I have never listened to Rush Limbaugh - I'd never listen to any kind of talk radio. So I've no idea if he's racist, but the evidence provided in this thread is some pretty thin gruel.

This is verified by Snopes. It's two incidents (and there could be more, I guess), but neither reflects well on Limbaugh, not that he probably cares.

[Limbaugh's] current job, as self-appointed spokesman for the "angry white males", evolved over the years — his attitudes never did. As a young broadcaster in the 1970s he once told a black caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." A decade later he was musing: "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

What may be more interesting (though likely not connected to racism) is what he doing with a suitcase full of Viagra on a trip to the Dominican Republic.

Wow, the case report lists the value of the 29 Viagra tablets Rush was nailed with as 1 dollar.

Man, I need to hop on a plane to the DR.

Hilarious. "Well, I don't like this Democrat, so I'm just going to pretend that he's actually a Republican pretending to be a Democrat, since that's more convenient for me. After all, the media has never told me that he's a Democrat (imagine that!), so I'm sure it's not true. Is that okay with you guys?"

You're a goddamned idiot if you think that's what I wrote. The point, for the literacy-challenged, is that Phelps is in an area where it's probably well nigh impossible to get elected as a Democrat (unless your opponent is Fred Phelps), but since you know damned well the local GOP wouldn't associate with him at all (and thus give him a platform for his wacko views), he might've figured he'd be more likely to get publicity as a dem, knowing that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected regardless of which ticket he ended up on.

Any other stereotypes you'd care to read into my comments, based on your inability to read simple English? Lord knows I've bashed various Republicans on various occasions, but this wasn't an instance of it.

So, Joey, any plans on responding to my comments about McCain? I'd like to hear how what he has said doesn't represent a failure to understand the situation in Iraq.

You're a goddamned idiot if you think that's what I wrote.

A big man here, I see. Tell you what, I'll put you on my kevin list and I won't see anything else that you write.

My poor judgment? You're the ####### moron who completely missed the point in the first place and you're lecturing me on judgment? Hilarious.

So let's see... Bush makes a joke in poor taste. You demonstrate your poor judgment by making a joke in even poorer taste, defending it by claiming you're "showing how disgusting" his joke is. Then you get upset when it's pointed out you're justifying your behavior exactly like Bush.

Your anger amuses me... you're like an attack hampster. Furious but impotent. Don't ever change.

Tell you what, I'll put you on my kevin list and I won't see anything else that you write.

Way to ignore the rest of my post. Given your difficulty understanding the last one, I can't say I'm surprised.

The "take the bone out of your nose and call me back" thingy is clearly racist. It's also 3 decades ago, so I'm not sure how big a deal it is. But obviously it reflects badly on him. I see nothing wrong with the "Native Americans used to scalp people" and "Survivor" things.

[Limbaugh's] current job, as self-appointed spokesman for the "angry white males"

Is this true? I would have imagined that an afternoon talk-show would have a mostly female audience.

EDIT: I now see that his audience his 60% male, 40% female. So I'm wrong, not for the first time.

DMN, I haven't read every word you've written in the BBTF threads that skew political,

If you had, I'd have suggested you need a life.

but my impression is that you've done very little criticizing of, for instance, the Patriot Act, the Federal Marriage Amendment, John Yoo, the expansion of executive power, the "wisdom" of getting into Iraq, imperialism, and the mushrooming federal deficit. These developments--and indeed this administration--should horrify a libertarian. Instead, though, I see much more grousing devoted to what a Democratic president might do instead of what our current Republican president has done. I guess I'm asking: where's the outrage? I understand the impulse not to cast your lot with political opponents in trashing Bush, but, come on, there's a lot here to get pissed off about.

1. I haven't done much criticizing of most of those things because, for the most part, they haven't been discussed around here and when they have, there hasn't been much of a debate. (Has there been anybody here saying, "I ♥ John Yoo"?)
2. Full disclosure: I did defend the Iraq war at the time; knowing now that Bush was a complete ######, I wouldn't have done so. But unlike the paleos, I didn't (and don't) think that libertarian equals isolationism.
3. I've been extremely critical of government spending. (Like Milton Friedman, I consider the absolute level of spending more significant than the deficit; I do think the size of the deficit is unacceptable, though. But I view criticism of the deficit in the abstract as enabling to tax raisers, so I prefer to focus my ire on the spending side of the ledger.)
4. This administration does horrify a libertarian. By the time of the 2004 election, I had already said that the only thing Bush had going for him was that he wasn't Kerry. The problem is that the more libertarians tried/try to reach out to liberals -- e.g., Brink Lindsey's attempt to create a liberaltarian coalition -- we get slapped down/mocked. So what's there to say?
5. As for what a Democratic president might do, we're in election season. The Bush administration is almost over. Natural to focus on the future rather than the past.

Outside of the diminishing Lew Rockwell strain, I see to little to distinguish a troubling number of self-professed libertarians from the neo-cons who've been playing "chemistry set" for the last eight years.

I don't see how you can read Reason and think that. True, many non-paleos were more accepting of war in 2003 (though most of those at Cato, I think, opposed it), but certainly haven't continued to support the administration over the last four years in much of anything.

I ask these questions as someone with more than a few libertarian leanings and as someone who probably falls comfortably to the right of most BBTF posters. In other words, I'm genuinely asking. We could've used full-throated libertarian outrage around these parts for the last several years, and instead we've gotten meek hedging and, ultimately, enabling from bullsh*t libs like Reynolds and, more recently, Megan McCardle. Not a good thing.

Actually, I don't think outrage around these parts would have done much of anything at all. I don't mean that to be snarky; it's a serious response. That's not to say that I never get outraged online, but for the most part, why expend the energy? Do I think that viciously and vehemently denouncing Bush rather than merely criticizing him will somehow (a) affect public policy, or (b) be more convincing to readers? No, and no. (I honestly get the sense that many people on the left actually think that if they yell loudly enough, it will have more of an effect. (Did you ever see the movie "A Few Good Men"? Demi Moore plays an inexperienced trial lawyer, and when the judge overrules her objection, she stands up again and "strenuously objects." Later the real trial lawyers mock her for that.))

