Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Long Weekend Political Thread: You Come at the King, You Best Not Miss
My friend Brian Beutler is recuperating nicely, and Spencer Ackerman has set up a fund to defray his medical bills here.
Also, this morning I recorded a brief, pre-hospital visit, pre-BBQ Inside Washington Weekly podcast with Eli Lake and Jamie Kirchick; it'll be up here shortly. It was a slow news week, but we chewed over the horse race, energy, Colombia, and Montana.
The Week in Brief
- Barack Obama learned to
love the surge, allegedly.
- John McCain
traveled to Colombia; at the same time, Colombia rescued three
hostages from FARC. (If Obama wins, do the hostages go back?)
- Florida Gov. Charlie Crist
got engaged.
- former Sen. Jesse Helms died at
age 86. Americans started setting off
fireworks. The two events were unrelated. (My review of the
latest Helms biography is here.)
- At the moment, Obama leads
McCain by 102 electoral votes.
Below the Fold
- Brian Beutler
examines the odious House FISA bill.
- Zev Chafets
enters the empire of Rush Limbaugh.
- I'm going to climb out on a limb and predict that
conservative black pastors won't be much of a problem for
Obama.
- A Daily Kos diarist
wonders if the party can still nominate Hillary. (He's angry
about FISA.)
I'm tweaking Politics 'n' Prog this week and digging back into
my high school tape archives for a song befitting this absurdly
violent week.
SUNDAY UPDATE: Would you believe that Mumia Abu-Jamal agrees with Ralph Nader, that Barack Obama isn't black enough? Here you go.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|7.4.08 @ 4:40PM|#
The link to the American Spectator review of the Helms bio is
reported as an attack site. Any idea why?
Oh, and nice pic for the Crist wedding. They look so lifelike.
EJM|7.4.08 @ 5:06PM|#
The link to the American Spectator review of the Helms bio
is reported as an attack site. Any idea why?
IIRC, someone mentioned the same thing about a Spectator link in
last week's political thread.
P.S.: For those who'd prefer an alternative to Pearl Jam, I suggest
this classic
Lemonheads song. (And, if you'd rather see Evan Dando with
short hair, click here.)
An Orange Line Special Runs Th|7.4.08 @ 5:21PM|#
1. There's a new John McCain
ad... just for us!
2. The Washington
Post lied.
3. This week's anti-prog is in the form of a call for
tariffs.
P.S. Happy 4th of July, tranzis!
|7.4.08 @ 5:30PM|#
I think Lonewacko just sits in his basement masturbating angrily
in front of his computer waiting for Weigel to put up the weekend
political thread, just so he can get his shit-spam post up as soon
as possible.
Happy 4th, Lonewacko! Keep on the lookout for MexicanFireworks!
|7.4.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Exuse me, but the last time I checked the Constution, the Electoral College votes aren't counted until early January (January 6th, if memory serves......)
EJM|7.4.08 @ 6:27PM|#
3. This week's anti-prog is in the form of a call for
tariffs.
For those who'd prefer an alternative to Natalie Merchant (and, I
assume, tariffs), I suggest this classic Dinosaur
Jr song.
Elemenope|7.4.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Jesse Helms died at age 86. Americans started setting off
fireworks. The two events were unrelated.
Don't bet on it.
Exuse me, but the last time I checked the Constution, the
Electoral College votes aren't counted until early
January...
Some people really *need* those disclaimers; talk about literally
minded. (Also, some people need Firefox for the spellchecker.)
Elemenope|7.4.08 @ 8:02PM|#
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12942
Huh. Interesting...though I am still really quite skeptical of how
Iraq fits into Just War theory. I remember reading the Richard Land
letter and choking on bitter laughter.
Elemenope|7.4.08 @ 8:04PM|#
Not surprisingly REASON missed this political
story.
SIV, I think you seem to be confusing 'political story' with 'story
about a politician'. They are not the same.
SIV|7.4.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Here is a shitty
screengrab of the "suppressed" Weigel Jap cellphone monkey
campaigning for change youtube copyright H&R post from 3:20 PM
yesterday.
monkey
campaigns for change video
SIV|7.4.08 @ 8:12PM|#
Elemenope ,
Some people with an adolescent sense of humor might find the
headline amusing. Clearly you are too sophisticated for such
things.
Elemenope|7.4.08 @ 8:26PM|#
SIV,
I would never fault the subtlety of your humor. Yeah, the headline
was funny enough.
|7.4.08 @ 8:44PM|#
The link to the electoral college votes seems like Obama is
running away with it -- until you click on the link for the 2004
election and find that Kerry had an almost identical lead in early
July also -- and that several states listed in the Obama column are
virtually ties.
Could be a squeaker again -- with LP party voters possibly holding
the balance of power.
DC is worth checking out -- 90-9 Obama -- and this single digit
showing for Republicans happened in all the prior presidential
elections listed.
Charles|7.4.08 @ 9:04PM|#
Let's not forget Joanthan Rauch's analysis of Hemlm's impact
from back in 2002:
https://www.reason.com/news/show/34646.html
|7.5.08 @ 12:31AM|#
Happy Independence Day, everyone!
Here is the true meaning of the holiday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osFKsmjwe6g
It's one of my faves on my YouTube page:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RickeyRamone
Feel free to subscribe so that you'll be notified whenever I add a
vid.
|7.5.08 @ 12:45AM|#
Ohio is big on cornhole. My neighbors have their whole backyard made into a cornhole thing. Carson Palmer had a cornhole tournament also ( and he does commercials and print ads for extra long hotdogs).
The Knight Industries Two Thou|7.5.08 @ 12:56AM|#
I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress.
|7.5.08 @ 4:41AM|#
Not suprisingingly REASON missed this political story.
Didn't former NJ Gov. Jim McGreevey already use his cornhole for fundraising?
|7.5.08 @ 4:57AM|#
Pearl Jam? And still no Devin Townsend? Hang your head in shame,
Mr. Weigel.
But on a serious note, the article on the conservative black church
leadership was thought-provoking. A profound Gordian Knot indeed,
that a-word.
|7.5.08 @ 8:31AM|#
No doubt about it dude. You gonna hit the King, you better make
it count!
JT
http://www.FIreMe.To/udi
|7.5.08 @ 10:24AM|#
Jesse Helms died at age 86. Americans started setting off
fireworks. The two events were unrelated.
I'd like to say that I set off pyrotechnic devices to celebrate
that ignorant bigots demise, but the idea didn't occur to me. OTOH,
pouring a double of Irish whiskey over ice and musing about his
seat in hell ...
Lefty|7.5.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Pearl Jam sucks. Ed Vedder's an ass. He's about a libertarian as
a warm fart coming out of the ass of Obama.
