PDA

View Full Version : Based on a True Story


Bloggingheads
04-25-2008, 02:50 PM

Joel_Cairo
04-25-2008, 03:06 PM
Cut Ezra some slack, Ross (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10529?in=00:00:48&out=00:01:04). It's been a long campaign, sometimes people misremember or misspeak. You heard him: he didn't get to bed until 10:30. He was obviously sleep deprived. A full 45 seconds into this diavlog and still nothing but "Gotcha" nonsense. For shame. America deserves better.

Bloggin' Noggin
04-25-2008, 03:10 PM
It seemed like it had been a long time since we'd seen Ezra here, and I was wondering what happened to him. Now i see him, and I wonder what happened to him.
Is it a condition for a man appearing with Ross Douthat that he's got to grow a beard?
I guess there's just some kind of peer pressure among DC 20-something male bloggers.
I don't know about this. I'm going to have to watch and reflect a bit before I can give my seal of approval to Ezra's new facial adornment.

otto
04-25-2008, 03:55 PM
All the sad young literary bearded men.

Joel_Cairo
04-25-2008, 04:04 PM
It was really quite helpful of Ezra to summarize the next 7 months of news coverage in 7 seconds (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10529?in=00:39:17&out=00:39:24). Saved us all a bunch of time & energy. I'm gonna go have a snack and take a nap; somebody wake me when it's time to vote.

interstices
04-25-2008, 04:11 PM
About 17 minutes in Ezra says Obama is up 12 with 0:45 left. Finally, a sports analogy I've been sharing with friends gets some airing!

Clinton is behind 3-4 possessions and has to keep fouling and force Obama to the line, miss his foul shots, and hope she can close the gap.

harkin
04-25-2008, 04:40 PM
From Ezra's column at Amer Prospect:

"....forcing Obama to defend vague associations with an English teacher who was once a radical leftie...."

A convenience of language that is Moyersesque.......

Better do an update Ezra, Ayers is a domestic terrorist who was unrepentant, america-hating and wishful of revolution as recently as last year. He also is a man responsible for setting the social studies meme for millions of school children, not just some obscure english prof. It's clowns like Ayers that have Americans wondering wth happened to a quality public school education.

Why is it that the liberal blogs always fail to highlight the real William Ayers? Isn't the real 'freak show' the inability to face facts?

If EK and the netroots continue to spout such softball spin nonsense, the valid questions Stephanopolis and Gibson asked will just continue to make BO look horribly inept.

AemJeff
04-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Ayers is a domestic terrorist who was unrepentant, america-hating and wishful of revolution as recently as last year. He also is a man responsible for setting the social studies meme for millions of school children, not just some obscure english prof. It's clowns like Ayers that have Americans wondering wth happened to a quality public school education.

Help out a poor lefty, who just can't figure out how to have emotional relationships with abstractions. What does "America-hating" mean? It'd also help if you eludicated that second set of assertions. "Social studies meme?" Another utterly abstract, vaporously vague reference - what are you trying to say here?

bjkeefe
04-25-2008, 08:46 PM
kidneystones:

Ezra knows Ayers is a terrorist; and that Ayers, unlike just about everybody else in US history, threw a bomb.

What bomb did Ayers actually "throw?"

What has he done lately that justifies the label of terrorist? If you're going to offer various statements that he's made, then I ask if you think the empty threats of violence that riddle the comments sections of far too many blogs are also examples of terrorists at work.

Ezra is ... so blatantly contemptuous of Obama's supporters that he'll twist any truth on behalf of his chosen dishonest candidate.

How does this even make sense? Why would Ezra be for Obama and contemptuous of Obama supporters at the same time?

AemJeff
04-25-2008, 09:19 PM
Good grief. Incoherent and increasingly, gratuitously, rude toward other forum members. I'm beginning to believe a lithotripsy is probably called for.

bjkeefe
04-25-2008, 09:24 PM
kidneystones:

It strikes me that you, and others like you who seem so obsessed with seeing everything Obama does as a lie and all of his supporters as deranged, are acting at least as dishonest and unhinged.

How am i "niggling over metaphor?" Is it because I asked you to substantiate your accusations about Ayers? If so, I apologize for not realizing that you were speaking in metaphors. Given the seriousness of the accusations that you made and the fact that the anti-Obama crowd has spent so much time lately trying to inflate Ayers's crimes, I should hope you can understand why.

You used to be a fairly useful contributor to this forum. I don't understand why all you have to offer lately are these mindless screeds and empty accusations. I mean, seriously, "the same cold-blooded contempt for truth we see so often from Obama supporters?" Is this really how you see things?

And what's with the repeated accusations of drug use? Are you really so far gone that you think anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions must be chemically addled?

If your answer to either of these questions is "yes," all I can say is I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm sorry to have lost you as someone with whom one could reasonably debate.

Wonderment
04-25-2008, 10:07 PM
As a pacifist I am opposed to bombs, guns, chemical and biological weapons, swords, knives, daggars and incendiary devices.

However, for those 99% of Americans who are not pacifists, I suggest that they look at the historical record of the Weather Underground without any holier-than-thou pretensions

Ayers makes the claim that the use of violence, particularly with the aim of zero loss of life, was justified as a form of protest and pressure to end the Vietnam and Cambodian War. If you look at the crimes of the Johnson and Nixon administrations in their historical context (napalming civilians, Agent Orange, torture, starvation, mass murder, carpet bombings, persecution of dissidents in the US, including the murder of college students by the National Guard, pro-war police riots, disproportionately race-based conscription of 18-year-olds, etc. etc.), there is a case to be made that taking up arms against such a regime is justified.

Now you may argue that the prospects of achieving success in ending the war through "revolutionary" violence were slim to none. I agree.

But to call Ayers a "terrorist" and throw him in the Osama bin Laden pile is a reach for the moral high ground by the very people and political establishment that secretly carpet bombed Cambodia, murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Ayers regrets not doing enough to end the war in Vietnam. So do I. So does John Kerry. So do all decent people whose lives were destroyed or severely disrupted by that hideous criminal enterprise. Ayers is no martyr, and he's no role model. But he doesn't deserve to be the punching bag of the moral cretins who still celebrate lying wars of aggression and the pointless slaughter of untold thousands.

bjkeefe
04-25-2008, 10:16 PM
kidneystones:

What's wrong with asking for straight 'yes/no' answers about drug use?

In the abstract, nothing. In the context that you have been, I already said why, but I'll repeat it: Your questions sound rhetorical, and your implication is that it is not possible simultaneously to be sober and to see things differently from you.

If you must know, I haven't used (illegal) drugs in years, and in most cases, decades. Too much hassle as regards pot, and I grew out of the rest of them.