And while I understand the complaints about Glenn Reynolds (who I actually don't read that much anymore), I don't quite see the hatred for Megan; her libertarian apostasy tends to be that she's too liberal, not too conservative.

No, the problem is that you guys haven't figured out that insulting someone and then telling them that they were too stupid to understand you is nothing but a double insult (like there's a benign non-offensive interpretation of a statement like "typical white person").

Like I said, the voters in PA can decide how insulted they were. They have another option even if they are committed to the Demos. And again, you are picking out words and not looking at the whole context. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He said that, right?

As DMN accurately noted earlier on, the first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. But in the modern age, it seems that being a hard-core leftist means never having to say you're sorry, and so this will be their undoing once again.

Typical cheap shot. You have shown you are capable of better.

Uh, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

This is both non-responsive and chickenshit. You also never answered my question about what a "legitimate conservative" is.

That is not the thesis of Frank's book, and if you think it was, you must have skipped whole chapters from the book. The thesis of Frank's book was that people don't vote in their economic self-interest -- indeed, vote directly contrary to it -- in favor of other issues that Machiavellian conservative elites trick them into thinking are important.

Nice work leaving out the paragraph after this, in which it was clearly stated that the book says that votes are turned through intentional strategy -- strategy which involves, among other things, calling those who would tell the voters "ignore the guns and the religion, and don't vote for the people who are going to hurt your pocketbook," "condescending."

Obama's point wasn't exactly the same as Frank's, in that he doesn't blame conservative elites for tricking people into caring about these things; Obama's point was that people caring about these things was a natural reaction to government failures.


Exactly. How is that any different from what I wrote? Three or four times now. More importantly, without the implicit allegation of befuddlement and inability to see through the sorcery, trickery or wizardry -- the sine qua non of the notion -- how has Obama remotely condescended?

Neither speaker gives people credit for actually naturally believing these things, however; neither one can believe that someone might have values which he holds higher than material prosperity.


No, I think the book and Obama are quite clear that people do "naturally" believe these things -- whatever that means -- but weigh them in their voting habits in a way that doesn't seem to make sense and -- in least in Obama's case -- he'd like to change. The second part is purely a guess on your part, other than as it flows from the observation that it doesn't seem to make sense.

You don't have much in the way of self-awareness, do you? That statement not only demonstrates you didn't read the book, but is self-refuting. Statements about "the strategy to turn the votes the way they've been turned" represent the brainwashing and condescension.

Huh? The strategy involves calling remarks like Obama's, "condescending," in an effort to turn votes -- which was crystal clear in the passage you quoted.

I don't see any way to get that out of what he said

.

That's right. You don't. That's the point. Emphasis added.

still implies

See?

... in the modern age, it seems that being a hard-core leftist means never having to say you're sorry, and so this will be their undoing once again.

This from the man who questioned the patriotism of people who criticized the President's policies, then comes around years later say, ahem, that he wasn't the right man for the job. Not seeing any apology being delivered in my future, I suggest we just as soon leave this type of bile behind us.

I ask these questions as someone with more than a few libertarian leanings and as someone who probably falls comfortably to the right of most BBTF posters. In other words, I'm genuinely asking. We could've used full-throated libertarian outrage around these parts for the last several years, and instead we've gotten meek hedging and, ultimately, enabling from bullsh*t libs like Reynolds and, more recently, Megan McCardle. Not a good thing.

This administration has been an absolute disaster for libertarians, which is why its party has lost thousands and thousands of voters, including me. Whether they gain enough non-libertarians to offset it is another question.

Brink Lindsey's attempt to create a liberaltarian coalition -- we get slapped down/mocked. So what's there to say

?

This is interesting to me. Do you have a link I could look at? If accurate, the liberals in question f'd up. I am not being snarky;I want to know more.

Huh? The strategy involves calling remarks like Obama's, "condescending," in an effort to turn votes -- which was crystal clear in the passage you quoted.

Yes, I know. And your claim is itself condescending.

Frank is saying that Democrats offer this class of voters (let's call them "Kansans") policies to make their lives better off, whereas Republicans offer Kansans trickery to convince the voters to vote against their best interests, and these voters fall for it. (Remember, the basic premise of Frank's book is that there's something "the matter with" the voters.)

If you don't think it's condescending to Kansans to say, "Kansans vote against their best interests because Republicans fool them by talking about abortion/guns/gays/elitism," then you're even more out of touch than you seem.

There is never, ever, an appropriate time for a commander in chief to joke about an ongoing war. Ever.

Aside from the implicit farce in being so compellingly inept, of course.

As DMN accurately noted earlier on, the first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. But in the modern age, it seems that being a hard-core leftist means never having to say you're sorry, and so this will be their undoing once again.

Ah, what a Limbaugh afternoon and Love Story evening will do to a guy.

That's right. You don't. That's the point. Emphasis added.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds like the old internet copout, "Well, that's your opinion," which I've never understood as a rebuttal either. Of course it's my opinion; whose else's opinion would I hold? That's your opinion isn't an argument; it's just a truism.

If you're trying to say that not everyone interprets it the same way as me, well, I guess that's obvious, but as is necessarily the case, I think they're wrong. (If I thought they were right, I would be interpreting it their way rather than mine.)

I don't see how one can interpret "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." as "vote based on guns because they're frustrated."

Uh, that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

This is both non-responsive and chickenshit.

Nonetheless, there it is. Nothing you said had anything whatsoever to do with neoconservatism. You might as well have called it Arianist or Phenomenologist; either word would have fit equally nonsensically in that sentence.

You also never answered my question about what a "legitimate conservative" is.

