loses to McCain.

The reason most black politicians are very liberal is because they come from very Democratic areas; nearly all politicians that come from very Democratic areas--whether white or black--are very liberal. The reason blacks aren't elected from other areas without large black populations is because it's been very hard for black politicians to win non-black votes. Obama has managed to do that, and it should be attributed to his vast political skill.

Or to luck. Obama never had to stake out far left positions (or much of any positions, really) because he never had a contested election. So he could run for president as an ordinary politician rather than a black politician.

In making the electability argument, Hillary's latest:

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again..."

ark/#3833--

Yes, that is already getting a lot of play.

"Obama never had to stake out far left positions (or much of any positions, really) because he never had a contested election. So he could run for president as an ordinary politician rather than a black politician."

Obama did run in a contested primary when he first ran for Congress. He lost that race to Bobby Rush, the incumbent Congressman of the 1st District of Illinois. I would imagine that in that primary, Obama had to stake out some far left positions.* If so, I wonder if there is much of a record of that race. It would be interesting to see if the Obama of 2008 seems distant from the Obama of 2000.

This is some of what Wikipedia says about IL-1:

Illinois' 1st District was the nation's first district with a black majority population, and has included the central area of Chicago's South Side African American community since the 1920s. Over 85% of the district's residents were black during the period from the 1950s through the 1980s, but redistricting since that time – which redrew the district lines with the goal of maintaining three Chicago districts with black populations exceeding 60% – has reduced the percentage of black residents in the 1st District to 70% in the 1990s and the current figure of 65%. Outward migration has caused the South Side's population to decrease over the years, and the district has expanded to the southwest to gain residents, particularly as the state's Congressional delegation has been reduced in numbers; the district, which covered only nine square miles in the 1950s, is now over ten times that size, and nearly half its current area was added for the 2000s.... The area also includes a notable Black Muslim presence; the home of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is in Kenwood.

* Just what is a "far-left position" is, I suppose, open to some interpretation. However, given that Obama is rated by various organizations as the most liberal member of the US Senate, that alone would suggest he holds some far-left positions. Likewise, whoever is rated by those organizations as the most conservative member of the Senate would, I would think by definition, hold far-right positions.

Bill Moyers is on Charlie Rose right now. I'm talking west coast.

The man is wise.

"Conservatism is intellectually and morally bankrupt right now."

"They want to tame the beast of big government but they keep feeding it with subsidies and so forth."

"Liberalism is a belief that we can do some things with government that we can not do individually."


Moyers on Charlie Rose

* Just what is a "far-left position" is, I suppose, open to some interpretation. However, given that Obama is rated by various organizations as the most liberal member of the US Senate, that alone would suggest he holds some far-left positions. Likewise, whoever is rated by those organizations as the most conservative member of the Senate would, I would think by definition, hold far-right positions.

The only "most liberal senator" source that anyone ever cites about Obama is from the National Journal rankings of selected '07 Senate votes, a ranking which has serious problems. For one thing, the Journal has a track record of magically turning the senators who are Democratic presidential candidates into "most liberal." In the last election cycle, for example, they claimed Kerry was "most liberal" despite the fact that they later admitted that their method was flawed and he probably shouldn't have been ranked at all.

Of course both then and now, Obama and Kerry somehow get ranked to the the left of people like Kennedy and Feingold, let alone Bernie Sanders, the only actual Socialist in the Senate.

McCain, BTW, wasn't even ranked on the conservative side in the National Journal's most recent survey because he didn't register enough votes to qualify (the reason why Kerry shouldn't have been ranked on the other side in '03).

Media Matters has some background on this. They also have a separate piece that links to an ideological ranking developed for political science research called the Poole-Rosenthal System, which appears to be more reliable than the Journal's approach, which involves its editors cherrypicking votes to include. Poole-Rosenthal tries to be much more comprehensive; according to that one Obama is tied with Joe Biden as 10th "most liberal."