Sullivan, a leading Obama supporter, writes favorably about drug use. I'm sure many other pro-drug Obama supporters share his views.

This is about as substantive as the Jonanism (http://thepoorman.net/2008/02/28/vocabulary-corner/) that says, "Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, all vegetarians are fascists."

You and many other Obama supporters lie repeatedly to your peers in this forum either directly or by omission.

Please give examples.

I support my charge by documenting Ezra's Ayers lies.

Please give a link. If you've done this, I've missed it. As far as I can recall, you have merely asserted, repeatedly, that Ayers threw a bomb and was a terrorist, and when pressed to substantiate these accusations, backpedaled with your claim that you were speaking metaphorically.

You and the other Obama supporters on this board do not, IMHO, seem remotely interested in anything approaching honest discussion.

You're entitled to your perception. I would say in response that I don't agree, and I'm sure that pretty much all other forum participants don't, either. The biggest complaint raised about this forum is when it devolves into empty bickering, since its strength and attraction are that it usually has a much higher level of discussion than most other sites do. By contrast, it is my view, and I think the consensus view, that your recent posts have amounted entirely to saying, "Obama is a liar. Everyone who likes Obama is lying or dope-addled. Go McCain!" This doesn't come off as a wish to engage in honest discussion, and trying to turn the accusation around on others just makes you seem even less credible or coherent.

I don't frankly believe you see yourselves as anything but virtuous purveyors of truth.

I'm not sure what's made you so absolutist about this, but to my mind, there's a big difference between lying and having an opinion and arguing in support of it. Specifically, I don't see it as a lie to emphasize points that support an argument, nor do I think it's "lying by omission" not to preface every post with the disclaimer, "I don't believe Obama is without flaw." Sorry if you can't pick up that obvious belief without it being explicitly stated.

I don't know that I'd claim the mantle of "virtuous purveyor of truth," but I don't lie. If you think I have, please tell me specifically where and when I did.

harkin
04-25-2008, 11:23 PM
To those who defend the Weather Underground:

You have no idea how ridiculous you sound. Read it all and weep for their tortured logic:

"I don't regret setting bombs," Ayers was quoted in the opening line of the Times' profile. "I feel we didn't do enough." In 1969, Ayers and his wife convened a "War Council" in Flint, Mich., whose purpose was to launch a military front inside the United States with the purpose of helping Third World revolutionaries conquer and destroy it. Taking charge of the podium, dressed in high-heeled boots and a leather miniskirt -- her signature uniform -- Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast." Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson, whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the pregnant actress Sharon Tate had been stabbed in her womb with a fork), Dohrn shouted: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!" (http://archive.salon.com/news/col/horo/2001/09/17/ayers/)

harkin
04-25-2008, 11:30 PM
And more:

The Total Witlessness Of Obama Apologists:

"For in truth, Ayers has not only not repented his criminal acts, he still holds views of America that are so outside the mainstream – hateful and laughably adolescent views they are – that carrying on a long term friendship with this lout calls into question not only Obama’s judgement but his sanity as well. Indeed, his campaign said after the ABC debate that Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernadine Dohrn were “respectable fixtures of the mainstream in Chicago.”

Ayers most recent pronouncements (and Dohrns) are contained on some audio tapes dug up by a small radio station in Chicago and blasted over the internet on Wednesday by Powerline and Hugh Hewitt. The tapes show that Ayers and Dorhn are in the mainstream of Chicago politics only if Josef Stalin is mayor and Pol Pot is Cook County Commissioner." (http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/04/25/the-total-witlessness-of-obama-apologists/)

bjkeefe
04-25-2008, 11:33 PM
harkin:

As with everyone else who can't let this go, you're

1. Confusing support for Obama with an imagined fondness for Ayers
2. Equating the words of an apparent blowhard with actions not taken

At this point, I'm almost wishing for another Obama "scandal," just to hear wingnuttia given another cud to chew. Give it a rest, won't you please? Virtually no one who likes Obama knows about, cares about, or equates Ayers with him. Why is that so hard to understand?

Wonderment
04-26-2008, 12:05 AM
The Weather Underground was misguided and some of its members may have been a bit deranged. Their acts of violence were morally wrong. No one is disputing that.

What I'm saying is that the criminal war enterprise that they opposed was much more violent, deranged and misguided. It was an immense evil perpetrated on millions of people in Southeast Asia.

Republican warmongers attacking Ayers (and by association Obama) is like Stalin santimoniously going after a small sect of Hungarian anarchists bombers who opposed Soviet totalitarianism. If that happened, you'd be saying, "Look who's talking!" That's my point.

David Thomson
04-26-2008, 01:05 AM
"Virtually no one who likes Obama knows about, cares about, or equates Ayers with him. Why is that so hard to understand?"

We are very well aware that pro-Obama people could care less about his relationship with a former and unrepentant terrorist. However, the middle of the road voters do care---and find it morally repugnant. Obama is simply another George McGovern.

graz
04-26-2008, 01:37 AM
About 17 minutes in Ezra says Obama is up 12 with 0:45 left. Finally, a sports analogy I've been sharing with friends gets some airing!

Clinton is behind 3-4 possessions and has to keep fouling and force Obama to the line, miss his foul shots, and hope she can close the gap.

But that is exactly how Kansas beat Memphis this year. Say it ain't so Joe... If Hillary's bad bowling toss on Ellen is an indicator, I don't think she can hit the free throws either. And hoops is his game.

publius
04-26-2008, 01:44 AM
This is an excellent and informative conversation.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 01:44 AM
graz:

If Hillary's bad bowling toss on Ellen is an indicator ...

Wait. Hillary bowled bad, and the media didn't go crazy? How is this possible?

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 01:48 AM
"Virtually no one who likes Obama knows about, cares about, or equates Ayers with him. Why is that so hard to understand?"

We are very well aware that pro-Obama people could care less about his relationship with a former and unrepentant terrorist. However, the middle of the road voters do care---and find it morally repugnant.

Actually, they don't. But the crazed anti-Obama crowd would like to make them. Mostly, I suspect, because they can't make a substantive case on the merits.

graz
04-26-2008, 01:55 AM
This is an excellent and informative conversation.

Careful, you might be branded as elitist.

Wonderment
04-26-2008, 02:03 AM
Obama is being scrutinized for guilt by association in unprecedented ways.
Such scrutiny has a racist and xenophobic tinge.

I NEVER recall a candidate's pastors, friends, associates and casual acquaintances gone over with this kind of fanatical interest. Part of it may be due to the YouTube era; i.e, everyone with a computer can now watch endless looping of Rev. Wright's loopiest pronouncements.

But it's also due to the whisper campaign that Obama is a secret Muslim or that he's not the kind of neutral (non-existent) black man that racists can tolerate but rather someone who might share a civil rights agenda with other African Americans.