Like the Hall of Fame, political movements are self-defining, so it's not as if there's a rulebook which lays it out, but modern American conservatism can pretty much be traced back to Barry Goldwater. (Yes, this lays open the question of whether Bush is a conservative.) Arkitekton does not.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds like the old internet copout, "Well, that's your opinion," which I've never understood as a rebuttal either. Of course it's my opinion; whose else's opinion would I hold? That's your opinion isn't an argument; it's just a truism.

Sure. That is why I suggested avoiding this exchange on page 1, but I was too stupid and stubborn to stay away. There is no substantive way to support what you are saying, as it ultimately comes down to "I don't see how one can" and "still implies" and the "attitude is Obama's." Your point also relies on quoting the one sentence over and over again without the rest, just as the neocons/Repubs/Clintonites who want to hit Obama do, and just as they do with the word "bitter", which has negative connotations.

Obama himself called the remarks "clumsy." He said he "deeply regrets" them. He framed/phrased te them in a manner so they could be interpreted as condescending (and BTW, I think condescension and contempt go hand-in-hand) and I am not saying it is unreasonable to interpret them as such. You appear to be saying that it is unreasonable NOT to interpret them as such, and that is where we differ. We also differ, I think, in how probative these particular remarks are of Obama's character and view of government's role in people's emotional lives. Politicians say a lot of things.

Nothing you said had anything whatsoever to do with neoconservatism.

Idelogically in the theoretical sense, of course not. Politically, hammering Obama as being condescending has everything to do with it, unless you think the neocon think tanks are going to be throwing some endorsements Obama's way. Dayn Perry also called you out, in much more detail, on this aspect of your BTF persona, and you gave a good response.

If you don't think it's condescending to Kansans to say, "Kansans vote against their best interests because Republicans fool them by talking about abortion/guns/gays/elitism," then you're even more out of touch than you seem.

There you go again, throwing in the word "fool." That's your word. As I tried to explain earlier, it's the sine qua non for condescension, so I can see why you stealthily try to slip it in where it doesn't belong, but ... it doesn't belong.

A simple example will show how politically loaded your use of the term is. Joey from Central PA is 30 and has had three guns since he was 6 months old. One is his grandfather's rifle from WWII, another is his uncle's pistol, another is his Dad's shotgun. He's professed nothing but love for the guns his whole life. He's hunted with his relatives, he's shot at the local range, he's done all that.

Joey turns 30, he's a little down on his luck, just lost his job. Money's tight. A friend of a friend, an out-of-towner, comes to visit. Sees Joey down on his luck a little, and offers him $100 for the three guns. Joey sells them to him.

The mayor gets wind of it, gets hold of Joey, says "Joey, WTF, you sold your guns for $100? That makes no sense. Why?" Mayor gives speech the next day decrying the economic problems in town, says they're so bad, our citizens are left to do silly irrational things like sell the guns they love for pennies on the dollar. Governor, blueist of bloods, never been to the town before, brie eater, chardonnay drinker, shops only at Whole Foods, comes to town, gives speech saying the people are so "bitter" about the economic problems that they're trading their favorite guns for $100.

Condescending?

POLL FROM PA

But there is a week before the primary, of course.

If you don't think it's condescending to Kansans to say, "Kansans vote against their best interests because Republicans fool them by talking about abortion/guns/gays/elitism," then you're even more out of touch than you seem.

I haven't really gotten involved here, but I think this is carrying it a little far, David.

The key, the POINT to all political parties, at ALL times, has been to use a number of means, both noble (convincing, debating, arguing) and ignoble (fooling, lying, propagandizing), to get voters to be on their side. To simply acknowledge that it happens to Kansans is far far FAR from out of touch. We are all equally capable of getting hosed by politicians, and to say the Kansans are doing so doesn't come close to saying the guy next door in Queens isn't.

Well, it's true, isn't it?

In the middle of a terrorist war, he invents a reason (faulty) to attack another country not involved with the jihadist movement and then rammed it through Congress and the UN before proper debate could occur.

It is true, kevin, but I have to call you on the "rammed it through Congress" aspect. I knew the stated reason for it was bullshtt, the people I marched with and stood with in the infinitely naive hope that our agitation against the coming war might stop it knew it was bullshtt, millions of people around the world knew it was bullshtt, and any Congressperson willing to read an NIE or two and do a little spadework knew it was bullshtt. Congress is nearly as complicit as Bush, and the fact that the perfectly complicit Colin Powell can leave his home without being pelted with garbage is a damned shame.

POLL FROM PA

Good news, particularly for those of us with a low opinion of the general public. After your 525 I was concerned that the thread had left you speechless.

After your 525 I was concerned that the thread had left you speechless.

You were concerned; others were hopeful.

The key, the POINT to all political parties, at ALL times, has been to use a number of means, both noble (convincing, debating, arguing) and ignoble (fooling, lying, propagandizing), to get voters to be on their side. To simply acknowledge that it happens to Kansans is far far FAR from out of touch. We are all equally capable of getting hosed by politicians, and to say the Kansans are doing so doesn't come close to saying the guy next door in Queens isn't.

This, the broader point, is clearly right. Many of us are capable of getting hosed by politicians, particularly those of us who aren't very bright, though grant me that if your IQ peaks at 85, you're a lot more likely to get hosed.

Here's a thought. I think the government has no business interfering in the issue of gay marriage. If I had the choice between voting for Candidate O, who favored the right to gay marriage, but whose other positions would raise my taxes by $500 a year, I'd contentedly vote for Candidate O, even though I would be obviously voting against my economic interests (as narrowly defined here).

Sorry for the triple post; computer problem.

See, Joey? We can say we're sorry.

Well said, robin, well said.

Well said, robin, well said.

Yeah, 525, 530 and 531 were definitely my best work on this thread.