Again no Keith Emerson? Eddie Vedder's no KE. He sucks!
|7.5.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq. It's a completely different view of America's
role in the world and future in the Middle East.
-sez the Obamapologist. Obama is a Serious Adult Politician; you
kids go play, and let the grown-ups handle this stuff.
Unlimited power is bad, when Georgie Peorgie has it, but it'll be
okay, once we have the whip and the reins. And put that
greasy old doughnut down! We have some nice arugula for
you to snack on.
|7.5.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Obama supports a deliberate and orderly withdrawal of US
forces from Iraq.
As does every other politician. The only differences are in the
(increasingly arcane) details.
You do know, of course, that Obama has abandoned his rigid schedule
of 1-2 brigades per month, regardless of conditions on the ground,
yes?
|7.5.08 @ 12:42PM|#
What's Obama's stated policy (this week) on permanent bases in
Iraq? Has he said he'll stop funding their construction? What does
he propose to do with the Fortress America embassy complex in
Baghad?
ps- I know you're not an Obamapologist, RC.
|7.5.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Our Congress, with the political and media elite cheering, is about to violate every one of these principles. They are taking away from the judiciary the power to adjudicate allegations of lawbreaking. They are creating a two-tiered system of justice in which our most powerful corporations can break the law with impunity and government officials remain immune from consequences. And they are, in unity, spewing rank propaganda to the commoners -- who continue to be subjected to the harsh punishment for violations of the law -- in order to convince them that granting license to our political and corporate elites to break the law is necessary for their own Good and for their Safety.
-Greenwald
go here
|7.5.08 @ 1:35PM|#
We can't know what either Obama or McCain "would do" when they
get in office on Iraq. We do know where they "have been" on the war
(Obama against, McCain bully on it). And we do know what their
rhetoric currently is on it (again, Obama against, McCain bully on
it). I imagine at different times both say different things on the
details (like 100 years?)
Does anyone remember Steve Colbert doing Carry on Wayward Son at
the close of Strangers with Candy? Rocks.
robc|7.5.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Knight 2k,
I was watching the last episode of the HBO Adam's miniseries last
night. During his daughters breast cancer surgery, he was pacing.
Abigail says "For God's sake, John, sit down". I laughed.
|7.5.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Venus Williams is queen of Wimbledon again
I love it when Yank athletes excel. If you're a boorish American
tennis fan, the men's competition has provided you no reason to
cheer lately. Fortunately the Williams sisters are still upper
tier.
|7.5.08 @ 2:28PM|#
We can't know what either Obama or McCain "would do" when
they get in office on Iraq. We do know where they "have been" on
the war (Obama against, McCain bully on it). And we do know what
their rhetoric currently is on it (again, Obama against, McCain
bully on it). I imagine at different times both say different
things on the details (like 100 years?
MNG -- what we do know is that Obama is now backing off on
withdrawing the troops, now that he is courting a general election
audience. What we do know is that Obama has broken his word about
campaign financing funds. What we do know is that Obama is rolling
over on the odious telecom immunity bill. What we do know is that
Obama said the DC gun law was constitutional, until the 5-4 Heller
ruling, whereupon he used a spokesman's weasel words to imply it
was unconstitutional.
What we do know is that both Obama and McCain can and will do what
is politically expedient. What we do know is that they both are
finding frequent occasion to have spokesmen try to spin what they
have said and done, and pretend they really didn't mean what we all
heard and observed. We can quibble about how far each will go to
screw us over, but screw us over they will.
Which is why I'm voting for Bob Barr, to send the message that all
this crap is unacceptable to me, and doesn't merit my vote.
|7.5.08 @ 3:29PM|#
prole
Is he backing off from withdrawing the troops? I just heard that he
was making a trip there and said he'd take into consideration what
he learned there in his Iraq policy. I'm not sure that's the same
thing. As for the telecom immunity if I remember correctly he said
he was against that provision but I'm not sure that entails a
promise to vote against any bill which contains that provision.
Sure, I'd like to see him fight the entire bill to get the
provision, but I imagine Senators have to vote for bills with
provisions they do not like but which have improvements or
provisions they do like.
I actually am happy to hear about his Heller flip flop as it tells
me that while there are many gun control types in the rank and file
Democratic Party, and their pols have to take that into account,
that they have determined that this is a liability for them in
elections and thus will not touch it.
|7.5.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Well, we have no way to know what either Obama or McCain will do about the war. But if you look to Vietnam for a precedent, it may very well be that it will be ended faster with McCain in office. Vietnam wasn't ended because Nixon wanted to leave, it was ended because a hostile Democratic congress cut off it's funding. Given that we're going to have an overwhelmingly Democratic congress after the next election, who are they more likely to yank the rug out from under? A Democratic president, or a Republican one?
Elemenope|7.5.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Quibble: He rejected the DC law as unconstitutional a few days
BEFORE Heller was announced. Not after.
I suppose you could go all paranoid "but somehow he KNEW how it was
going to go", but that would be stupid.
|7.5.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Lefty,
Are you the same Lefty who commented here years ago?
BTW we, at least, agree on Pearl Jam.
|7.5.08 @ 4:50PM|#
I see there is a Brian Beutler aid party happening at the Black Cat in a couple of weeks. Any news on what that will be like? Should a libertarian bother to attend and throw down a few bucks in support of a local blogger?
|7.5.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Mannix-I would guess something that might make your analogy a bit more inapt is that Obama has made his mark being against the war while LBJ made his being for staying the course until it was "done". In that respect McCain=LBJ.
Episiarch|7.5.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Weigel, well done on the Gest/Manelli picture. That's one of my
favorite pictures of all time.
Also, Pearl Jam sucks.
Elemenope|7.5.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Wow, the haters. Pearl Jam's Ten was a great album.
True, it was downhill ever since. I've found that pretty much
everyone older than about thirty reflexively hates STP, Pearl Jam,
AIC, Soundgarden.
It's a sign you're getting old.
TallDave|7.5.08 @ 6:09PM|#
Barack Obama learned to love the surge,
allegedly.
At the rate Obama is moving right, by Election Day his middle name
will be Reagan and he'll be endorsed by Rush Limbaugh.
Wow, the haters. Pearl Jam's Ten was a great album. True, it
was downhill ever since.
Yeah, Ten was their peak. No Code was just awful. Yield had one or
two good ones.
Episiarch|7.5.08 @ 6:31PM|#
I've found that pretty much everyone older than about thirty
reflexively hates STP, Pearl Jam, AIC, Soundgarden.
Don't forget to include people with taste. I remember when the
album after Ten came out; everyone was totally hyped up
for it beyond all reason--it was totally faddish. My cousins camped
out in front of the music store to buy the album at midnight. A
week later (since the album sucked) it was like Pearl Jam no longer
existed. They wouldn't even mention them because they were
embarrassed at being sucked in.