Obama must be "exposed." The right has to prove that he's not what he appears to be. "Oh my God! What if we all wake up in January of 09 with the changeling's true colors revealed? Al Sharpton will be Secretary of Defense, Louis Farrakhan will represent America at the UN, and Bill Ayers will be head of Homeland Security."

graz
04-26-2008, 02:17 AM
[QUOTE=Wonderment;75127]Obama is being scrutinized for guilt by association in unprecedented ways.
Such scrutiny has a racist and xenophobic tinge.

Tinge as a qualifier allows me to further generalize that those that claim that they need more time to fully measure the man against those associations, will continue unendingly. I have put the question to enough doubters so as to offer a limited sample: We will never fully accept that Obama isn't somehow different than all those others that we deigned to allow to occupy the White House. Hmm... just not sure what that difference is.

hans gruber
04-26-2008, 02:38 AM
The issue isn't that he hasn't worn a flag pin. Righ, who would care about that! It's his own strange way of handling the situation, stating that he won't wear the flag pin, not that he just hasn't worn one but that he won't wear one. It is this stated aversion to patriotic symbolism that raises many questions.

Then combine that with his strange crotch clutching during the anthem, his wife being proud of her country for the first time, Wright's anti-Americanism, and you really do begin to wonder--does Obama love America in the way most Americans love America? It just doesn't look like it. Cue feigned outrage.

hans gruber
04-26-2008, 02:48 AM
The right has to prove that he's not what he appears to be.

That was so last month. After Wright, after Michelle's remarks, after his crotch clutching during the anthem, after crackerquiddack, and after Ayers, it is the left which is going to be very busy trying to convince the public that he's not what he appears to be--an effete paleo-liberal with ties to Chicago's seedy and radical leftist political scene, a race man posing as a post racial healer, an old politician cloaking himself in the false banner of new politics, a phony.

hans gruber
04-26-2008, 02:52 AM
I NEVER recall a candidate's pastors, friends, associates and casual acquaintances gone over with this kind of fanatical interest.

Nobody's ever had a lunatic like Wright for their pastor. Nobody else has ever begun their career at a notorious domestic terrorist's home. Never before has a potential First Lady said she's never been proud to be an American before.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 03:10 AM
The issue isn't that he hasn't worn a flag pin. Righ, who would care about that! It's his own strange way of handling the situation, stating that he won't wear the flag pin, not that he just hasn't worn one but that he won't wear one. It is this stated aversion to patriotic symbolism that raises many questions.

Then combine that with his strange crotch clutching during the anthem, his wife being proud of her country for the first time, Wright's anti-Americanism, and you really do begin to wonder--does Obama love America in the way most Americans love America? It just doesn't look like it. Cue feigned outrage.

Perhaps I'm belaboring the obvious here, Hans, but let me say two things.

First, a lot of us admire Obama for his choice not to participate in the cheap symbolism that makes mandatory the wearing of a flag lapel pin. I thought, as did many others, that his explanation was spot-on: there is a lot more to being a patriot and to loving America than wearing a piece of junk jewelry. Like not pissing on the Constitution, for one.

On a related note, I'll point out that in all likelihood, these pins are manufactured overseas, judging by statistics I've seen for other mass-produced representations of the flag. I'll also point out that it wasn't too long ago that flag worshipers were appalled by the notion that anyone would presume to wear a representation of the flag in any form. cf. Easy Rider and numerous other dirty smelly hippies.

Second, almost no one holds his or her hand over the heart when the national anthem is being played. Those of us in sixth grade and younger might do so when reciting the pledge of allegiance, granted.

I take from your final sentence that you're being a little ironic here, but I can't help but express my real outrage when people make such a fuss about empty symbolism while ignoring all of the real assaults to what our flag really represents.

brucds
04-26-2008, 04:16 AM
"I'm curious how many other Obama fans take drugs or believe consuming THC or Ecstasy is a perfectly normal activity."

You, sir, are a fucking moron.

brucds
04-26-2008, 04:23 AM
Jeremiah Wright is far from a lunatic. McCain's choices of "spiritual advisor" and clerical endorsements are full-fledged lunatics who no one in their right mind would go near. Reverend Wright isn't even close to the toxicity and extremism of the religious far right that McCain is currently courting.

Wonderment
04-26-2008, 04:27 AM
Nobody's ever had a lunatic like Wright for their pastor.

No, they have had segregationists, homophobes, imperialists and members of the plutocratic priestly class who bless war. I'll take Wright in a heartbeat.

Nobody else has ever begun their career at a notorious domestic terrorist's home.

False. The first thing McCain did when he locked up the nomination was run to notorious domestic terrorist GWB for the kickoff.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 04:44 AM
People who haven't already made up their minds about Jeremiah Wright might want to watch these:

Part 1: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Part 2: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch2.html

Starts with some background, based on an earlier PBS documentary done on Wright, and then gets into an interview recorded within the past few days.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, so I'll leave it there.

brucds
04-26-2008, 04:55 AM
Actually, people who HAVE made up their minds about Wright based on calculated disinformation - assuming that they are even remotely operating in good faith - should watch this Moyer's interview. Having watched Wright and being familiar with his denomination and his ministry, I have to say that anyone who calls him a "lunatic" is...uh...a lunatic.

brucds
04-26-2008, 05:37 AM
Is this all you pathetic bastards who've mired the country in total bullshit, one disaster after another, for the past 8 years have got ?

You're whimpering and wailing from the gutter. Not a good place to start a political campaign. Good luck...

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 05:42 AM
Having read your words, kidneystones, I hope you'll take the time to listen to the Wright interview that I linked to above (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=75156#post75156).

I'll have more to say about my impressions shortly, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say, too.

a Duoist
04-26-2008, 06:04 AM
The 'hope' candidacy of Senator Obama, and also the 'courage' candidacy of Senator McCain, will likely rise or fall in inverse proportion to the hatred they generate or defend among their supporters, like those in these comments. The American people do not vote for hatred; if either candidate cannot understand that simple fact, that candidate will likely lose, despite his qualifications.

That's why Reverend Wright and the Weatherman Underground are so important in this election: the hate they express is not a vote getter for any mainstream candidate, but only for either an apologist or a sympathizing extremist. Mr. Obama has to do something positive and dynamic...and soon...about so much hate wafting through the air at the periphery of his campaign. If their hate starts to stick to him, or if a similar opposing hatred by McCain's supporters begins to stick to him, it will not matter to voters that such 'stickiness' is unfair conflating: They will vote against hatred, regardless of which candidate of which Party tolerates it.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 06:24 AM
First impressions:

Anyone who knows me knows how much listening to someone who interprets everything in terms of God makes me roll my eyes. That said, I found Wright's interview by Bill Moyers somewhat instructive.