However, given that Obama is rated by various organizations as the most liberal member of the US Senate

That was just for '07. When you are running for president, you miss a lot of votes, and you only return to the chamber for votes that will energize your base. In '05 and '06, Obama was rated the 10th and 16th most liberal Senator, which is a much better estimate of his ideology, as he was a full-time senator in those years.

Seizing on just the '07 number and not looking at its context or his previous record is basically the political equivalent of calling Dante Bichette one of the best hitters in baseball in 1993.

In making the electability argument, Hillary's latest:

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again..."

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't just seen and heard it myself, straight from the horse's mouth.

The only charitable excuse I can think of for this remarkably concise 42-second summary of the last two months of her pathetic "campaign" is that she's been on some kind of medication.

The good news is that if Tuesday didn't drive a stake into this woman's heart, this YouTube clip will. This isn't her pastor on that screen. This is Hillary herself, naked in her ambition for the entire world to see. George Wallace himself couldn't have been any more explicit about his appeal.

Seizing on just the '07 number and not looking at its context or his previous record is basically the political equivalent of calling Dante Bichette one of the best hitters in baseball in 1993.

So his liberal voting record in 2007 was a complete fluke that was caused almost completely by external factors?

So his liberal voting record in 2007 was a complete fluke that was caused almost completely by external factors?

Exactly right. If he had not been running for president, he would have attended a far greater percentage of the votes in the Senate, and we can expect that he would have achieved a ranking between 10th and 15th, just as he did in the previous two years.

Clinton went from 32nd to 16th in the rankings for the same reason, just as Kerry jumped in 2003. Running for president is the Coors Field of ideological rankings.

Did she imply that white = hard working?

As before I will link to electoral-vote.com: here their synopsis of conservative groups' ranking of Senators, which has Obama in the middle of the Democratic caucus in '06, probably statistically indistinguishable from a dozen or a score of other Senators, and a shade to the right of Clinton and his own Illinois colleague Dick Durbin. There's also a link off that page to various liberal groups' rankings for 2007, which have Obama somewhere in the middle of the Democrats, just left of Joe Lieberman and just right of the dreaded Robert Byrd. No color ironies intended by this statement, but when you see a lot of data points like this, you really do perceive Obama as a pretty vanilla Democrat. Of course, the vanilla slice of the Democratic Senate contingent is pretty far left by the standards of a lot of media and a lot of voters. But Obama cannot objectively be seen as way out on a leftward limb, even in '07.

Edit: Did she imply that white = hard working?

I think so. I wonder if this will become Hardworkinggate :)

I think so. I wonder if this will become Hardworkinggate :)

At least she didn't make the mistake of implying that white professors are hard-working.

Thread of ages
Still rollin' keep a-rollin'

3rd all time with 3845
Next up is Ty Cobb with 4189

It's slowing down though. I expect that by the time it gets to 4000 it'll just be a few posts every couple of days and mostly be about the NBA.

Seriously, on the topic at hand, I think most Democrats (at least I do) recognize that Hillary and Obama, position-wise, are just about the same.

What's so different about them is how they plan on getting the job done when president; it seems like Obama's willing to work with, get opinions from, and take criticism from other Democrats and even (gasp!) Republicans, and instead of pandering to people to get their votes and demonizing people with which he disagrees, he'll work together and discuss the problems with the country.

Clinton, on the other hand, you can practically figure out which states are having primaries when by looking at who she's currently pandering to.

It's slowing down though. I expect that by the time it gets to 4000 it'll just be a few posts every couple of days and mostly be about the NBA.

It's the Pete Rose thread!

Is there a worse governed country in the world than Myanmar?

edit:

I'd forgotten about Zimbabwe, but right now it looks to be a dead heat.

3850. Misirlou is the new market inefficiency Posted: May 09, 2008 at 09:30 AM (#2774461)

Is there a worse governed country in the world than Myanmar?

I thought this was where they trained the Top Gun classes.

At least she didn't make the mistake of implying that white professors are hard-working

:-D Hey, I got into the office early this morning and got straight to, um, this thread ...

Did she imply that white = hard working?