It's a sign you're getting old.
Claiming something is a sign of someone getting old is a sign
you're getting old.
And I just entered myself into an endless loop of getting old.
Elemenope|7.5.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Younger, no?
Just barely. I'll be twenty-seven in two weeks. And I'm actually on
the younger side of people who grew up directly with those four
bands; twenty-nine is probably the sweet spot for grunge. And yeah,
pretty much everyone older than thirty or younger than twenty-six
fucking hates 'em, and not without reason. Some of their albums
*did* suck.
Don't forget to include people with taste. I remember when the
album after Ten came out; everyone was totally hyped up for it
beyond all reason--it was totally faddish. My cousins camped out in
front of the music store to buy the album at midnight. A week later
(since the album sucked) it was like Pearl Jam no longer existed.
They wouldn't even mention them because they were embarrassed at
being sucked in.
Oh, I dunno. Vs. was OK, and Yield was...um, OK.
Vitalogy really blew. By that time, pretty much everyone I knew had
moved on to Tool and System of a Down, so the grunge movement died
a quiet death.
Les|7.5.08 @ 7:06PM|#
I'm in my early 40's and didn't really appreciate them when they were big, as I was going through a funk and jazz obsession at the time. Now, I'm checking out their CD's from the library and I'm thoroughly impressed. Great musicians. Some beautiful songs. And Vedder's songs from "Into the Wild" are, in my opinion, just wonderful.
Kolohe|7.5.08 @ 7:26PM|#
STP, Pearl Jam, AIC, Soundgarden.
I am 34, and these have the heaviest rotation on my playlists on
the ipod. The whole grunge thing came out my freshman year of
college, and thanks to an environment which enabled a delayed and
perpetual adolescence, I don't really count my 'teenage' years over
until about 1999. So I would say I 'grew up' with them too.
OTOH, as I have said, I am the world's worst cultural critic
Elemenope|7.5.08 @ 7:44PM|#
I am 34, and these have the heaviest rotation on my
playlists on the ipod. The whole grunge thing came out my freshman
year of college, and thanks to an environment which enabled a
delayed and perpetual adolescence, I don't really count my
'teenage' years over until about 1999. So I would say I 'grew up'
with them too.
Well, there are always outliers. My younger brother's favorite band
is Pink Floyd, and he's about twenty-five years too young to care
about them. Then again, he's heavy into Alice In Chains right now,
and he's a bit too young for them too.
I have a sweet spot for The Rolling Stones (and it kills me that
they're *still touring*; that just ain't right), myself.
Episiarch|7.5.08 @ 8:35PM|#
I'll be twenty-seven in two weeks.
I'm older than you, but I look 27, so it's a wash.
the grunge movement died a quiet death
As a person who was the exact age to experience grunge, I can only
be happy about this. Grunge is some of the shittiest music around.
Self-involved douchebags whining about how tough their lives are is
very annoying.
Elemenope|7.5.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Self-involved douchebags whining about how tough their lives
are is very annoying.
Isn't that the description of all artists ever?
(Speaking, respectfully, as the son of a professional
artist.)
Pathos is critical to art, and if you don't have it, you
gotta at least fake it for the art's sake.
EJM|7.5.08 @ 8:53PM|#
I never did get into grunge (a term that I've always thought has
been misapplied) during and after my college years. (I'm 36.)
Instead, I have a soft spot for a lot of power-pop and
punk-pop--not to mention TV themes (especially from the early '60s
through the late '80s, and most notably for game shows and local TV
news). (My primary exposure to new music is through occasionally
listening to songs on MySpace and PureVolume.)
Since I plugged a few songs earlier, I might as well plug Husker Du's "I Don't
Want to Know if You Are Lonely"--and a cover version by
Green Day. And, just in case, LoneWacko's reading this, here
are members of three of Mexico's leading pop-punk bands (Allison,
Delux, and Masappan) performing three of their groups' best-known
songs (respectively, "Me Cambio",
"Entre la
Guerra y el Amor", and "Otra Mañana").
("Alternative Press" apparently had a recent feature on Mexican
punk, but I haven't been able to read it yet, as it's not
online.)
EJM|7.5.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Sorry for the extraneous comma; it should read "just in case LoneWacko's reading this...".
|7.5.08 @ 10:16PM|#
"At the moment, Obama leads McCain by 102 electoral
votes."
I knew that Electoral College thing was rigged.
dpsc|7.6.08 @ 2:22AM|#
Episotomy: I've been accused of being older than you, but I play
the sousaphone like Jimi Page and the girls I date are
underage.
Gotta agree with you though. The listenable parts of grunge were
stolen. The rest was original.
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:46AM|#
My younger brother's favorite band is Pink Floyd, and he's
about twenty-five years too young to care about them.
No one is too young to care about Pink Floyd. It is a sign of
quality when a group significantly (there are always outliers)
crosses generational boundaries.
200 years from now, people will still be listening to Floyd. Im not
sure about The Beatles (to pick an example that people THOUGHT
would last that way). Pearl Jam wont make it.
|7.6.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Out of a sense of respect, I'd like to say a few words about
this thread. The Long Weekend Political Thread lived an amazing
life even though it was rather short. What is it that we remember
when we think of The Long Political Thread? I think everyone who
knows it very well would agree with me on this. It was its sense of
humor. It was the kind of thread that would make everyone laugh so
hard that they'd end up crying. And we can all agree about The Long
Political Thread's love of music, especially prog, and how it loved
to debate about it knowing there could be no real resolution on
this subject, but enjoying the few minutes when libertarians,
liberaltarians, paleos etc. could all be united in a mutual like
and nostalgia for music of days gone by.
The Long Political Thread is in heaven now and we are here at its
funeral. This is not the time for us to grieve its death but it's
our time to celebrate its life. Don't ever forget The Long
Political Thread. It never wanted to see people cry. It wanted to
make everyone happy. So at this moment when we are about to lay its
body to rest, let's all think back and remember how The Long
Political Thread touched our lives. How it made us laugh and how
good The Long Political Thread was as a blog thread. This is not
the moment for us to shed our tears but we should all be thankful
that we were given the chance to have known a thread named The Long
Political Thread. After all, it's not its fault there was no news
about evolution or gay marriage this week.
|7.6.08 @ 12:30PM|#
I refuse to give up The Weekend Political Thread to the Angel
of Death.
But, aye, I weep for the dearth of t3h joez, t3h Guy Montags, t3h
Wine Commonsewers and t3h Neu Mejicans. Even Dondero's
half-hearted.
Episiarch|7.6.08 @ 12:39PM|#
MNG, can I have some of whatever you're on today?