People who are predisposed to dislike Wright in particular or preachers in general are likely to think this is a softball interview. That was certainly my feeling, though I thought there were a few harder questions in Part 2. Moyers, I think, is fairly religious himself, so it's no surprise that he wasn't going to go near questioning faith as a basis for thinking. It was also fairly clear that his agenda was to give Wright every opportunity to explain himself as regards existing controversies, and not to try to dig up anything new. Given the amount of negative spin and sound biting that Wright has been subjected to over the past couple of months, I didn't have a big complaint with that, and I did, as I said, find some of Wright's added context instructive. I grant that he's had some time to think about the answers he'd be giving, but it didn't come off as a complete snow job.

There is no question that Wright presents as a smart and engaging person. I felt while watching that I would enjoy arguing with him about some things, and much of what he had to say that wasn't purely religious made sense to me, even if I didn't agree with all of it.

I also felt that he is skilled in interpreting the Bible in ways that his congregation wants to hear. He seemed sincere enough in this latter regard, although I am always suspicious about preachers whose congregations show a pattern of growth. "Give the people what they want" applies as much to the pulpit as it does to the podium or the midway. Nonetheless, he didn't strike me as a phony.

To one part of his and his church's message: I am not comfortable with a movement that says the way to live is to separate "us" from "them." I think the planet is too small, the numbers of people too large, and the weapons too far-reaching to make this anything but a pipe dream, if not downright counterproductive. I am less certain after watching the interview that this is really what Wright advocates -- he does, at times, also speak eloquently about getting along.

I did like that he did not fully embrace what Obama has had to say about him recently, just as I liked the way Obama neither fully embraced nor rejected Wright. He spoke of Obama being a politician, having to do what he has to do, and speaking to a different audience, and of himself as a preacher, doing what he has to do, and speaking to his own audience.

I was reminded, many times throughout the interview, how easy it would be to draw parallels between the things that Wright said and what any other preacher would have to say, good and bad.

In the end, I'm back where I was at the beginning: Obama's religiosity is the part of him that I'm least happy about, but even stretched to a (your pardon) reasonable extreme, I didn't find anything that his pastor had to say in this interview particularly objectionable, especially as judged in comparison with other prominent and politically connected preachers. It is my sense that Obama is not particularly in thrall to Wright, and that even given his long affiliation with that particular church, he probably has done as much cherry-picking and selective listening as any other churchgoer. (Insert Catholic upbringing disclaimer here.)

For me, then, the interview was worth watching, but not earth-shattering.

Eastwest
04-26-2008, 06:46 AM
I found Wright's interview by Bill Moyers somewhat instructive.

Wow! You listened to that whole thing without falling asleep? Three gold stars for civic heroism above and beyond the call of duty.

I suspect Obama may have chosen that church out of genuine social needs, concern for a religious / values upbringing for his kids, some nameless spiritual appetite, cognizance of the "networking" advantages, and a touch of awareness that it's politically smart (in the city-politics sense of the word).

All of those are perfectly justifiable and nothing a man should have to apologize for. If he'd just rolled his eyes a little, whistled, and claimed to have never gotten the opportunity to hear the old Reverend go so far off-script, he could have just sauntered away like a cool breeze and teflon-protected himself from the batty-preacher all the way through the general.

But, no, he had to set aside a big hunk of time and sermonize to the country on "race," thereby cooking his own goose, even against the advice of some advisors who counseled him against going anywhere near that "race" topic.

And so the comedy has unfolded.

EW

Wonderment
04-26-2008, 06:52 AM
What Wright is trying to do is educate the American people about THE BLACK CHURCH. He did this in his previous interview on national tv a few months ago with right-wing extremist Hannity.

If people would actually listen to either of the Wright interviews (the hostile one with Hannity or the friendly one with the infinitely more intelligent Bill Moyers) the message is loud and clear:

You can't understand what critics say about me and my church until you get educated about our spiritual history.

John and Glenn have also made this point on BHeads.

The Rev. Wright loop shocks most Americans because most Americans are clueless about the black church.

Moyers is trying to help people understand that context. But the anti-Obama folks want to portray the black church as a circus freak show.

They want a minstrel show and a Willie Horton. It's really obscene.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 06:58 AM
EW:

Your paragraph about his motivations for attending Wright's church sounds plausible, and in line with my sense of Obama.

The rest, though ... What did Obama ever do to piss you off so much?

Eastwest
04-26-2008, 08:16 AM
The rest, though ... What did Obama ever do to piss you off so much?

I'm not so much "pissed" at Obama as:

a) Disappointed he couldn't mobilize a level of political sophistication matching his high-flown rhetoric, like knowing how to genuinely apologize when that's called for instead of prevaricating, like knowing to treat the "race" issue like plutonium, to be avoided at all costs given the nasty nature of the electorate on topics like that, and like being a little less pompous.

b) Kind of disgusted he makes this pretense of being of such a higher order in the way he does politics when in fact he's not any different from any other politician. Where I come from, we call this "hypocrisy."

I think his largely self-inflicted negatives will produce a democratic loss and yet another Republican administration.

Again, Hillary's no angel and I'm not thrilled with her, either. I just think she can pull off a win against McCain, even in the presence of a misogynist and racist electorate.

EW

brucds
04-26-2008, 10:53 AM
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance in the general electin. Her prime surrogate and closest campaign companion throughout Pennsylvania was Ed Rendell, who's shared the podium with Farrakhan and praised him - lunatic-style - as one of the great religious leaders of the 2oth Century before a Black Muslim audience - in a mosque no less. Of course, Obama didn't use that to hammer Clinton in front of the electorate but you can be damned sure the GOP will be cycling clips of Rendell as he also touts Clinton to the voters of PA.


Hillary Clinton's negatives are through the roof (over 50%) in polling - and NEVER go below the very high 40s. She's toast against McCain. Also having a rerun of the Clinton melodrama as "the Democrats" for eight (or maybe only four) years is death to the party.

Wake up...we've got our candidate. He's a great campaigner who has beaten the "inevitable" Clintons AMONG their base of Democrats. If he's pushed aside, the loss of African-American support and enthusiasm means the Democrats are dead in November. I would have supported Hillary IF she could have actually won through the primaries. She couldn't. The kicking and screaming among hysterics and half-wits who comprise this wacky Clinton Cult - like Jeralyn Merrit and Taylor Mars - and the Hannityesque Obama hate that infects lilly-livers among the Democratic fringe is an ugly sight to see. Obviously these are folks who don't take seriously the need to get on with the business of kicking McCain's ass. McCain is a remarkably vulnerable old fool. Obama can beat him IF half-wit Dems get out of the way and let the REAL campaign begin before trashing the presumptive nominee.