Speaking as a lazy, white, Obama-supporter, I didn't necessarily think she was drawing a perfect equivalence. :-)

Seriously, on the topic at hand, I think most Democrats (at least I do) recognize that Hillary and Obama, position-wise, are just about the same.

What's so different about them is how they plan on getting the job done when president; it seems like Obama's willing to work with, get opinions from, and take criticism from other Democrats and even (gasp!) Republicans, and instead of pandering to people to get their votes and demonizing people with which he disagrees, he'll work together and discuss the problems with the country.

Clinton, on the other hand, you can practically figure out which states are having primaries when by looking at who she's currently pandering to.

Because Obama didn't demonize NAFTA during the Ohio primary? So embarrassingly so that his own economic advisor had to tell Canadian officials that he didn't really mean it, and then Obama was forced to disavow his own economic advisor's statements?

The good news is that if Tuesday didn't drive a stake into this woman's heart, this YouTube clip will.

Looking at today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll report, it definitely looks like the inevitability of Obama being the Democratic nominee is sinking in to America in general. (emphasis mine)

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama attracting 47% of the vote while John McCain earns 44%. This is the fourth straight day that Obama has had at least a one-point advantage over McCain. While it is not a statistically significant lead, it is the first time Obama has led McCain on consecutive days in two months. The last time Obama outpolled McCain for four straight days was in mid-February (see recent daily results). One key to this changing dynamic is that Obama now leads McCain among unaffiliated voters by nine percentage points.

...

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama holds a 50% to 42% advantage over Clinton nationally. That’s the first time Obama has reached the 50% level of support since April 15 (see recent Democratic Nomination results). Tracking poll results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Two nights of interviews for today’s update were completed after the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries. For those two nights on a stand-alone basis, Obama leads Clinton by eleven percentage points."

My mistake. Should read, "that he had invaded for no good reason Iran and Kuwait"

Oil is not a good reason?

I would be strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment banning pre-election polls.

Two nights of interviews for today’s update were completed after the Indiana and North Carolina Primaries. For those two nights on a stand-alone basis, Obama leads Clinton by eleven percentage points."

Forget West Virginia---This is where Hillary should be heading. Apparently there are plenty of cheap noctural flights available. I hear that the Leisure World there has spectacular views, and plenty of good red blood wine. She'll feel right at home.

Seriously, on the topic at hand, I think most Democrats (at least I do) recognize that Hillary and Obama, position-wise, are just about the same.

What's so different about them is how they plan on getting the job done when president; it seems like Obama's willing to work with, get opinions from, and take criticism from other Democrats and even (gasp!) Republicans, and instead of pandering to people to get their votes and demonizing people with which he disagrees, he'll work together and discuss the problems with the country.

Clinton, on the other hand, you can practically figure out which states are having primaries when by looking at who she's currently pandering to.

Most Democrats realize they're very much the same on nearly every issue, but many Democrats (like you, apparently) have adopted the media narratives and campaign rhetoric about the candidates as fact.

Every presidential candidate panders--except some of the fringe ones, which is (one of the reasons) why they remain on the fringe.

Both Democrats claim they'll be better at working across the aisle. Clinton claims she has vast experience in this area through her career in the Senate and with SCHIP. That's the insider's rhetoric.

Obama claims he'll bring a new type of politics to Washington, that he'll unite the country. That's the outsider's rhetoric. The last time we heard Obama's rhetoric in this regard, it was accompanied by slogans like "compassionate conservative"

Looking at today's Rasmussen daily tracking poll report, it definitely looks like the inevitability of Obama being the Democratic nominee is sinking in to America in general. (emphasis mine)

You'd think so, but Obama's at the same spot he was in 3 weeks ago before Clinton stormed back and took the lead.

before Clinton stormed back and took the lead.

and when did that happen?
Obama has held a delegate lead from day one, and has never lost it

and when did that happen?

Danny's referring to the Rasmussen poll and he's exactly right. Obama was running an 11-point lead on April 8th (which appears to be his biggest lead ever in this poll); Clinton then had as much as a 3-point lead as recently as Saturday.

And yes, I'm obsessed with tracking daily shifts in election polls. It's a sickness.