Politicians say a lot of things

And they are nailed for them in highly selective ways. Obama makes a remark that is unconsidered only in its logic (there are a lot of people who cling to guns and religion and ethnic animosity, but probably not because globalization has drained the Midwest of its base of factory jobs). He is hammered ceaselessly by Hillary et al. over this because he is a brie-eating chardonnay-sipping elitist, which has become one way to say that he's not white working-class, which becomes, I think, a way of saying that he's not white along with saying that he's not working-class, horrors. In the grand scheme of things, just another infinitesimal flap. She's trying to win and hoping he will let his guard down for a quick jab or two. But the microscopic attention to every nuance of the language is extreme.

And then there was the other week when I was caught in an airport and had to listen to Mitt Romney conceding the nomination. First, he quotes Simon Peres:

"I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty."

And so I think: The Philippines, Puerto Rico, Texas, California, oh hell what do I know about American history, I'm not Simon Peres.

"Europe is facing a demographic disaster. That is the inevitable product of weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality."

What is this, "race-suicide" rhetoric from the 1920s?

"It’s high time to lower taxes, including corporate taxes, to take a weed-whacker to government regulations, to reform entitlements, and to stand up to the increasingly voracious appetite of the unions in our government!"

After Reagan, the Bushes, and the Clintonian gutting of welfare, there's more of this? What planet exactly is it where someone can portray the contemporary United States as a union-strangled welfare state?

Now, nobody cares, because Romney was taking leave of the race anyway. But seriously, American political rhetoric is overrun with complete fantasy. And Obama gets pummeled for saying that some disgruntled folk (I know them, they live in my neighborhood) love their guns? By Hillary "My daddy taught me how to shoot" Clinton? Geez Lou-ise.

Yeah, 525, 530 and 531 were definitely my best work on this thread.

Funny, but false. As usual, your efforts to think issues through and understand the views of others without sacrificing your admirable principles make my own too often derisive and dismissive efforts, and my willingness to write people off, stand in pale contrast.

It is true, kevin, but I have to call you on the "rammed it through Congress" aspect. I knew the stated reason for it was bullshtt, the people I marched with and stood with in the infinitely naive hope that our agitation against the coming war might stop it knew it was bullshtt, millions of people around the world knew it was bullshtt, and any Congressperson willing to read an NIE or two and do a little spadework knew it was bullshtt. Congress is nearly as complicit as Bush, and the fact that the perfectly complicit Colin Powell can leave his home without being pelted with garbage is a damned shame.

You can't even begin to give Congress a pass on this one. Not only this one, but the much worse torture regime, which we'll find (as we already have, at least with Jane Harman), that the intelligence committee people knew most/all the details in plenty of time to stand up and thwart it.

Dictatorship doesn't come to advanced countries at the point of a gun, but at the point of a pen signing a memo. The memos getting us a good way toward dictatorship were signed here in the past six years, though no one really seems to want to face that stark truth square in the face, for understandable reasons.

...because he is a brie-eating chardonnay-sipping elitist,...

We need to rethink this. Brie is not a particularly expensive or subtle cheese, and it's not one of the cheeses I'd expect some snot-nosed surrender-monkey to be sucking down. I mean, in Des Moines supermarkets they put it in the exotic cheese section, but c'mon.

Bob's post tells us most of what we need to know about Mitt Romney. To think, Romney could be the vp nominee...

Well, Brie is French, and it's hard to spear with little pretzel rods :)

edit: I agree, bear, and hope it didn't sound like I was giving Congress a pass. By "nearly as complicit" I was letting off the hook the small percentage who voted against the Iraq resolution.

Oh boy, more possible trouble brewing here for the would-be Messiah:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/894559,CST-NWS-rezko15.article

I haven't really gotten involved here, but I think this is carrying it a little far, David.

The key, the POINT to all political parties, at ALL times, has been to use a number of means, both noble (convincing, debating, arguing) and ignoble (fooling, lying, propagandizing), to get voters to be on their side. To simply acknowledge that it happens to Kansans is far far FAR from out of touch. We are all equally capable of getting hosed by politicians, and to say the Kansans are doing so doesn't come close to saying the guy next door in Queens isn't.

I'm going to set Obama aside for the moment, because I am extrapolating from only a few statements he made, and talk about Frank, who wrote a book laying this out in detail. If you've read that book, I'm not carrying it too far. Frank wasn't picking on Kansans qua Kansans; he chose Kansas for the subject because (a) he grew up there, and (b) it tends to vote reliably Republican.

Frank's underlying thesis was about any working class person who votes Republican. And contrary to SBB's claims, Frank's point is that these people are dumb. (He uses words like "delusional" and "derangement.") His view is that economic elites (Republicans) use phony social issues to trick the working class into voting for them, and then pursue policies that hurt the working class without even giving them anything on the social side of the ledger.

something for Joey

I read it. That is the link above. I will let others weigh in.

Dictatorship doesn't come to advanced countries at the point of a gun, but at the point of a pen signing a memo. The memos getting us a good way toward dictatorship were signed here in the past six years, though no one really seems to want to face that stark truth square in the face, for understandable reasons.

Yeah, next thing you know he'll want to take over the entire economy and refuse to ever step down from office. No, wait, that's the liberal icon/third worst president of the 20th century, FDR.

1. I haven't done much criticizing of most of those things because, for the most part, they haven't been discussed around here and when they have, there hasn't been much of a debate. (Has there been anybody here saying, "I ♥ John Yoo"?)
2. Full disclosure: I did defend the Iraq war at the time; knowing now that Bush was a complete ######, I wouldn't have done so. But unlike the paleos, I didn't (and don't) think that libertarian equals isolationism.
3. I've been extremely critical of government spending. (Like Milton Friedman, I consider the absolute level of spending more significant than the deficit; I do think the size of the deficit is unacceptable, though. But I view criticism of the deficit in the abstract as enabling to tax raisers, so I prefer to focus my ire on the spending side of the ledger.)
4. This administration does horrify a libertarian. By the time of the 2004 election, I had already said that the only thing Bush had going for him was that he wasn't Kerry. The problem is that the more libertarians tried/try to reach out to liberals -- e.g., Brink Lindsey's attempt to create a liberaltarian coalition -- we get slapped down/mocked. So what's there to say?
5. As for what a Democratic president might do, we're in election season. The Bush administration is almost over. Natural to focus on the future rather than the past.