"I've changed. People change. Changes...I'm not the same Jerri
Blank who informed on those blind orphans. I'm not the same Jerri
Blank who revealed the hiding place of those Guatemalans...such as
yourself. And I'm not the same Jerri Blank who took a crap in the
Fleishmann's holly bushes...last night."
Leading Climate Scientist|7.6.08 @ 12:53PM|#
I would agree that these numbers are no evidence that Obama will win because, yes, John Kerry and Michael Dukakis also had an early lead. But this brings up what I like to call the "weiner factor". Kerry was kind of a weiner. So were Gore and Dukakis. Obama might be a weiner, but ultimately, I think that McCain is the leading contender for Mega Weiner right now.
|7.6.08 @ 1:46PM|#
200 years from now, people will still be listening to
Floyd.
... in the future's equivalent of elevators, waiting rooms, and
pretentious classical music stations.
|7.6.08 @ 2:25PM|#
prolefeed,
That's also where they'll probably be listenting to Human League,
Associates, OMD, Depeche Mode, et al. as well. I can live with that
(if you can pardon the expression).
|7.6.08 @ 2:33PM|#
When two candidates have vastly different positions on a major
issue, and one of them is trying his damnedest to blur those
differences, you don't need a lot of polling data to figure out the
state of the race.
Two years ago, the Republicans decided it was politically expedient
to ignore everything Obama was saying about "listen to the
commanders on the ground about tactics" and "we need to be as
careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in," and
pretend his position was indistinguishable from Dennis
Kucinich.
Now, they've decided it is politically expedient to ignore
everything he's saying about withdrawal being the cornerstone of
his strategy for Iraq, and pretend his position is
indistinguishable from John McCain's.
And the theory here is, in a country where 70% of the public wants
to leave Iraq FASTER than Barack Obama, he is changing his position
to one of staying longer, out of political expedience.
I'd say that's an astoundingly stupid argument for conservatives to
make in this election, but, as always, we return to: well, what the
hell else are they supposed to talk about?
BTW, RC, love the "everyone wants to withdraw from Iraq in an
orderly manner" line. Perhaps you should tell Senator "maybe 100
years, maybe 1000 years, maybe 10,000 years.
|7.6.08 @ 2:34PM|#
John Kerry and Michael Dukakis also had an early
lead.
Yes it's clearly better to be way behind.
Ben the Liberal|7.6.08 @ 2:46PM|#
I think if anything the polls underestimate Obama's true lead.
African American and young turnout is going to skyrocket from 2004
levels (something the polls don't take into account) and be
compounded by the swing in party ID (again, something most
polls--esp. the weighted ones (gallup) don't show because they are
using 2004 numbers).
Watch for surprisingly strong numbers in the deep south,
especially. Obama will have the strongest performance there of any
Democrat since Jimmy Carter.
Ben the Liberal|7.6.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Obama has shown bigger leads than either Kerry or Gore ever
did.
As for Dukakis, in 1988 a Vice President under a very popular
incumbent was running to succeed him. Bush Sr. would have taken it
as a compliment if someone accused him in 1988 as running for a
"third Reagan term".
Not so much for a third Bush term in 2008.
|7.6.08 @ 3:02PM|#
In 1988, 2000, and 2004, party IDs were roughly even.
In 2008, the Democrats' lead in party ID was even larger than it
was in 2006.
Elemenope|7.6.08 @ 3:33PM|#
As for Dukakis, in 1988 a Vice President under a very
popular incumbent was running to succeed him. Bush Sr. would have
taken it as a compliment if someone accused him in 1988 as running
for a "third Reagan term".
That's not even close to true. What was the line? "We shall be a
kinder, gentler administration (which should not be taken as a
criticism of my predecessor)."
|7.6.08 @ 3:44PM|#
I saw my first McCain ad the other day. It was on the economy.
He listed four or five things he was going to do, and two of them
were "make corporate CEO's accountable" and "restructure mortgage
debt" and I thought, wow this is an unusual GOP Presidential ad
isn't it?
Obama's ads run quite a bit. Mostly fluff. They seem to say "I'm
NOT a scary black guy, I have and like my grandmother. And values
n'stuff." But it was a better put together ad.
Ben the Liberal|7.6.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Elemenope, Reagan campaigned way more for Bush Sr. than Clinton
did for Gore, or Eisenhower for Nixon.
"No New Taxes" certainly is Reagan-esque, isn't it?
Ben the Liberal|7.6.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Regardless being a Republican in 1988 wasn't a big problem--it
was probably a plus given Reagan's popularity.
I'm almost positive Reagan could've won a third term in 1988 had he
been allowed to run, something you certainly can't say for Bush Jr.
today.
ed|7.6.08 @ 4:23PM|#
"Self-involved douchebags whining about how tough their
lives are is very annoying."
"Isn't that the description of all artists ever?"
Wow. "All"? "Ever"?
I guess, maybe, if "all" art began in the 1990s...
robc|7.6.08 @ 4:28PM|#
joe,
BTW, RC, love the "everyone wants to withdraw from Iraq in an
orderly manner" line. Perhaps you should tell Senator "maybe 100
years, maybe 1000 years, maybe 10,000 years.
I think RC's point was that even McCain wants to withdraw in an
orderly manner, which might be 1000+ years from now. But, he wants
to do it. Orderly.
robc|7.6.08 @ 4:32PM|#
I saw my first McCain ad the other day.
I dont think I will get to see any ads this year (yea! for me).
Obama got crushed by Clinton here (well, not literally here, he
beat her in my county, just got thumped in the state) and he has
zero, zip, zilch chance against McCain in KY. I didnt mind the ad
free campaign of 4 years ago either.
I think it would be a good place for Barr to run ads (along with
others) if he is interested in maximizing his vote numbers vs
maximizing effect on the race.
Ben the Liberal|7.6.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Robc-
You'd be right. What that has to do with the fact that Reagan
didn't have an approval rating in the upper 20s, and that the
Republican Party wasn't self-destructing in 1988 like it is now,
I'm not sure.
|7.6.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Epi
Sorry, I just say no. As my friend Sara Blank says about dealing
with folks with drug addiction: "You can't help a drug addict until
they've hit rock bottom. And sometimes it's important to help the
process along. You dig a hole in the yard and cover it with sticks
and leaves, put glass in their slippers... "
Orange Line Special|7.6.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Obamatarians rejoice! BHO is going to make your dreams come true.
|7.6.08 @ 5:17PM|#
robc,
I stand corrected. John McCain is, indeed, in favor of withdrawal.
Why, he's even begun speaking about a timeline. ;-)
Seriously, there is an easy way of figuring out this
not-really-a-mystery about what the two candidates intend to do
about Iraq; look at what they're saying about troop levels in
Afghanistan.