Oil is not a good reason?

Oil is a better reason if you come out and say it.
On the other hand, buying oil from the guy who owns it is typically* cheaper than fighting for it.


*I suppose if one guy owns ALL the oil, it could be a problem.

We really need to get off the oil teat. Scientists! Get on the oil-free energy policy, immediately! From now on, we shall travel in tubes!

You'd think so, but Obama's at the same spot he was in 3 weeks ago before Clinton stormed back and took the lead.

I think this makes a key distinction, though.

-Hillary Clinton has made up a ton of ground on Barack Obama in the national polling of Democratic primary voters.
-Barack Obama has lost negligible ground to John McCain in the national polling of general election voters.

What we're seeing is Democratic partisans shifting their allegiance within the party, not switching out of it or driving independents away.

Speaking as a lazy, white, Obama-supporter, I didn't necessarily think she was drawing a perfect equivalence. :-)

I put in about 60 hours a week. Not sure who I'm for anymore.

We really need to get off the oil teat. Scientists! Get on the oil-free energy policy, immediately! From now on, we shall travel in tubes!

Transporters and replicators.

On the other hand, buying oil from the guy who owns it is typically* cheaper than fighting for it.

Yes but Sadaam's goal was to take the oil in Kuwait and sell it.
Buying the oil from Kuwait and then reselling it would not be as lucrative.

WRT to Iran, Sadaam wanted to take advantage of the fact that Iran had been greatly weakened militarily post revolution (purge of officer corps, cut off of US Military aid etc) to seize both oil fields and control of a waterway useful in shipping said oil. He also believed that a certain province bordering Iraq, being non-Persian, would welcome him and he'd be able to annex same, increasing his country's size and economy at Iran's expense.

He also saw the Shia revolutionary philosophy espoused by the new Iranian regime as a threat to him and his party personally, being a devouted Stalinist whose primary goal was the acquisition and retention of power, having a "revolutionary" regime next door was an intolerable threat. IF everything went right regime removal was one of his goals.

Sadaam's twin invasions of both Iran and Iraq would have been seen as perfectly rational at most other times in history- especially his invasion of Kuwait. [WRT Iran- invading a neighbor with a larger populace and just as many- if not more men under arms is generally always an iffy proposition]

Yes but Sadaam's goal was to take the oil in Kuwait and sell it.
Buying the oil from Kuwait and then reselling it would not be as lucrative.

Oh, I thought you meant OUR oil wars.

Obama claims he'll bring a new type of politics to Washington, that he'll unite the country. That's the outsider's rhetoric.

I'm willing to dismiss the ability of a president to overhaul systemic flaws in Washington due to the fact that a major shift in political operations would require more of a critical mass that actually disincentivizes special interest lobbying, amongst other things. I'm not certain that any group of people could accomplish this goal in the modern American political system, but Obama seems to do a better job galvanizing support for addressing unpopular realities than most others, which is the main functional difference that I perceive between the two.

Scientists! Get on the oil-free energy policy, immediately! From now on, we shall travel in tubes!

But what will we do about the potato famine in Idaho?

"Conservatism is intellectually and morally bankrupt right now."

Tell me about it. All you have to do is look at the demented rancor of a couple of the wingnuts on this site, who think their big government, me-firstism is somehow related to authentic conservatism in any way whatever, to get a sense of just how crippled and deranged the movement has become.

McCain pushed land swap that benefits backer

Given the scrutiny Obama has been under and McCain's free ride thus far, that Obama is still even with him in the polls is an excellent sign. The coffin of McCain's maverick rep will bear many, many nails.

I'm willing to dismiss the ability of a president to overhaul systemic flaws in Washington due to the fact that a major shift in political operations would require more of a critical mass that actually disincentivizes special interest lobbying, amongst other things. I'm not certain that any group of people could accomplish this goal in the modern American political system, but Obama seems to do a better job galvanizing support for addressing unpopular realities than most others, which is the main functional difference that I perceive between the two.

He's also simply refused to accept contributions from lobbyists. The fact that Obama would come into office without quite as many favors owed to a number of corporate interests is one of the two things that swayed my vote to him.