Hillary Can't Win at this point. And if she's annointed by the supers over the popular vote and delegate count, the party pisses on too many people we need to build a winning coalition for November for her to have a chance against McCain. Deal with it. Cut the bullshit.

brucds
04-26-2008, 10:59 AM
"you don't contest a single fact"

You don't present any. You spit and drool. Pathetic...
Do you really believe someone such as yourself deserves to be taken seriously ?

brucds
04-26-2008, 11:02 AM
And of course you didn't contest a single fact: i.e. "pathetic bastards who've mired the country in total bullshit, one disaster after another, for the past 8 years"

jh in sd
04-26-2008, 12:48 PM
Wonder, To ammend your statement, I would state that Rev. Wright wanted to educate people about the Black-as-Victim Church. Read what Thomas Sowell has written about this subject if you think Wright is speaking for the black community as a whole.

Sgt Schultz
04-26-2008, 12:57 PM
:munchpopcorn: :screech: :monkeyfight: :screech:

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 01:05 PM
jh, I doubt that Sowell has a constituency among blacks that measures as a single digit percentage of Obama's among the same group of people.

jh in sd
04-26-2008, 01:11 PM
Aem Jeff, Neither does Obama represent the entire black community.

Sarge, Who doesn't love a good monkey fight?

Whatfur
04-26-2008, 01:36 PM
The biggest thing people should take out of the Moyers/Wright interview is that we are supposedly being told to believe one of two things, contrary to eachother but both able to work as left-wing talking points. The first being that all the YouTube snippets were exactly that... that these were taken out of context. The other being that outsiders to the church and/or the race cannot understand the truths that it espouses.

Thus, its not true and/or its true but you can't possibly understand. Pretty convenient narrative and how interesting to see some people swallow both whole.

Concerning the first, the context issue, where Moyers came up short as a journalist while long on the apologist was when Wright makes the out-of-context claim that Moyers did not throw out the obvious follow up of "Well Reverand, why not provide the context". It has been reported that ALL of Wrights sermons are on tape... well...lets see them all! Let's us see the context.

Concerning the second, I guess maybe that cannot be explained without the context either. Because at this point they are correct, most of us cannot begin to understand how blaming the Jews, portraying AIDS as a government conspiracy on blacks, blaming the rich, white dudes etc. etc. make for a good basis of church doctrine. In any case, IMO, Obama failed with his attempt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ13jHp7_P4), to convince us that his church is a good launching point for the unity of the races.

Besides Obama's playing the race card with his supposedly "historical", Gettysburgesc, now forgotten speech that explained everything to the starry-eyed and nothing to the astute, one of my biggest problems over and above the 20 year relationship is the fact that after Obama's lying about not hearing any of the insidious remarks; it came to light that in his own book Obama talks about the first sermon he heard not only being one of "snippets" (as Conn Carroll might say "what are the odds") but that it did not cause him to go "whistling" by, but to return again and again. That's a problem, as even if supposedly not representative, on the first Sunday it was all Obama had to go on...just like the Snippets are all we have to go on. Go figure.

harkin
04-26-2008, 01:59 PM
As with everyone else who can't let this go, you're

1. Confusing support for Obama with an imagined fondness for Ayers
2. Equating the words of an apparent blowhard with actions not taken

At this point, I'm almost wishing for another Obama "scandal," just to hear wingnuttia given another cud to chew. Give it a rest, won't you please? Virtually no one who likes Obama knows about, cares about, or equates Ayers with him. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm curious as to why you didn't play the 'can't let this go' card when Wonderment issued his defense of the WU, which was the post I was responding to. My post also addressed an earlier question directed at me regarding what it meant to 'hate America'.

You people are so funny, you ridicule and name-call and accuse people who disagree with not having any factual backup. Then when it is presented to you with verifibale links, you say we 'can't let this go' and asking us to 'give it rest'.

If that makes me a member of what you consider 'Wingnuttia', I'm a proud member

Thank you for giving a perfect illustration of how things work here.

hans gruber
04-26-2008, 02:09 PM
First, a lot of us admire Obama for his choice not to participate in the cheap symbolism that makes mandatory the wearing of a flag lapel pin.

Yes, a not insignificant number of Democratic voters are not patriotic, avowedly unpatriotic. So, yes, Obama's statement was sort of a dog whistle to these people. But because most Americans--even most Democratic voters--are in fact patriotic and have no trouble wearing a flag pin or properly saluting the flag during the anthem, Obama has to say he's being a true patriot by denegrating the very symbols that represent it. Not suprisingly, a lot of people are stupid enough to believe that. It's a strange sort of patriot that has never been proud of their country. It's a strange sort of patriot that refuses to salute the flag.

hans gruber
04-26-2008, 02:16 PM
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance in the general electin. Her prime surrogate and closest campaign companion throughout Pennsylvania was Ed Rendell, who's shared the podium with Farrakhan and praised him - lunatic-style - as one of the great religious leaders of the 2oth Century before a Black Muslim audience - in a mosque no less. Of course, Obama didn't use that to hammer Clinton in front of the electorate but you can be damned sure the GOP will be cycling clips of Rendell as he also touts Clinton to the voters of PA.

Rendell wasn't Clinton's pastor, friend, spirtual mentor, and political advisor for 20 years. Obama couldn't attack Rendell and Clinton on that point when his own church gave Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award and said he epitomized greatness, Obama would look like an idiot if he did that, so let's not give the man any plaudits for it.

look
04-26-2008, 03:04 PM
"I'm curious how many other Obama fans take drugs or believe consuming THC or Ecstasy is a perfectly normal activity."

You, sir, are a fucking moron.

Daddy's home. Time you get off your ass and do the dishes.

jh in sd
04-26-2008, 03:20 PM
Attn. Bob Wright-After viewing the comments on the last three diavlogs, I think you seriously need to consider presenting a Comedienne of the Week Award. Or better yet, choose five nominees and let the viewers vote. I look forward. Best JH

Wonderment
04-26-2008, 04:14 PM
But because most Americans--even most Democratic voters--are in fact patriotic and have no trouble wearing a flag pin or properly saluting the flag during the anthem, Obama has to say he's being a true patriot by denegrating the very symbols that represent it.

Do you know what denigrate means, Hans?

It's a strange sort of patriot that has never been proud of their country. It's a strange sort of patriot that refuses to salute the flag.

Grow up, Hans. The flag thing is an issue for big bloviating babies.

brucds
04-26-2008, 04:25 PM
We get it. You're a Hannityesque moron who pulls unhinged crap out of your ass. Your comments here are insulting to the most modest intelligence.