There is no reserve available for us to put into Afghanistan. Zip.
Zero. Nada. And yet, everyone realizes that we're quite thin there,
with the Taliban making a comeback. The only way there can be an
increase in troop levels there is if we shrink the force in
Iraq.
Barack Obama is on record in favor of a substantial increase in
American troop levels in Afghanistan - IIRC, he's talking about a
10,000 man surge. John McCain, on the other hand, is saying that we
should not increase troop levels there, and aren't the Europeans
terrible for not sending more of the their own troops?
Barack Obama intends to have at least 10,000 troops available to
send to Afghanistan next year, and John McCain does not. There ya
go.
Barack Obama has a strategy to withdraw from Iraq, but will be
flexible and pay a great deal of attention to the uniformed
military in the tactical implementation of that strategy. John
McCain has a strategy to continue the occupation of Iraq, but will
be flexible and pay a great deal of attention to the uniformed
military in the tactical implementation of that strategy.
It's as the CinC of CentCom said a few months back to Congress -
"We do what we must in Iraq, we do what we can in Afghanistan."
John McCain intends to keep that order of priorities in place, and
Barack Obama intends to do the opposite.
Obama For America|7.6.08 @ 5:33PM|#
Barack Obama will end the illegal,immoral, war of imperialist
aggression. Barack Obama will smite the muslim hordes.
Barack Obama will restore our civil liberties to the level intended
by our founding fathers.Barack Obama will give law enforcement and
the intelligence community the tools it needs to stop
terrorism,child pornography and the war on drugs.
Barack Obama will protect a womans right to chose. Mental distress
is no excuse for murdering your unborn child.
Barack Obama will lower gas prices. barack Obama will tax the oil
companies and protect our lands from destructive drilling.
Barack Obama has ponies for every little girl in the world.A whole
stable full of ponies just for joe.
|7.6.08 @ 5:41PM|#
I'm not sure what's more impressive; the evidence you brought to
bear, or the keen logic.
Anyway, you sure showed me.
This just in: people who support Barack Obama support Barack Obama.
That's all you need to know to understand that they're wrong.
|7.6.08 @ 6:43PM|#
"Let me be as clear as I can be. I intend to end this war. My
first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and
I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war -
responsibly, deliberately, but decisively. And I have seen no
information that contradicts the notion that we can bring our
troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades a month, and
again, that pace translates into having our combat troops out in 16
months' time."
I have to say, there is not a word about waving a magic wand and
transporting 140,000 troops w/ their equipment from Iraq to Tampa
in that statement. Not a goddam one.
I've been had! What a fool I've been!
robc|7.6.08 @ 6:47PM|#
joe,
what the two candidates
I dont know about Mass, but my state will have more than 2
candidates on the ballot (actually, I do know for Mass - as of the
June "ballot access news", the greens have qualified already and
the LP is half-way there. Deadline in late July. That is ahead of
KY, which has a much later deadline [Sept 2]).
robc|7.6.08 @ 6:52PM|#
joe,
The problem is you keep comparing the Obama position to the McCain
position. Instead, you need to compare it to the Paul position, or
something similar. By that standard, Obama's position is better but
its like saying Saturn is closer to the earth than Neptune.
Problem #2 is - I dont believe anything Obama says (Ditto McCain,
for that matter), even when he says something I agree with
(actually, especially when he says something I agree with). I
realize it makes things tough for you to argue if we accept
everything "wrong" he says as true and everything "right" is
assumed to be a lie. But, there ya go, you have to work from the
premises you are given.
robc|7.6.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Ben,
Your earlier comments about Bush 1 in 1988 had nothing to do with
approval ratings or the GOP. The GOP couldnt self-destruct in 1988,
they hadnt had the power for that in nearly 40 years. :)
Your comments did not represent the race in 1988. It was obvious
you werent paying close attention to it at the time. As anyone who
has seen Ferris Bueller knows, Bush invented the term "voodoo
economics" in the 1980 primary race. He won because people wanted a
3rd Reagan term, but he didnt run for a 3rd Reagan term. Like Gore
in 2000, he mostly ran away from the president. He didnt do it as
much as Gore did, which is why Gore didnt win. But, the tone of the
1988 campaign was clearly "Im not Reagan". And then he was elected
and proved it.
|7.6.08 @ 7:04PM|#
robc,
So, you don't believe anything that Obama or McCain say, but
RonPaul and Bob Barr's statements are beyond reproach.
OK.
I compare the two candidates who have a chance in hell of being the
next President, because I think it is a matter of abiding
importance whether the next president will end the war, or continue
it. I think that actually accomplishing this is important, even
beyond the speed at which it occurs.
I have to say, the idea that Obama is closer to McCain than to Paul
or Barr is a bit silly. Look at these three statements: I'll give
you a million dollars tomorrow; I'll give you a million dollars
over the next couple of years, ideally within 16 months; I'm not
giving you any money.
One of these things is not the other, and it's pretty obvious which
one.
robc|7.6.08 @ 7:08PM|#
joe,
but RonPaul and Bob Barr's statements are beyond
reproach.
Actually, I put them in the "they are politicians, therefore they
are lying" category too. I just figure they are more likely to lie
in a direction I like. :)
robc|7.6.08 @ 7:13PM|#
I compare the two candidates who have a chance in hell of
being the next President
Well, I had this argument 12 years ago too (it may not apply this
year, but McCain may fit it soon). Dole had no chance of being
president in 1996, as far as I was concerned he was in the exact
same basket as Browne and Perot and whoever the Nat Law Party
ran.
think it is a matter of abiding importance whether the next
president
I hear this about some issue every 4 years and it hasnt turned out
to be true yet. Abortions didnt go away under a Bush presidency.
Clinton didnt cause whatever catastrophic harm he was supposed to
cause. Reagan didnt lead to old people eating dog food, Carter
didnt lead to double digit unemployment + double digit inflation.
Oh wait, well, I dont think anyone predicted that as a particular
Carter outcome in 1976.
|7.6.08 @ 7:15PM|#
robc
Do you care about ending the war, or not?
If you care about ending it then voting for Obama will get you
closer to your goal than voting for McCain. If you live in a state
where a vote for Barr will hurt McCain then you should vote for
Barr. If you live in a state where Obama needs every vote then you
should vote for him.
But if ending the War is important to you voting for McCain would
be the nuttiest thing you can do since he has been a consistent
supporter of the LBJ strategy to stick it out until its "done."
|7.6.08 @ 7:22PM|#
"I hear this about some issue every 4 years and it hasnt turned
out to be true yet."
I hear what you are saying. Who would have foreseen the tough law
enforcement provisions under Clinton, or the crazy high deficet
spending and expansion of government benefits under Bush, given the
rhetoric of the two parties?