Why is "uneducated voters" considered a demographic voting block in the same sense as "elderly voters" or "low-income voters?" It seems like there are at least two important differences: 1) You can make a normative statement about the status of uneducated voters that you can't make about other groups: that they are, as a whole, in a worse position to choose a candidate. 2) I see no unifying political issue that would make uneducated voters a coherent group.

I have seen this phrase used repeatedly, including in Paul Krugman's editorial today, and it is usually meant to disparage Obama (ie- "Obama does not appeal to uneducated voters"). I asked a co-worker today if she knew anyone who preferred being uneducated for any reason, and she gave the example of people working in a burgeoning industrial city where paying for college seems wasteful compared to getting a steady job out of college. Interestingly, the reasons these jobs are probably unsustainable (the failing of oil dependency and various FTAs) are similar to the the "tough realities" Obama says he wants to address. I guess this all means that uneducated voters unifying characteristic is the unwillingness to defer gratification for a larger reward, even if the short-term gratification is unsustainable. Is that really why I paid $150,000 for college?

He's also simply refused to accept contributions from lobbyists. The fact that Obama would come into office without quite as many favors owed to a number of corporate interests is one of the two things that swayed my vote to him.

I think this is incredibly overstated.

First, Obama took money from lobbyists throughout his career until his presidential run. In fact, there's some evidence that his lobbyist fundraising has affected his Senate voting. His Hopefund PAC had a bunch of money from lobbyists.

Second, he only refuses money from federal lobbyists. He takes money from state lobbyists and the immediate families of federal lobbyists, and he employs state lobbyists in his campaign.

Third, people tend to think lobbyist money comes in far greater quantities than it actually does. Clinton's intake from registered federal lobbyists (which is who Obama refuses to take from) is less than 1% of the money she's raised.

I have seen this phrase used repeatedly, including in Paul Krugman's editorial today, and it is usually meant to disparage Obama

Huh, I usually see it as a way to bash Clinton for only appealing to "low-information voters" because they're easy to scare.

It's interesting to look at the the income/education demographics between Clinton and Obama voters. It pretty much mirrors the 2000 and 2004 general elections, with Clinton playing Kerry/Gore and Obama as Bush. The less educated and lower income voters go for Clinton, just like they do for Democrats in the general.

It's interesting to look at the the income/education demographics between Clinton and Obama voters. It pretty much mirrors the 2000 and 2004 general elections, with Clinton playing Kerry/Gore and Obama as Bush. The less educated and lower income voters go for Clinton, just like they do for Democrats in the general.

As I remember the data from 2004, income is a very good predictor of voting preference, as is the possession of a postgraduate degree. Other than the post-grad thing, though, education didn't make much difference in that election. (2004 data)

I see, though, in 2000, HS grads and especially non-HS grads went to Gore in larger numbers than they did for Kerry. Income remains the big predictor of party preference in the general, though. (2000 data)

Third, people tend to think lobbyist money comes in far greater quantities than it actually does. Clinton's intake from registered federal lobbyists (which is who Obama refuses to take from) is less than 1% of the money she's raised.

Well, that's because Obama's rhetoric is designed to make people think "lobbyists" are a special category, when all it means is "individuals who work for lobbying firms." They can't contribute any more than any other individuals.

I have seen this phrase used repeatedly, including in Paul Krugman's editorial today, and it is usually meant to disparage Obama

Huh, I usually see it as a way to bash Clinton for only appealing to "low-information voters" because they're easy to scare.

Maybe in some cases, but not with Krugman, who's been in Hillary's corner from the beginning, though for substantive reasons like health care rather than bogus ones like choice of minister.

I see, though, in 2000, HS grads and especially non-HS grads went to Gore in larger numbers than they did for Kerry. Income remains the big predictor of party preference in the general, though. (2000 data)

Looking at that data, the most telling number was that among the 24% of the voters who judged "honesty" as the most important trait in choosing a president, Bush won by 80 to 15!