A fair, thoughtful response, David.

Funny, but false. As usual, your efforts to think issues through and understand the views of others without sacrificing your admirable principles make my own too often derisive and dismissive efforts, and my willingness to write people off, stand in pale contrast

.

There's a quote from Lincoln--I can't remember the wording--but it has to do with making sure you show respect to people with whom you disagree. I keep that idea in mind when I talk politics.

Hmmmmmmm, this Nadhmi Auchi guy sure sounds like one interesting character. It seems as though he and the now-departed Saddam Hussein go back... way back. It also seems that he was intimately involved with TotalFinaElf and the whole oil-for-food scandal.

Very, very interesting stuff indeedy. Dare I even elucidate some of the ideas forming in my mind? No, not just yet.

There's a quote from Lincoln--I can't remember the wording--but it has to do with making sure you show respect to people with whom you disagree. I keep that idea in mind when I talk politics.

And that's -- no snark here -- one of Obama's strengths. (That's one reason that bittergate could be so damaging to him; it undermines his message that he's a uniter, not a divider.) His charms are lost on me because I don't respect politicians and don't personally care whether they respect me, but I know that lots of people are impressed with that wrt Obama. Including Doug Kmiec.

His view is that economic elites (Republicans) use phony social issues to trick the working class into voting for them, and then pursue policies that hurt the working class without even giving them anything on the social side of the ledger.

Well, I haven't read the book referenced, so I can't really say whether I would agree or disagree with him, or agree or disagree with your interpretation of what he said.

I do think there's some basis for the view, though. But I don't think they are "phony" social issues. They are real issues that get more people out to vote, and therefore as well as voting against gay marriage, they'll vote for the candidates of choice. Politics 101. If Frank calling people from Kansas stupid is the problem, Kansas has no monopoly on stupidity, good lord.

Lastly, you don't have to be stupid to be swindled. In fact, any pro will tell you the best marks are the people who are intelligent and therefore think they can't be fooled.

I'm going to set Obama aside for the moment, because I am extrapolating from only a few statements he made, and talk about Frank, who wrote a book laying this out in detail. If you've read that book, I'm not carrying it too far. Frank wasn't picking on Kansans qua Kansans; he chose Kansas for the subject because (a) he grew up there, and (b) it tends to vote reliably Republican.

Frank's underlying thesis was about any working class person who votes Republican. And contrary to SBB's claims, Frank's point is that these people are dumb. (He uses words like "delusional" and "derangement.") His view is that economic elites (Republicans) use phony social issues to trick the working class into voting for them, and then pursue policies that hurt the working class without even giving them anything on the social side of the ledger.


To paraphrase someone else, that's a fair and thoughtful point, though obviously not one I agree with and I still think the "dumb" is a loaded term and I'd continue to ask why the person who calls someone, arguendo, "dumb" for choosing guns over money is any more -- well, anything -- than the mayor and governor in 524 who say the same things about the guy who chooses money over guns.

I'm no fan of this Obama, but what's the big deal if he went to a party for Nadhmi Auchi?

what's the big deal if he went to a party for Nadhmi Auchi?

Well, nobody who cozies up to corrupt Middle Eastern oil power brokers could ever be elected President.

Yeah, next thing you know he'll want to take over the entire economy and refuse to ever step down from office. No, wait, that's the liberal icon/third worst president of the 20th century, FDR.

Though he's not my icon -- I tend more toward Grover Cleveland -- I must confess to have missed the explanation of how you'd prefer the Leviathan federal goverment of today to the miniscule-by-comparison one that existed at the peak of FDR's power grab.

So, a procedural question that may not be relevant. Let's say Obama has won more than 50% of the delegates before the convention but, in the mean time, he gets in bad trouble (the Rezko thing, he was Wright's sermon writer, etc.). How pledged are the pledged delegates? Can they change their vote? If it was dead certain that Obama couldn't win the general election, do they have to vote to nominate him anyway?

Of course, given the current lay of the land, the superdelegates could take care of such a situation. And I'm not saying I think it'll happen or that I want it to happen. Just curious.

Same goes for McCain for that matter. Or, given McCain's age, what happens if he dies at this point?

Still waiting for a response Joey. Been close to 200 posts now since you called me a jackass without bothering to argue the points i made.

You can't even begin to give Congress a pass on this one. Not only this one, but the much worse torture regime, which we'll find (as we already have, at least with Jane Harman), that the intelligence committee people knew most/all the details in plenty of time to stand up and thwart it.

I'm not giving them a pass. But the Bush Admin, was certainly the driver. I don't think it was on the agenda of even the most rightwing congressman when the neocons started going after this one.

IMO, it never would have even been brought up if the Dems had control of even one branch.

Including Doug Kmiec.

Author of the weirdest endorsement ever.

and it's hard to spear with little pretzel rods :)

You just haven't tried hard enough, BD.

The problemn with brie is you can't squirt it out of a can onto a ritz cracker.

If McCain dies now, no problem (relatively speaking). The elected delegates just choose a different nominee, in an open convention much like those in the good old days.

There is precedent for a candidate dying during the election process. In 1872, Horace Greeley was the Democratic nominee, and he died after the November election but before the electors cast votes. The electors were on their own and voted for a bunch of different people. No harm done, because Grant had won a majority of the electors anyway. But that's a scenario to consider: electors suddenly empowered but unconstrained. I reckon they would be encouraged to vote for McCain's running mate, but that could be like herding cats, and in a very close election all kinds of weird stuff could happen.

I'm not giving them a pass. But the Bush Admin, was certainly the driver. I don't think it was on the agenda of even the most rightwing congressman when the neocons started going after this one.