But I also think you're wrong in some respects. If Gore had beat
Bush I don't think we would be in Iraq right now. I really don't.
There are other examples of that kind of thing.
|7.6.08 @ 7:28PM|#
robc,
You've got a point about Dole, and by extension, McCain.
If this is not a close election, and it doesn't look like it's
going to be one, than perhaps you are in a position to take the
hard line.
PUMA|7.6.08 @ 7:43PM|#
The Democratic Congress can "end the war" anytime they want by
reducing/cutting off funding. Considering both Mccain and now Obama
have committed to continuing the operation, which candidate can
expect the legislature to rubber stamp his funding requests
regardless of the "facts on the ground"?
Mccain is the "accidental" anti-war candidate whether he, or his
supporters and opponents, realize it or not.
|7.6.08 @ 7:45PM|#
It doesn't make any sense that you would call yourself "PUMA"
and make that argument, troll. Try again.
Or, better yet, grow a pair, then grow a brain, and try to make an
argument that you actually believe, in good faith, that makes
sense, and then put your name on it.
|7.6.08 @ 7:47PM|#
robc,
On the other hand, in all of those other cases, you refer to
terrible outcomes that were predicted that never
materialized.
On the other hand, McCain's stay-the-course position is not an
outcome, but an input, it is his actual policy, and one that he has
clung to at a political cost to him, so there is a strong reason to
believe that it would actually come to pass.
robc|7.6.08 @ 7:47PM|#
MNG,
I am voting for Barr because of the people who will be on my
ballot, he is the one I most want to be president. No other
considerations, no strategeries necessary.
PUMA|7.6.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Obama cam out against a woman's right to chose to try to win over the economically distressed Bible-thumpers this weekend. ANYBODY but Obama.
robc|7.6.08 @ 7:53PM|#
joe,
The fact that you didnt use the phrase "on the gripping hand"
saddens me.
I would have found a new level of respect for you if you had.
Sigh.
|7.6.08 @ 8:12PM|#
"Considering both Mccain and now Obama have committed to
continuing the operation"
Wow, that's a stupid conflation of the two candidate's oft stated
views!
What's interesting is I'm guessing whoever posted this wants us to
stay in Iraq, but knows it's not a popular position. Sad.
|7.6.08 @ 8:16PM|#
"I am voting for Barr because of the people who will be on my
ballot, he is the one I most want to be president."
Hell, I can respect that. Don't expect any pratical consequences
you may want to see unfold from that vote, but I can respect that
(no snark or trap, I mean, we are supposed to vote our interests [I
voted for Jerry Brown in 92 primary], Perot in 96 and Buchanan in
00.)
robc|7.6.08 @ 8:52PM|#
MNG,
Hell, I can respect that.
Im incapable of respecting anyone who doesnt vote that way.
|7.6.08 @ 9:02PM|#
I dunno robc. I believe in 3rd party candidates. They provide
real benefits to our politics. I've backed that with my votes many
times. But...
Let's imagine a scenario where candidate A says "I will sign a law
stripping a (right very important to you)." Candidate B says he
will veto any such law. The law is likely to pass Congress.
Candidate C has no chance of winning but says he would not only
veto such law, he would work to undermine it in more serious ways
than candidate A vows to. The night votes are cast the polls show
candidate A and B in a deadlock but candidate C has no chance. I
honestly cannot see voting for candidate C as the responsible
choice to the extent that you care about the right...
Elemenope|7.6.08 @ 9:33PM|#
Im incapable of respecting anyone who doesnt vote that
way.
Me too.
I am having a hard time with your lack of apostrophes, though.
;)
|7.6.08 @ 9:34PM|#
As disturbing as your hypo is, I can save the essence of mine by stipulating that if candidate A is slain his party will just appoint someone of like mind. Now what? Voting for C might ensure you lose your right or benefit you value..
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:37PM|#
lmnop,
My lack of apostrophes is intentional. I can think of no situation
in which the apostrophe clarifies things. I can figure out from
context a plural vs possessive and contractions
dont cause problems either. See.
|7.6.08 @ 9:38PM|#
joe | July 6, 2008, 2:34pm | #
John Kerry and Michael Dukakis also had an early lead.
Yes it's clearly better to be way behind.
If by "way behind" you mean "takes the lead with a 1% swing in Ohio
and Indiana, a 2% swing in Virginia, and a 3% swing in Colorado" in
polls with margins of errors of 5% or more -- months before most
people have started paying attention to politics -- then sure,
Obama is ahead in a blowout.
Or perhaps you mean "in polls where McCain had the same
commanding-looking lead about a month ago"?
Or perhaps you mean "in polls where Texas was recently allegedly in
play for Obama, and Connecticut for McCain"?
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:40PM|#
The only voting stategy other than "vote for the person you most
want" than I can respect is "voting is immoral".
MNG,
A single vote never matters. In any race above city council level,
a single vote difference will end up in the race being decided by
the courts. Thus, it really doesnt matter what I do with my vote
anyway. I cant cause B to get elected over A. I only control one
vote, I might as well vote for C. Bs party will just interpret it
as support for their causes anyway.
|7.6.08 @ 9:43PM|#
robc
Would you advocate as a general ethical rule: "shoot any candidate
who threatens a right you value?" Because a lot of people, you
know, will disagree with you about what rights are valued and who
and what is threatened...You can see that, right?
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:46PM|#
MNG,
Just those rights that are so important that it would cause **ME**
to consider voting strategically. At that point, assassination is
more than reasonable. I think at that level the rights being taken
away are so sacrosanct that you would agree with the assassination
too.
|7.6.08 @ 9:47PM|#
robc
I see your point. But if a fair number of people think that way
some swing states (not most mind you) could swing different ways,
with pretty bad results.
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:49PM|#
MNG,
Example:
A supports a bill that will cause all descendents of former slaves
to be reenslaved to the descendents of the former slaveholders. B
opposes the bill. C opposes it, plus he favors tax cuts.
I would rather shoot A (and every other member of his party -
assuming it was party policy) than vote for B.
|7.6.08 @ 9:51PM|#
"I think at that level the rights being taken away are so
sacrosanct that you would agree with the assassination too."
Not as long as there was a democratic alternative.
For example, someone takes away the right to keep and bear arms. As
long as I could advocate for change I would not engage in violent
challenge.
Someone takes away the right to vote or to advocate for a
challenging candidate or party, then I would think about what you
are talking about, seriously. I'd be angry, and like the Hulk, you
would'nt want to make me angry....
|7.6.08 @ 9:51PM|#
MNG -- depends on where you live, and on what you believe.