Maybe in some cases, but not with Krugman, who's been in Hillary's corner from the beginning, though for substantive reasons like health care rather than bogus ones like choice of minister.

Setting aside your bogus distinction between what's "substantive" and "bogus," Krugman's position is a lot less substantive and a lot more about personality. While he does prefer Hillary's health care plan to Obama's, his real complaint is that he doesn't want a conciliatory-sounding guy like Obama; he wants a vicious take-no-prisoners nominee.

I liked Krugman's article this week where he essentially felt that the economy had turned the corner and how it made him sad because the opportunities for new government regulations of the economy might have passed.

Worse government: Zimbabwe or Myanmar? It's a tough choice

I liked Krugman's article this week where he essentially felt that the economy had turned the corner and how it made him sad because the opportunities for new government regulations of the economy might have passed.

I thought he said that the banking crisis had stabilized, at least for the moment, thanks to Bernanke's duct-taping, not that the economy had turned a corner. They're two different things.

Setting aside your bogus distinction between what's "substantive" and "bogus," Krugman's position is a lot less substantive and a lot more about personality. While he does prefer Hillary's health care plan to Obama's, his real complaint is that he doesn't want a conciliatory-sounding guy like Obama; he wants a vicious take-no-prisoners nominee.

Yeah, that too, but that Fighting Female angle was first put forth in discussing the then-three candidates' respective health care plans, and until Edwards dropped out Krugman wasn't particularly favoring Hillary over him, only over Obama. Further proof, of course, of the liberal media's love affair with Barack.

But it looks as if the noose is getting tighter around the lady's neck:

Obama Pulls Ahead of Clinton in Superdelegates, including at least one defector from the Clinton camp. Maybe all those racist superdelegates just hate "hard-working Americans, white Americans."

I dont think krugman is a hack; he is one of my favorite columnists without qualification. His fervid Clinton backing made me think quite hard about the candidates, but he has absolutely sunk to the level of pandering once or twice- as in the "meet joan, the autistic parapalegic. Mr obama would not give insurance to joan" column.

Maybe in some cases, but not with Krugman, who's been in Hillary's corner from the beginning, though for substantive reasons like health care rather than bogus ones like choice of minister.

Krugman had very much chosen Edwards over Clinton and Obama before he dropped out.

I remember that column, Danny, especially this part, which has so far certainly proven to be prophetic:

Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.

Of course what Krugman didn't predict was that Hillary herself would be trying to hand the Republicans their talking points.

That clip of Hillary's desperate, racist babbling just came on on a site I was watching. I can't believe that I might have to vote for that evil sack of #### in November.

Looking at that data, the most telling number was that among the 24% of the voters who judged "honesty" as the most important trait in choosing a president, Bush won by 80 to 15!

Tells you something about the electorate, eh? What is it, about 12% who believe that Obama's a muslim?

What is it, about 12% who believe that Obama's a muslim?

Obama does wear muslin suits, however.... Speaking of which, the word muslin means from Mosul, in Iraq. That's interesting, but not as interesting as the fact that gauze (medical wrap) is named for Gaza, as in the Strip club.

Speaking of conservatives, David Brooks in the NYT once again demonstrates he can't think clearly:

The British conservative renovation begins with this insight: The central political debate of the 20th century was over the role of government. The right stood for individual freedom while the left stood for extending the role of the state. But the central debate of the 21st century is over quality of life. In this new debate, it is necessary but insufficient to talk about individual freedom. Political leaders have to also talk about, as one Tory politician put it, “the whole way we live our lives.”

The right stood for individual freedom? WTF? The right stood and stands for maximizing business profits. The right doesn't give a flying #### about individual freedom except as it maximizes business profits. How the #### does Brooks keep his job? It'd be like a baseball writer, going, now, huh, OBP... is that the one where you divide the number of times...