Keep this stuff up, because it's great for us when GOPers come off looking like fanatics who are strangers to anything resembling truth or common decency. And thanks for playing the game here.

Whatfur
04-26-2008, 05:34 PM
Brucds,

For someone whose most notable quotes here are:

"You, sir, are a fucking moron."

"McCain's choices of "spiritual advisor" and clerical endorsements are full-fledged lunatics who no one in their right mind would go near. Reverend Wright isn't even close to the toxicity and extremism of the religious far right that McCain is currently courting.

"Is this all you pathetic bastards who've mired the country in total bullshit, one disaster after another, for the past 8 years have got ?"

"You're whimpering and wailing from the gutter. Not a good place to start a political campaign. Good luck... "

"The kicking and screaming among hysterics and half-wits who comprise this wacky Clinton Cult - like Jeralyn Merrit and Taylor Mars - and the Hannityesque Obama hate that infects lilly-livers among the Democratic fringe is an ugly sight to see. Obviously these are folks who don't take seriously the need to get on with the business of kicking McCain's ass. McCain is a remarkably vulnerable old fool. Obama can beat him IF half-wit Dems get out of the way and let the REAL campaign begin before trashing the presumptive nominee."

"You spit and drool. Pathetic...
Do you really believe someone such as yourself deserves to be taken seriously ?"

I guess we see why you have chosen such a lofty perch (http://www.sakebomb.com/news/images/jeffandshit.jpg)for yourself. Glass houses, black kettles and all that...

Oh and as far as the Moyers interview...please read my post above...to think a softball interview by a huge lefty ends the story is to resemble closely my first quote of you above.

allbetsareoff
04-26-2008, 05:35 PM
This is, what, the 186th bh.tv episode in which wonky ideologues tell us how the Democratic superdelegates will make up their minds. Time to coax some present or former operatives into the frames.

My guess is that the remaining uncommitted superDs will decide not on the electability of the presidential candidate, but on his/her effect on congressional and state candidates. State legislative races are especially pertinent, as anyone elected in 2008 to a four-year term will be in office during redistricting after the 2010 census. The GOP held the U.S. House for as long as it did, and continues to hold many state legislative chambers, thanks to gerrymandering after the 2000 census.

Office-holders and party operatives are keenly aware of that, and know that down-ticket outcomes in 2008 and 2010 will determine control of the House and state legislatures, and can build benches of candidates for U.S. senator, governor and president, through 2020 and beyond. From a partisan perspective, that's at least as important as who gets elected president in 2008. And the superDs who're still uncommitted are the most calculating of partisans.

A Democrat taking the long view could argue that the best outcome in November would be McCain's election. He inherits Bush's failed foreign policy, hollowed-out military, cratering fiscal-economic situation and dysfunctional federal bureaucracy, and fails to clean up the mess. (No one could in just four years, without a massive congressional majority a la FDR post-1932 or LBJ post-1964, and McCain won't have that.) The conservative GOP brand is spoiled for a generation, if not permanently, and progressive Democratic ascendency continues for decades.

Yes, McCain may try to appoint more right-wing Supreme Court justices; but the chance of Republicans retaking the Senate this year is close to zero, and the likelihood of a Democratic majority confirming another Alito or Scalia is even closer to zero. (We can live with an eight- or seven-member court; originally, it had five justices.)

The other major downside would be the war-without-end/bomb-bomb-Iran scenario, which simply doesn't compute. McCain knows that Iraq and Afghanistan - and Pakistan, and North Korea - are too unstable, and that U.S. forces are too depleted, and that the federal budget is too deep in the hole, for another major offensive. He's not going to ask for a tax increase, and he's not going to get reinstitution of the draft. So, for all his "no surrender" talk and neocon flirtations, McCain's foreign and military policies wouldn't be appreciably different from Clinton's, if not Obama's.

OK, my fellow 'heads, tell me I'm wrong, and why.

graz
04-26-2008, 05:43 PM
William Ayers is, according to Barack Obama's (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/17/fact_check_on_clinton_attacks.php) own homepage, a 'respected' figure in Chicago politics and a 'distinguished' member of the Chicago intelligentsia. OK.

Fact: Ayers provided (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/18/how_obama_and_the_radical_became_news/) a venue, cash, connections and 'credibility' for Obama as early as 1995.

Fact: Wright is on videotape justifying the 9/11 attacks. Obama sought out Wright and used him repeatedly (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1723990,00.html) over 20 years until 2007.

Fact: Rezko and Obama go back to Obama's Harvard days. The exact relationship is still murky because Obama either refused to discuss, or changed significant details about (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/843582,obama031408a.article), his debt to Rezko over the years. Obama currently claims that Rezko was not his 'biggest' fund-raiser, merely a 'significant' one. Obama finally admitted under pressure that Rezko funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign and helped Obama buy a house while under indictment.

Obama surrogates like Ez and Keith eagerly lie about Ayers because they know that Ayers' proud defense of bomb-building is political dynamite, dynamite that will most likely destroy a campaign based on deceit, lies, corruption and gay-baiting hate.

Buckets of George W. Bush unity hokum from a cynical preppy, smooth enough to fool millions but dumb enough to make Rezko, Wright and Ayers allies, is the last thing we need in 2008.

Go McCain!
Allow me to hypothetically grant all your points.
Would you mind making the case for McCain?

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 05:46 PM
Yes, McCain may try to appoint more right-wing Supreme Court justices; but the chance of Republicans retaking the Senate this year is close to zero, and the likelihood of a Democratic majority confirming another Alito or Scalia is even closer to zero. (We can live with an eight- or seven-member court; originally, it had five justices.)

I'd like to think that Senate Dems will have as much backbone as you're implying. My judgment so far is that another Roberts or Alito would sail through confirmation with little more than a peep from the majority.

brucds
04-26-2008, 06:29 PM
I don't-come from a "lofty perch" in dealing with folks who come off like clowns out-of-th- gate. If I were in a "lofty perch" you wouldn't even be able to see me from the gutter. There's only one way to respond to low-lifes. Of course it's still a fucking waste of everybody's time to even acknowledge geeks and freaks.

Have a wild and crazy day !

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 06:52 PM
allbetsareoff:

Interesting analysis. You asked to be told where you are wrong. I can't go that far, but I'll tell you where I disagree.

Like AemJeff, I am not at all convinced that the Democrats in the Senate will display much backbone when it comes to Supreme Court nominees. There's certainly no evidence from recent history to suggest this. The only way they'd show any spine, I expect, would be if they achieved a filibuster-proof majority in the 2008 elections. I think that's a long shot, especially as I now consider Lieberman a de facto Republican. This means the Dems would need to gain at least ten seats out of the 35 up for grabs. Given that 12 of those seats are already held by Dems, they'd need to hold those and pick up 10 from the remaining 23. (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2008))

Even if this happens, I think the nominee game will work something like this: McCain presents his "short list." That list contains a bunch of extreme conservatives and one or two others who are not completely insane, but are still very conservatives. Harry Reid, no liberal himself and an anti-choice leaner to boot, picks one of the less extreme options and proclaims this as a victory.