IMO, it never would have even been brought up if the Dems had control of even one branch.

No question on either.

Some people grab illegal power for illegal ends and some people stand by and let them do it. Big difference in moral culpability, but the moral culpability of the latter isn't zero.

Very, very interesting stuff indeedy. Dare I even elucidate some of the ideas forming in my mind? No, not just yet.

Better take some ibuprofen. Forming ideas can hurt.

Oh boy, more possible trouble brewing here for the would-be Messiah:

**stretches and yawns**

IMO, it never would have even been brought up if the Dems had control of even one branch.

The Democrats had control of Senate at the time, from 6/6/01 after the Jeffords switch to the start of the next Congress on 1/3/03.

Well, nobody who cozies up to corrupt Middle Eastern oil power brokers could ever be elected President.

This is what Hillary's surrogates are saying to the superdelegates in today's emails.

How pledged are the pledged delegates? Can they change their vote? If it was dead certain that Obama couldn't win the general election, do they have to vote to nominate him anyway?

The people appointed as pledged delegates are the hardest of the hard core — Obama would have to beat a homeless Iraq War vet to death with an aborted baby wrapped in a burning flag to get his pledged delegates to vote for someone else. If something really scandalous came out, the supers would probably do a closed-door thing and either swing the floor vote away from him or have party elders pressure Obama to "spend more time with family" or somesuch.

Or, given McCain's age, what happens if he dies at this point?

Mitt Romney resumes his suspended campaign.

Hmmmmmmm, this Nadhmi Auchi guy sure sounds like one interesting character. It seems as though he and the now-departed Saddam Hussein go back... way back.

This wasn't such a problem before.

You want to have some real fun, play "connect the dots" with the name Tom Loeffler.

[I should add that when you do, the idea that quickly can form in your mind is that McCain wants the terrorists to win.]

From the article:

"Later Monday, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said: "As he has said previously, Senator Obama does not recall meeting Nadhmi Auchi at any time or on any occasion, and this includes any event that may have been held for Mr. Auchi. Senator and Mrs. Obama have no recollection of attending any such event."

This seems like the wrong way to handle something such as this. Wouldn't it be better to assert 'I was there. and if I had known this guy was a crook, I wouldn't have gone', or, if it was the case, 'I wasn't there'--? This 'I have no recollection' is lawyerly bs that never sounds good, and guarantees the story will keep going.

Wouldn't it be better to assert 'I was there. and if I had known this guy was a crook, I wouldn't have gone', or, if it was the case, 'I wasn't there'--?

Well, that assumes that Obama knows definitively whether he was there or not. If he really wasn't there, he certainly doesn't want to admit that he was. But he doesn't want to flat-out deny being there if there's a chance he was there - that's a disprovable statement that would blow up badly if it's not true (similar, for example, to the Clemens-Canseco party thing).

I'm with Alou here, I don't see the big deal. Obama's already been linked to Rezko - that's the political problem here, but I don't see how it's more of a problem today than it was two months ago when the Rezko trial started.

This 'I have no recollection' is lawyerly bs that never sounds good, and guarantees the story will keep going.

Yep. Two other things: it was a party FOR Auchi, as LaBolt's statement indicates, so it seems weird Obama would not have met him. It is possible, of course, given that Obama has met a massive number of people since 2004, that he really does not remember, but a big shot guy, one would think, would meet the guest of honor. It is also possible Obama showed up, said "what's up" to Rezko, found out who Auchi was, and bailed before meeting him. But these what-ifs demonstrate your point: columnists and bloggers will be asking the same questions and others. People will look for records of invitations sent out, etc.

Also, Auchi says he has "no recollection" of meeting Obama, which, considering how famous Obama has become, seems implausible. I think people who had met Obama (or not met him at a party he was at) four years ago would remember.

The next time I get one of those emails from David Plouffe asking me to kick in a few more bucks, (I have donated to the Obama campaign) I think I will answer with a little criticism.

This 'I have no recollection' is lawyerly bs that never sounds good, and guarantees the story will keep going.

You've got that right, my conservative friend.

Some of those bitter, unsophisticated rubes out there in small town America might find his claim to be not particularly credible. A few of them might even start asking questions, and coming up with all kinds of funny ideas.

Well, that assumes that Obama knows definitively whether he was there or not

.

Yeah, but given the Rezko issue and the fact that it was just four years ago, you'd think he'd have records somewhere, so he could look it up.

Obama's already been linked to Rezko - that's the political problem here, but I don't see how it's more of a problem today than it was two months ago when the Rezko trial started

.


Well, because it will get the media focused on Rezko again--it had kind of died, and because the "I have no recollection" line suggests Obama might be hiding something.


In other news

it was a party FOR Auchi, as LaBolt's statement indicates, so it seems weird Obama would not have met him

My thinking is that it's possible that Obama went to Rezko's house on several occasions - they were apparently friends and Rezko raised a good bit of money for his Senate campaign (which are legitimate problems for Obama, mind you). Rezko may have invited him on several occasions as an opportunity to network/meet some potential donors, but may not have made it clear who the "guest of honor" was at these events. Obama may have gone to some of these events and not gone to other such events, so he honestly can't recall whether he went to this specific party or not. It's probably something that he can verify one way or the other - I assume he has a copy of his campaign schedule at the time.

If he went, I'm sure he actually met the guest of honor, but I imagine it would be like the picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton with Jeremiah Wright at the White House. Politicians meet people all the time and a single instance of being introduced to somebody at a friend's house doesn't really mean anything at all.

I think people who had met Obama (or not met him at a party he was at) four years ago would remember.

I would tend to agree. Of course, it seems that the most likely explanation for this is that Obama wasn't at this particular event.

you'd think he'd have records somewhere, so he could look it up.

As I say right below you, I agree with this, and I suspect that his "recollection" will become more definitive once he actually looks it up. This apparently just came up in court today.

A few of them might even start asking questions, and coming up with all kinds of funny ideas.