Scenario 1 -- You live in Hawaii (or DC or Massachusetts or
Illinois or California ...), where Obama has a 100% chance of
winning, or you live in Utah (or Texas or Idaho or ...) where
McCain has a 100% chance of winning. Candidate A represents 30% of
your political views, Candidate B represents 35% of your political
views, and Candidate C represents 90% of your political
views.
Do you vote for candidate B because he is the lesser of two evils
and has a chance of winning the election, but has no chance at all
of winning in the state where you personally will vote? Or do you
vote for candidate C to send a message about your values?
Scenario 2 -- You live in a swing state like Ohio (or Nevada or New
Mexico or ...)
Candidate A - 30% of your views.
Candidate B - 30.1% of your views.
Candidate C - 90% of your views.
Who do you vote for now?
Scenario 3
Candidate A - 30% of your views
Candidate B - 50% of your views
Candidate C - 100% of your views (you ARE Candidate C)
Do you loudly proclaim to everyone that you're voting for Candidate
B, because he is the best candidate with a chance of winning, even
though you think he'd fuck things up royally, but not as much as
the other guy?
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:51PM|#
MNG,
Im not in a swing state, but there isnt a single swing state that
my vote could swing. Take a hypothetical 2000 Florida Nader voter.
He didnt cost Gore the election. If he had voted for Gore instead,
Bush still wins.
|7.6.08 @ 9:55PM|#
"I would rather shoot A (and every other member of his party -
assuming it was party policy) than vote for B."
Jesus that is nuts. Really you should check yourself in
somewhere...Get some help...B would oppose the horror but rather
than vote for him, who does not support your favored tax cut, you
would kill A. robc, you're nuts...
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:55PM|#
prolefeed,
Your example brings up an interesting question. Who is Barr going
to vote for in Georgia?
If he is targeting states that McCain could lose if he gets enough
votes, like GA, will he vote for Obama to push him past McCain, or
will he just vote for himself?
Im thinking Bob Barr will be voting for Bob Barr. As will I.
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:57PM|#
MNG,
Are you saying A doesnt deserve it? For actively trying to enslave
a significant portion of Americans? Really?
|7.6.08 @ 9:58PM|#
MNG -- so if, knowing what you know now, you could send a squad
of Delta Force operatives back in time before the 2000 elections to
take out candidate Bush in such a way (say, poisoning) that it
would look like a natural heart attack, knowing that this would
mean Al Gore would definitely win, and that no one would ever
suspect you -- would you push that time machine button and change
everything?
Or would you say, but -- but -- I can "advocate for change"?
robc|7.6.08 @ 9:59PM|#
MNG,
About a decade ago (probably a little less), Liberty Magazine
surveyed their readers on a bunch of issues. They found that about
1/3 of their subscribers were morally opposed to voting. There was
a comment that got discussed in letters back and forth when one
person said that if they had the ability to cast a single vote that
would have kept Hitler from gaining power, they wouldnt have done
it, do to their opposition to voting. However, they would have
gladly shot him in the head.
While I dont have any moral opposition to voting, I understand the
reasoning.
|7.6.08 @ 9:59PM|#
prole
As I've said, if you care about the issues in which Obama differs
from McCain on, though Barr may agree with Obama in a more pure
way, you'd be a fool to vote for either McCain or Barr in any state
that was close for Obama, but you'd be a fool not to vote for Barr
in any state that McCain or Obama would win handily. In any event
you would be a fool to vote for McCain...Do you see something wrong
with that (because I don't from your comments, but honestly I may
be missing something)?
|7.6.08 @ 10:00PM|#
robc -- Bob Barr is going to vote for himself, because he represents 100% of his political views (and the other two guys are evil nimrods from his POV).
robc|7.6.08 @ 10:03PM|#
Hmmm, trying again, I must have screwed up tags.
MNG,
B would oppose the horror but rather than vote for him, who
does not support your favored tax cut, you would kill A.
You obviously dont realize how important tax cuts are to me. :)
|7.6.08 @ 10:03PM|#
robc
If not voting would have made Hitler more likely, then it was evil
not to vote, even if the other candidate was Hitler lite.
Your chances of killing McCain are (thankfully) nil. So your choice
of effecting the policy you and your fellow citizens will live
under is either for him or Obama....
robc|7.6.08 @ 10:06PM|#
...or Barr or Cynthia McKinney or whoever the Con Party
runs.
Barr has a better chance of winning KY than Obama. (You know, if
McCain died and the GOP decided not to replace him on the ballot or
something.)
|7.6.08 @ 10:07PM|#
MNG -- Heartily concur with the logic in your 9:59 post. That was exactly what I was getting at. I personally would lean toward McCain 35% and Obama 30% and Barr 90%, but I can certainly see how, with a different emphasis on the importance of certain issues, a libertarianish person could favor Obama over McCain.
robc|7.6.08 @ 10:07PM|#
MNG,
Right now Obama, McCain and Barr (and the rest) all have zero
votes. Personally, I always assume the best of the rest of America
and assume they will come to their senses and vote overwhelmingly
LP on election day.
|7.6.08 @ 10:09PM|#
robc
To talk about killing someone over the rates of tax cuts is, I am
afraid, insane....
If your, and other like situated, though a well recognized
minority, could be the difference between Hitler and Mussolini,
then you betcha I thin you should vote for Mussolini...
But c'mon, don't be so crazy dramatic: McCain is not Hitler and
McCain is not Mussolini.
robc|7.6.08 @ 10:11PM|#
MNG,
If only McCain and Obama were on my ballot, I would probably be
joining the rest of my state in voting McCain. But, damn, that
would suck.
I didnt suggest killing anyone over tax cuts - I suggested killing
them over slavery. Not like there isnt precedent behind that
idea.
|7.6.08 @ 10:12PM|#
Stupid keyboard (or me), "if you, or other like situated though a well recognized minority, could be the difference"..."then you betcha I thinK you should.."
robc|7.6.08 @ 10:13PM|#
If your, and other like situated, though a well recognized
minority
It would be a violation of many voting laws for even a well
recognized minority to cast their votes. Only individuals cast
votes.
robc|7.6.08 @ 10:14PM|#
MNG,
But c'mon, don't be so crazy dramatic: McCain is not Hitler and
McCain is not Mussolini.
I assume one of those McCain's is supposed to be Obama. Which is
acually my point. I havent called for the killing of either.
Neither is that bad. Which is why I can easily vote for Barr and
not care which douche gets into office.
|7.6.08 @ 10:18PM|#
"A supports a bill that will cause all descendents of former
slaves to be reenslaved to the descendents of the former
slaveholders. B opposes the bill. C opposes it, plus he favors tax
cuts.
I would rather shoot A (and every other member of his party -
assuming it was party policy) than vote for B."
robc-these are your words.
Simply voting for B would, according to yout hypo, democratically
register your disapproval with this plan, and maybe stop this
travesty. But rather than this you would rather shoot A than do
this???