Ah, I could rant all night.

arkitekton:

I want to take seriously your claim to be "conservative," in part b/c I'm interested in what conservatism entails, but your last post (3888) confuses me. Obviously Brooks is posing "individual freedom" v. "state expansion" and it seems pretty clearly the case that the right (the conservatives) stood for the former and the left (the liberals) stood for the lattter. Sure, there are areas where this is blurry (as in, for instance, social conservatism), but while the effect of standing on the right and for individual freedom does obviously correlate with "maximizing business profits" (or more accurately, for maximizing the freedom of exchange among individuals and their businesses), is it really fair to reduce "the right" to maximizing business profits? And, more generally, when you say you're conservative, what do you mean - you're for individual freedom and a smaller state bureaucracy, or something else?

Reverend Sharpton, meet Mr. Snipes. Wesley, this is Al Sharpton:

Associated Press indicate that Al Sharpton and his business entities owe nearly $1.5 million in overdue taxes and associated penalties.

...

"Whatever retaliation they do on me, we never stop," he told the AP. "I think that that is why they try to intimidate us."

...

Sharpton's own debts include $365,558 owed in New York City income tax and $931,397 in unpaid federal income tax, according to a lien filed by the Internal Revenue Service last spring. His for-profit company, Rev. Al Communications, owes the state another $175,962 in delinquent taxes.

"You sure do look a lot like Reginald Bacon, Reverend Al."

"How the coitus does Brooks keep his job?"

Isn't a better quesiton: Why does a socialist like Arky go on pretending he is conservative?

Rich's post previews names of other black people Obama will be asked to reject and renounce in future debates.

And, more generally, when you say you're conservative, what do you mean - you're for individual freedom and a smaller state bureaucracy, or something else?

Maybe Arky is from the Somoza-Pahlavi wing of the party,

Something Awful ranks the VP candidates

Tactically, I'd hope Obama picks Richardson --- but emotionally, I'd love to see Feingold.

One thing I think a lot of people are missing in the whole change equation... while I think Obama does at least have intentions towards a more transparent government; he's been a primary sponsor at both the state and federal level on ethics reform and government transparency - I really do think he brings a tone to our politics that has been sorely missing for more than a decade.

I'm very much a partisan, very much a liberal, and there are certainly core beliefs I'm not willing to compromise on... but I'm tired of the political bloodsport. I'm not naive - I'm well aware of political history - from Andrew Jackson to Grover Cleveland to Richard Nixon, but it wasn't always this unending warfare between the fringes, at least not all the time.

If nothing else, I actually think that BOTH Obama and McCain can bring that to the table. In such a case, I'm simply voting for the candidate that better matches my political ideology, even if imperfectly.

Obama certainly has a wicked sharp counterpunch - but I do think he's to be lauded for running a campaign that's been remarkably absent the bile pitching, especially running as the insurgent.

zonk,

The reason I think Sen. Obama will pick a woman, such as Gov. Sebelius, is to salve the wounds among the feminists who are bitter that their candidate lost. He could pick Sen. Clinton, of course, to that end. But due to the vitriol in the primary campaign, that pairing would be harder to present as a united front.

I want to take seriously your claim to be "conservative,"

And I want a pony. He's a conservative the way "Jews for Jesus" are Jews.

I don't know, Rich...

I was ready to sign on to O/C ticket, but the Clintons just seem to have no interest in endearing their way onto the ticket. And while people like to talk about JFK and LBJ - there was no YouTube and its unending stream of Clintonian arguments against Obama. In 2004 - while Edwards ran till the end, he ran more or less on his populist message, not nearly so much on his 'superior electability'.

What's more - the two states where Clinton might help Obama -- FL and OH -- I think there are other picks that could help just as much.

I'm really not a Clinton hater, I'm just tired of their brand of politics. I can certainly appreciate a Clintonian POV; that they learned how to play the game on the mean streets of Gingrich Avenue, that they've only been responders, yada yada... but I no more want to spend the next 4 years refighting the 90s than I do the 60s.

I'm pretty much dead set against Clinton on the ticket (strangely, if she'd want it - I'd be fine with a cabinet position... I have no problem with her wonky side).

My concern with Sebelius is that it would seem like a naked pander... though, I have heard from 'sources' that Obama has a fondness for the Kansas Gov.