I also disagree with your larger notion of handing McCain Bush's mess and letting him wallow in it, with the idea that this will wake up the country to the realities of GOP incompetence. If they haven't figured it out by now, they're never going to figure it out, I'm afraid, and no matter how bad things get, I'm sure that the 2012 race will feature the GOP blaming the Democratic-controlled Congress for all of the nation's woes. For another thing, the mess has to be addressed at some point, and four years of McCain compounding the bad policies of the Bush Administration will just make the clean-up job harder. The debt will get bigger, income disparity will grow, the environment will be more degraded, we'll have made little or no progress on health care reform, the theocrats will have made further inroads, the list of worries goes on and on.

I think you're right that McCain is unlikely to start another major war, given the lack of ground troops, but I do worry about him thinking, "Hey, I still have a Navy and an Air Force, and they're not real busy right now." I also think, even without him explicitly starting another war, that his hawkish and shoot-from-the-hip attitude won't do anything to help the US get back on track in working with other nations.

So, no. I strongly disagree that a McCain victory in 2008 will be better for the Democrats. Or, for that matter, for the country.

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 06:56 PM
Don't have any insight as to what and why the remaining superdelegates will break but your analysis of the Iraq situations is probably about right. The main difference I see is about force reduction timing with the either of the Democrats being more likely to act in haste and McCain likely to be overly cautious.

hans gruber
04-26-2008, 08:00 PM
Do you know what denigrate means, Hans?

Yes, but apparently you don't: to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage

Grow up, Hans. The flag thing is an issue for big bloviating babies.

A potential PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES refuses to salute the flag during the anthem, and you think it's just an issue for big bloviating babies? A potential First Lady says she's never been proud of her country before, and that's just an issue for big bloviating babies?

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 08:13 PM
hans:

A potential PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES refuses to salute the flag during the anthem, and you think it's just an issue for big bloviating babies?

Yes. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to come up with something I think is less important when considering the merits of presidential candidates. Seems to me, for example, that the current occupant is really good at adhering to a policy of reverence for empty symbolism, but not much good at anything else. Like respecting the Constitution or looking out for the interests of the American people, say.

AemJeff
04-26-2008, 08:19 PM
hans:



Yes. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to come up with something I think is less important when considering the merits of presidential candidates. Seems to me, for example, that the current occupant is really good at adhering to a policy of reverence for empty symbolism, but not much good at anything else. Like respecting the Constitution or looking out for the interests of the American people, say.

Somebody's attitude toward jewelry is a much better test of "character" than trivia like respect for rule of law and regard for the rights of the citizens of a democracy.

Wonderment
04-26-2008, 08:27 PM
A potential PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES refuses to salute the flag during the anthem, and you think it's just an issue for big bloviating babies? A potential First Lady says she's never been proud of her country before, and that's just an issue for big bloviating babies?

Yes. This is not the Cubs Scouts. The issues are war in Iraq, healthcare, global warming, terrorism, nuclear disarmament, etc. Not lapel pins.

Wonderment
04-26-2008, 08:53 PM
Dear Dr. Ayers,

Thank you for your service to our country.

I was deeply disturbed to see you turn to violence for a brief period in your life, but I will forever be grateful to you and countless others who opposed the Vietnam War with passion and conviction.

None of us did enough to stop the horrors of napalm, Agent Orange, torture and mass murder; so, although I categorically reject violence, I understand the remorse you feel for not doing more to end the war.

I especially thank you for standing up for people like me. When war criminals like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon wanted to deprive me of my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by taking me from my family, forcing me to learn to kill other human beings, dumping me in Southeast Asia and obligating me to kill or be killed, you and other anti-war activists helped give me the courage to refuse; and by working to shorten the war, you helped save the lives of the victims of US bombing of civilian targets and deliberate destruction of vital food sources.

Living through those years of American genocidal fury led me to embrace pacifism. I hope that today you also find inspiration in the anti-war work of Gandhi and King and reject taking up arms, even against the most cruel and despotic regimes.

Your support for Barack Obama suggests you have learned the lessons of peace. Obama is the better choice over warmongerers like John McCain and Democrats like Hillary Clinton who failed us when Bush lied the country into yet another senseless and horrifying war.

Whatfur
04-26-2008, 09:39 PM
Via the FOIA...

So, did the Weathermen accomplish anything before their hair turned grey and they hung up their fuses? Their armed struggle seems to have been almost contra productive. First of all, it really didn’t wake the masses, but rather made them rage against the terrorist violence. Secondly, it made a good excuse for heavy government crackdown on mainstream anti-war organizations. The weathermen provided ammo for the discrediting of the entire movement. And yeah, the SDS never did like the Weathermen. »Demented«, »illogical«, and »politically infantile« are words former SDS leaders use when speaking of the group in question. One even said the following: »You don’t need a rectal thermometer to know who the assholes are.« The Weathermen even got alienated from the Black Panthers, whom they thought they were fighting with and for. The Panther Party even issued public statements against them.


aka... failures as human beings, failures even as terrorists.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 09:41 PM
My Letters to WonderBoy,

F U

And that's about the extent of Whatfur's intelligence.

Thanks for coming, everybody. You've been a great audience.

Whatfur
04-26-2008, 10:02 PM
Nothing but a bunch of punks in need of a flea dip...Yeah hang your star on that group Wonderboy.

Via the FOIA:

In effort to do so, they stage the so called Days of Rage in October of 1969. Once again, the setting is Chicago. However, the Weathermen fail to wake the masses and only about 150-300 comrades show up for the rally-cum-riot. They hoped for thousands. The opening act is the night of October 6 and features the blowing up of a statue dedicated to the Chicago Police. Over the following four days six activists are shot and seventy arrested as the Chicago business district is vandalized, cars overturned, windows smashed, and police fought.
After the bad turnout the Weathermen let go of the not-responding college students, instead focusing their energy on attracting the proletariat to the cause. In line with these new ideas, they set up urban communes as bases for an on-paper impressive organization. But the blue-collars show even harder to recruit, and urban guerrilla warfare is now the only remaining option. The bomb-building begins.

A twist in the Weathermen violence occur in March 1970, and serves as a grim reality check. It is a bomb-building incident in a Greenwich Village town house and three Weathermen die on the scene. The bomb they were trying to make was intended to kill American military personnel at a dance at Fort Dix, N.J

Any friends stationed at Dix Wonderboy? Puke

Whatfur
04-26-2008, 10:28 PM
Kweefe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qweef) is at it again I see.