So, what do you think Joey? You drop a lot of snarky bombs, with the salt-of-the-earth conservative patriots vs. the wimpy, quasitreasonous liberal elite as your rhetorical motif, but what do you really think? Obama is tied to terrorists? He's a closet black supremacist? If elected, his foreign policy will be based on undermining America? Rich Iraqis have strings on him that will compromise national security? I'm not kidding or making fun of you--what do you think it means? Do you now see Obama as being more venal and dangerous than Hillary Clinton? Or, are you just entertaining yourself by making fun of people who disagree with you?

Jeez robinred, what's the matter? You seem unusually defensive and upset all of a sudden! It's almost as if I've touched a nerve or something.

Just chill out and relax dude. I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for all this and that it means nothing at all.

Maybe.

Politicians meet people all the time and a single instance of being introduced to somebody at a friend's house doesn't really mean anything at all.

Sure, and the article points out that Obama has been accused of "no wrongdoing." I doubt it means anything, but I tend to agree with arkitekton about how it was handled. But maybe your take is better.

Frank is saying that Democrats offer this class of voters (let's call them "Kansans") policies to make their lives better off, whereas Republicans offer Kansans trickery to convince the voters to vote against their best interests, and these voters fall for it. (Remember, the basic premise of Frank's book is that there's something "the matter with" the voters.)

If you don't think it's condescending to Kansans to say, "Kansans vote against their best interests because Republicans fool them by talking about abortion/guns/gays/elitism," then you're even more out of touch than you seem.

I don't know if this is what Frank wrote, but I certainly don't think this is what Obama meant. I think Obama's point, in part, is that there hasn't been a "vote for your best interests" option in these areas. His remarks are about the last 25 years, a period during which both Republicans and Democrats have been in power, and he explicitly says that these areas weren't revitalized during the Clinton administration.

I also don't necessarily think Obama's point is that the Republicans fooled people by making promises on social issues and then not delivering. I think part of his point is that people in these areas have lost their jobs, and they're afraid they're going to lose other things important to them like their guns and their religion. That's certainly the image evoked by the word "cling" - you cling to something when you're afraid of losing it. That doesn't mean you wouldn't care about it otherwise. I cling more tightly to my bag when I'm on a crowded subway; that doesn't mean I'd be all right with someone stealing it from my home.

And Republicans *have* tried to convince people that the Democrats are trying to take away their guns and their religion, despite the fact that it isn't true. I don't think telling people that is necessarily condescending.

I realize that this is only my interpretation of his comments, but I find it more plausible than yours. Obama is a religious man and you yourself criticized him for being anti-trade. Would he really say that religion and anti-trade sentiment were "silly", "benighted" or "backwards" as you have accused him of?

Jeez robinred, what's the matter? You seem unusually defensive and upset all of a sudden.

Not at all--I am neither upset nor defensive. Note that I was asking questions, too, instead of saying, "It's Silly Season! This is nothing! YES WE CAN!" Those were serious questions; I want to know what you think. If you are just screwing around to amuse yourself, fair enough. I think that is what those who have you on "ignore" would say, but like I have said, I want to hear the other side.

So, what do you think Joey? You drop a lot of snarky bombs, with the salt-of-the-earth conservative patriots vs. the wimpy, quasitreasonous liberal elite as your rhetorical motif,..

So why is it in reality, far more often, the wimpy, quasitreasonous, conservative elite vs. the salt-of-the-earth, liberal patriots. I have to admit, the lefties on BTF are (generally) a hell of a lot more fun and interesting than the righties. Add to that the fact that you could spray a firehose at the CPAC convention and not hit anyone who puts the Constitution ahead of the right's agenda, and it truly has become a funhouse world we live in.

Just chill out and relax dude. I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for all this and that it means nothing at all.

At least they haven't found out yet that his campaign co-chairman and "consigliere" is a paid agent of Muslim extremists. $10M in the last two years alone.






Oh wait, that's not Obama ...

Dare I even elucidate some of the ideas forming in my mind? No, not just yet.

No, wait for O'Reilly or Limbaugh to elucidate them first for you.

Though he's not my icon -- I tend more toward Grover Cleveland -- I must confess to have missed the explanation of how you'd prefer the Leviathan federal goverment of today to the miniscule-by-comparison one that existed at the peak of FDR's power grab.

FDR created the Leviathan federal government of today. He institutionalized the regulatory state, intimidated the Supreme Court into destroying federalism, and of course created the permanent welfare state. Sure, it has grown since he left, but that's a difference of degree, not kind. Eliminate Wickard and West Coast Hotel Co. and we don't have the Leviathan federal government of today.

True, LBJ deserves significant blame too (as do the racist southern politicians who invested him with the moral authority to do it), but it really traces to FDR. LBJ was FDR's heir.

The "take the bone out of your nose and call me back" thingy is clearly racist. It's also 3 decades ago, so I'm not sure how big a deal it is.

Right, and the Holocaust was 65 years ago, so I'm not sure how big a deal it is today.

"Right, and the Holocaust was 65 years ago, so I'm not sure how big a deal it is today"


This guy is a big deal.

And Republicans *have* tried to convince people that the Democrats are trying to take away their guns and their religion, despite the fact that it isn't true. I don't think telling people that is necessarily condescending.

I think that's an odd usage of "isn't true." Obama has even spoken up in favor of extremist anti-gun legislation like the DC law currently before the Supreme Court, and he's been on the board of the virulently anti-gun Joyce Foundation. (It's true that not all Democrats are anti-gun, but even though not all Republicans are anti-abortion, I think it's fair to describe the latter as anti-abortion. And the former as anti-gun.)

I also don't necessarily think Obama's point is that the Republicans fooled people by making promises on social issues and then not delivering. I think part of his point is that people in these areas have lost their jobs, and they're afraid they're going to lose other things important to them like their guns and their religion. That's certainly the image evoked by the word "cling" - you cling to something when you're afraid of losing it. That doesn't mean you wouldn't care about it otherwise. I cling more tightly to my bag when I'm on a crowded subway; that doesn't mean I'd be all right with someone stealing it from my home.