I don't want to sound like I'm taking the women's vote for granted, but I just have a real problem seeing a generally smart, politically active demographic voting spite or sitting things out with two SCOTUS seats almost certain to come up in the next four years... of course, there's a counter argument (from the vindictive perspective) that the Senate is likely to be at least 55-45, with a handful of surviving GOPers making it near impossible to slide another Alito or Scalia onto the court.

arkitekton:

I want to take seriously your claim to be "conservative," in part b/c I'm interested in what conservatism entails, but your last post (3888) confuses me. Obviously Brooks is posing "individual freedom" v. "state expansion" and it seems pretty clearly the case that the right (the conservatives) stood for the former and the left (the liberals) stood for the lattter. Sure, there are areas where this is blurry (as in, for instance, social conservatism), but while the effect of standing on the right and for individual freedom does obviously correlate with "maximizing business profits" (or more accurately, for maximizing the freedom of exchange among individuals and their businesses), is it really fair to reduce "the right" to maximizing business profits?

Here's an exercise, JC. Think of two dozen or so of the more prominent "conservatives" in American life these days (including a few honorary dead ones from not that long ago), and then tell us what, exactly, beyond the "maximizing business profits," they have in common.

As an outsider, I haven't stepped into you all's feud with arky about who's a true "conservative" and who isn't, but it seems as if the main split here is that arky has a sort of Platonic conservative ideal in mind, and sees it violated by pretty much everyone who calls himself a "conservative" these days, whereas his opponents here pretty much define "conservatism" as whatever the dominant ideology of those who call themselves "conservative" happens to be at the moment.

Fair enough: Conservatism is as conservatism does. That's as good a working definition as any. But then think about a random sampling of prominent "conservatives" in recent American life, and see if you can think of anything that unites them---other than a fondness for unbridled capitalism, free of any regulation that lets business (and big business in particular) pretty much do as it damn well pleases.

George Bush
Dick Cheney
Pat Buchanan
George Will
John McCain
William F. Buckley, Jr.

Thomas Sowell
Jesse Helms
Clarence Thomas
Jack Kemp
George Gilder
Bob Barr

Mitt Romney
Newt Gingrich
Strom Thurmond
Joe McCarthy (the Senator, not the Yankee mgr.)
Robert Taft (the one with a statue in the Capitol)
Barry Goldwater

Max Eastman
Pat Robertson
William Kristol
Norman Podhoretz
Gary Bauer
Karl Rove

OK, that's two dozen prominent self-identified "conservatives." No libertarians (although they claim Goldwater) and no "moderates" (although a few of them claim McCain). No Hayek. No liberal Republicans. Just 24 men who 99 out of 100 people (or at least 4 out of 5) who've ever heard of them would identify as "conservatives."

Now tell me what they have in common---besides nearly always instinctively siding with business against organized labor, and against business regulation. What else?

Most of them are, or have been hawks or cold warriors (Kristol, Podhoretz, Goldwater). But not all of them by any means (Taft and Buchanan were/are more isolationists).

Some are social moderates (McCain), or almost social liberals (Kemp). Others are 21st century Puritans (Bauer, Buchanan). More than a few are (or were) outright racists, even by the most exacting standards and tight definitions (Thurmond, Helms, Buckley in his early prominence). Some are fundamentalists (Robertson). At least one (Eastman) was a lifelong atheist.

So tell us, why is arketekton so far off base? What other sort of "individual freedom" do this quite representative gathering of self-described "conservatives" really stand for as a group?

What arketekton is essentially saying is that modern day "conservatism" is like the Emperor's New Clothes. Prove that he's wrong.

Oh, and BTW, if you start trying to read some of these guys out of your tribe (Bush, McCarthy, etc.) even though they'll all proclaim their conservatism from the rooftops, then tell us why you keep trying to associate the likes of Al Sharpton with "liberalism." Or is guilt by association strictly a one way proposition?

Obama certainly has a wicked sharp counterpunch - but I do think he's to be lauded for running a campaign that's been remarkably absent the bile pitching, especially running as the insurgent.

Jeez, you should read some of the Hillary-supporting blogs. He's the new Rove in their eyes.