If voting for B would really increase the likelihood of defeating
A, and voting for C would increase the likelihood of electing A,
would you then vote for...?
Elemenope|7.6.08 @ 10:23PM|#
There was a comment that got discussed in letters back and
forth when one person said that if they had the ability to cast a
single vote that would have kept Hitler from gaining power, they
wouldn't have done it, do to their opposition to voting. However,
they would have gladly shot him in the head.
Then they lacked the ability to think even a little abstractly. A
vote is a use of force, just as a bullet being shot is. In fact, it
is literally what came to replace the more direct force of the
sword or the bullet. Seeing as how votes (no matter how
occasionally cynical we may think of them) change the course of
nations and determine the laws under which people must live (and
thus the manner of state-monopolized force under which people would
be subjected), it is hard to understand *any* moral difference
between the one use of force and the other.
I must add also that the person who thinks that voting is immoral
but blowing off the back of someone's head isn't is not a person I
care to meet in person.
|7.6.08 @ 10:25PM|#
"McCain is not Hitler and McCain is not Mussolini.
I assume one of those McCain's is supposed to be Obama. Which is
acually my point. I havent called for the killing of either.
Neither is that bad.."
Shit I'd vote for Mussolini before I'd vote for Hitler any
day...
robc|7.6.08 @ 10:47PM|#
lmnop,
I think you are right on the use of force argument. Although,
shooting Hitler has a clear cut meaning. Voting against him can be
misinterpreted.
Like I said, I dont have a problem voting. But Im not going to pick
nits over evil A and evil B. Ill just vote C, thanks much. Maybe
its 20 year old guilt for voting for GHWB instead of Dr. Paul.
Elemenope|7.6.08 @ 10:58PM|#
Although, shooting Hitler has a clear cut
meaning.
The guy didn't like his mustache?
All actions are ambiguous. The observer imbues it with decisive
meaning.
robc|7.6.08 @ 11:06PM|#
lmnop,
Yeah yeah. However, some actions are less ambiguous than others.
Voting against Hitler says the same thing as shooting him "I dont
want him in power" but also can be construed to say "voting is a
legitimate means of determining who has power". I dont think "Im
only voting in this extreme circumstance" gets conveyed as well as
"Im only shooting someone is this extreme circumstance" does.
|7.6.08 @ 11:14PM|#
All actions are ambiguous. The observer imbues it with
decisive meaning.
Oh, bullshit. That's relativistic nonsense, saying all things are
grey.
Are you saying that my action -- typing and saying "Oh, bullshit
..." above is ambiguous?
If I say to someone in early November "Fuck no, I didn't vote for
Obama or McCain. Those statist bastards? No way. I voted for Bob
Barr, and felt good about it." -- where's the ambiguity?
Elemenope|7.6.08 @ 11:26PM|#
No, prolefeed, and you are being fairly obnoxious about it
besides.
What I am *saying* is that absent some signifying communication
from the doer, any action can be interpreted any number of
ways.
Communication exists to reduce the ambiguity of non-communicative
actions. Duh. Your example proves the point; the more pointed the
communication, the less the ambiguity.
And the last time I was accused of being a relativist of any sort
was in Philosophy of Science class, because I made it my business
to futz with the holier-than-thou Positivists, and not because I
endorse in any form *actual* metaphysical relativism.
Yeah yeah. However, some actions are less ambiguous than
others. Voting against Hitler says the same thing as shooting him
"I dont want him in power" but also can be construed to say "voting
is a legitimate means of determining who has power". I dont think
"Im only voting in this extreme circumstance" gets conveyed as well
as "Im only shooting someone is this extreme circumstance"
does.
I certainly agree that certain actions have such moral or practical
extremity as to significantly limit the possible legitimate
interpretations. My point was that people have been killed for less
than a stupid mustache; to be sure if the doer is concerned about
how his or her action may be interpreted, he or she should busy
themselves with communicating that intent directly rather than
whining about the particular bare ambiguity of one or the other
action.
SIV|7.7.08 @ 12:46AM|#
Shit I'd vote for Mussolini before I'd vote for Hitler any
day...
If he was running against Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, I might send
Mussolini's campaign $100 bucks.
There is no fucking way I'd vote for any of them, or McCain or
Obama.
Barr has my vote but he better get on the stick if he wants me to
match the $200 I sent to Ron Paul!
|7.7.08 @ 9:25AM|#
prolefeed,
a 1% swing in Ohio and Indiana, a 2% swing in Virginia, and a
3% swing in Colorado
I don't know what poll you are referencing, but I like to look at
vote aggregators, like pollingreport.com and realclearpolitics.com.
The situation is not as you describe.
|7.7.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Two years ago, the Republicans decided it was politically
expedient to ignore everything Obama was saying about "listen to
the commanders on the ground about tactics" and "we need to be as
careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting
in,"
Perhaps because such pronouncements were inconsistent with his
oft-repeated and completely unqualified promise to withdraw 1-2
brigades per month?
Barack Obama has a strategy to withdraw from Iraq, but will be
flexible and pay a great deal of attention to the uniformed
military in the tactical implementation of that
strategy.
If that really is his position, it is new (because you cannot
reconcile it with his previous, rigid plan to withdraw 1 - 2
brigades per month and be completely out of Iraq within a year and
a half), and it is indistiguishable from the Republican position,
which is, and always has been, to hand over control and draw down
troops as the situation allows.
Don't get me wrong, I think that's the responsible position.
McCain's "100 years" remark was made in response to Obama's rigid
drawdown plan, in recognition of the fact that we have left troops
in-theater for over 50 years where our allies face significant
regional threats (Korea, Western Europe). So long as Iran sponsors
hostile actions against Iraq, it may well be that an American
presence in Iraq is necessary to prevent an expansion of Iranian
aggression. Who can say, at this point?
|7.7.08 @ 4:18PM|#
You can keep talking about how rigid the man is, RC. People who
have been paying attention to the campaign know that he's been
advancing precisely this position for two years.
and it is indistiguishable from the Republican position, which
is, and always has been, to hand over control and draw down troops
as the situation allows.
"Draw down" is not the same thing as "withdraw."
Defining "as the sitution allows" as "as long as we are still in
military control of the country" is not the same thing as defining
it as "consistent with the security of American troops, without
being unduly destabilizing."
Planning to get our troops out of Iraq is not the same thing as
planning for our troops to stay there indefinitely.
And, once again, strategy is not the same thing as tactics.
Who can say, at this point? Um, anybody with a passing
familiarity with the growth of Iranian influence in Iraq over the
past six years? Anyone who watched Iraqis throw flowers and candy
at Ahmedinejad's motorcade as he drove to the warm greeting his
ally Malaki offered him?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245