Well, I'm pretty sure it's fruitless to debate this further, but once again I want to point out that what he said was that 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." I don't think you cling to your bag on the subway to explain your frustrations. And presumably he thinks that "antipathy to people who aren't like them" and "anti-immigrant sentiment" are bad things; despite his own demagoguing on the subject, I think he probably thinks that "anti-trade sentiment" is also a bad thing. I know he thinks guns are a bad thing, as I mention above. So I think it's reasonable to think he also believes that religion is a bad thing, yes.

[Sorry, wrong thread.]

So I think it's reasonable to think he also believes that religion is a bad thing, yes.

I noted this upthread--that including religion in his "laundry list" (my term) of "bad things"
(I used that term as well) was one of the key mistakes, along with "cling to" and "bitter" and the lack of qualifiers.

But, that said, you are making the suggestion that he thinks religion is a "bad thing" based on the rhetorical structure of one sentence. That sentence stacked up against the guy's whole life makes it hard to for me to buy this, and, as I also noted upthread, it was you, who in another thread, criticized Obama as a candidate based on the idea that actions outweigh words. And Obama, as we all know now, goes to church now and again.

So, that seems to mean you are saying he thinks the religion of "those people" is a "bad thing" because they are too dumb to know better, which means you're back to suggesting, a la Mickey Kaus, that "My read of this sentence is what is real and that is who Obama is; all the other stuff the guy says and does is just politics." And, strictly from the standpoint of getting certain folks' votes, you may be right. But overall, it is a hard position to defend. The best you can do is to say what Obama said--the sentence was clumsy and offended some people. Drawing conclusions beyond that is sketchy.

Drawing conclusions beyond that is sketchy.

As I said, it's probably fruitless to discuss it further. But I am confident -- based on actions as well as words -- that Obama is extremely anti-gun.

As I said, it's probably fruitless to discuss it further. But I am confident -- based on actions as well as words -- that Obama is extremely anti-gun.

I don't necessarily disagree. But your point was about religion, I thought.

It was; I just didn't think it was worth pressing it any further, since none of us have anything new to bring to that argument. (At least until Obama's next speech.)

At least until Obama's next speech.

Well, I hope that whoever advises him on such issues has told him forcefully to lay off the off-the-cuff demographic analysis and to assume every word uttered in public is being recorded and can wind up on the net.

"But I am confident -- based on actions as well as words -- that Obama is extremely anti-gun."

Assuming this is true, and assuming GW Bush is just the opposite, how does it make any difference (in terms of federal policy) to an ordinary gun owner or to others who don't give firearms too much thought at all? (Exclude the question of the kinds of judges a liberal Democrat would appoint. That won't change, I assume, just because Obama is "extremely anti-gun." IOW, anyone who is very liberal is going to want to appoint very liberal judges, just as a very conservative prez will appoint very conservative judges.)

Assuming this is true, and assuming GW Bush is just the opposite, how does it make any difference (in terms of federal policy) to an ordinary gun owner or to others who don't give firearms too much thought at all?

I don't think that what I'm about to say is what either Obama or Frank were trying to say, but my take on this general issue is this: the sorts of people that Obama was presumably talking about tend to side with the Democratic platform on economic issues and they tend to side with the Republican platform on, among other things, gun issues. That is, for example, such people support some type of universal health care and they would generally oppose much, if not most, anti-gun legislation. If we go back to the Clinton administration, we see that the Democrats failed to deliver universal health care but succeeded in passing the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. So, for such a voter, he looks and says, well, the Democrats only seem to be able to accomplish the part of their platform that I disagree with, so I may as well vote for the Republicans.

Or, put another way, politicians have very little influence over the U.S. economy - the unemployment rate is largely independent of political policy. Politicians have a great deal of influence, however, over gun regulation, because they're the people responsible for regulating guns. Hence, a politician's views on the latter make more difference in the real world than his/her views on the economy.

And Republicans *have* tried to convince people that the Democrats are trying to take away their guns and their religion, despite the fact that it isn't true. I don't think telling people that is necessarily condescending.

I think that's an odd usage of "isn't true."

As a point of clarification, Democrats aren't "trying to take away their guns away" so much as trying to make it more difficult to attain guns in the future. There's an important difference, for those who care enough to see it.

Jeez robinred, what's the matter? You seem unusually defensive and upset all of a sudden! It's almost as if I've touched a nerve or something.

Just chill out and relax dude. I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for all this and that it means nothing at all.

Maybe

Joey, seeing as you continue to ignore my posts asking for a real response to my points about McCain's Iraq policy, i assume I must have touched a nerve with you.

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for why McCain said things about the situation in Iraq that are flat out false.

Maybe

Jeez robinred, what's the matter? You seem unusually defensive and upset all of a sudden! It's almost as if I've touched a nerve or something. Just chill out and relax dude. I'm sure there's a perfectly innocent explanation for all this and that it means nothing at all.

Maybe

Joey, seeing as you continue to ignore my posts asking for a real response to my points about McCain's Iraq policy, i assume I must have touched a nerve with you.

This, by the way, is a good preview for the rest of the campaign. For the Republicans, it's all about making McCain look better than he is, and making whatever Democratic nominee look worse than he/she is, and vice versa for the Democrats. Joey doesn't have clue 1 about whether or not Obama's done anything wrong, and I don't think he really cares. The mere possibility of impropriety is enough for him, and if it also annoys you, bonus.

What, 600 posts and still no consensus? I'm ashamed of y'alls.

And still almost seven months to go. Whee!

Just to mark the occasion, here's How America Was Destroyed once again. It's still about the only sensible take on the campaign I've seen in the papers in the past few weeks. It's the cartoon version of what Joey's been saying ever since this thread began.