I thought your embarrassment yesterday might have you straighten up a bit. But I see you continue to blow real hard and real often without creating much of a breeze (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgZQNtV_Ff0).

T. More
04-26-2008, 10:42 PM
BJ, I can appreciate that you liked Obama's original answer on flag pins; but doesn't that confirm that there is an issue here? I don't think your take is unreasonable, and frankly it's not an issue for me either way. But if he did have a substantive point to make, it seems to me not unreasonable that the media would focus on it.

But didn't he deny in the most recent debate that he had ever made the point that you admired him for having made? (I didn't watch the debate but I thought I recalled seeing a clip of said denial; I welcome correction.) If that's correct, does it alter your admiration for Obama?

piscivorous
04-26-2008, 11:22 PM
You are cold but I love it.

Whatfur
04-26-2008, 11:22 PM
From Jim Geraghty after hearing more of the context.

Permit me to propose a new rule: If your mentor of 20 years has ever declared the United States to be ‘the same as al-Qaeda, under a different color flag, calling on the name a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem!’ you are ineligible for the Presidency.

...the rest. (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/)

Sorry Kweefe, Wonderboy...there are plenty of black churches who are able to do it with love. Y'all are a bit hypocritical.

bjkeefe
04-26-2008, 11:23 PM
T. More:

BJ, I can appreciate that you liked Obama's original answer on flag pins; but doesn't that confirm that there is an issue here?

I'm not sure how I'd characterize it. Clearly, the wearing or not wearing of the lapel pin is an issue for some, and in all sincerity -- they've been brought up to revere any image of the flag unthinkingly or something of that nature.

It's also a bit of an issue in the sense of Obama trying to make the point that I liked him for making, that cheap and empty symbolism has too often been the norm, and that the really important things that comprise what America stands for are ignored.

And then there's the meta-issue -- the press hyping the story by giving huge amounts of attention to every yahoo politician who has sufficiently little shame to pretend outrage over Obama's point.

Which finally means that it's become an issue in the sense of an ongoing problem that Obama is being dogged by, much like the way John Kerry couldn't make the Swiftboaters go away -- it makes nervous nellie DLC types start fretting about "electability," and rather than standing together like the other party does when its candidates get attacked, they add fuel to the fire with their public handwringing and attempts to triangulate.

But didn't he deny in the most recent debate that he had ever made the point that you admired him for having made? (I didn't watch the debate but I thought I recalled seeing a clip of said denial; I welcome correction.) If that's correct, does it alter your admiration for Obama?

I am not aware of this. I didn't watch the debate and I didn't see any mention of this specific claim. I know he was asked about the lapel pin and in general, had a pretty bad night, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear that he came out with something clumsy.

I'm assuming he didn't outright lie, or make a gross misstatement that could be directly contradicted by earlier news reports, since if he had, I can't imagine that wouldn't have been the talking point instead of the 2nd Amendment thing. But if we assume that it went down pretty much as you outlined, then, yes, I'm a little disappointed in him if he either tried to backpedal or twist the story around.

Ideally, I'd like my chosen candidate to stand on principle. From the pragmatic point of view, I think it's bad politics to take a stand and then try to downplay it later. In general, I say, either stick with it and take your lumps, or say outright that you were wrong and you've changed your thinking. Since I don't think he's changed his mind on this particular issue, and since I think he was right in the first place, I would have liked him to make a clear statement that reiterated his earlier one.

On the other hand, you can't govern if you don't win, and to win a national election in this country, you have to please more people than is possible while remaining completely consistent. Sadly, the truth is that a successful politician has to hedge sometimes.

So, ultimately, this is not an item of significance to me -- he's done other things that have pissed me off more, and I still like him way better than the other two candidates.

Awful long way to say "yes" and "no." Sorry about that.

Whatfur
04-26-2008, 11:45 PM
LGF Tidbit (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29747_Obama_Calls_Bloggers_Liars_for_Accurately_Re porting_His_Words_Goes_Back_to_Eating_Waffle)

jh in sd
04-27-2008, 01:57 AM
Honestly, can we pleeeeeeeeeeeeeazzze dispense with all the bullshit here. If you have a point to make, here is how you do it:

1) Develop a thesis- I disagree with your statement because...

2) Give reasons, sans the name calling. Construct a logical argument. Repeat as necessary.

Also, if I see the statement, "intellectual honesty," one more time here I will hurl. Expecting intellectual honesty during an election is a pipe dream. Get over it and enjoy the game. It is highly entertaining. Goodnight and good luck!

brucds
04-27-2008, 01:58 AM
I think it's hilarious that the GOPers here are all twisted panties over flag pins, the Weather Underground and snippets from Reverend Wright.

They've got nothing of any substance to push what's left of their tattered, bullshit cause and are starting to sound like a bunch of little girls gossiping about total nonsense. Looking good for us if this is the strategy to undercut Obama. McCain - about as out of touch on issues as is humanly possible for a politician in 2008 and as "authentic" as Mitt Romney the more he re-invents himself as Pandere- in-Chief - is toast.

look
04-27-2008, 02:06 AM
flag pins, the Weather Underground and snippets from Reverend Wright.
It may not be enough to get Hillary the nomination, but it's more than enough to give McCain the general.

look
04-27-2008, 02:44 AM
Dear Dr. Ayers,

Thank you for your service to our country.

Something wicked this way comes (Ann Coulter).

At one rally, Dohrn famously praised the Manson family for murdering Sharon Tate and others, shouting: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"

In a better country, just saying "Dig it!" in public would get you 20 years in the slammer.

Dohrn has recently tried to clarify her Manson remarks by saying it was some sort of "statement" about violence in society and, furthermore, that she said it while under sniper fire in Bosnia. Also recently, the members of the Manson family have distanced themselves from Ayers and Dohrn.

At other rallies, Dohrn said, "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents -- that's where it's at."

After a Chicago Democratic official, Richard Elrod, became paralyzed while fighting with a privileged looter during the Weathermen's "Days of Rage," Dohrn led the Weathermen in a song sung to the tune of Bob Dylan's "Lay Lady Lay":

Lay, Elrod, lay,
Lay in the street for a while
Stay, Elrod, stay
Stay in your bed for a while
You thought you could stop the Weatherman
But up-front people put you on your can,
Stay, Elrod, stay
Stay in your iron lung,
Play, Elrod, play
Play with your toes for a while

Only because of a merciful God is the author of that ditty, Ted Gold, not teaching at Northwestern or the University of Illinois now, alongside Dohrn or Ayers. That's because Gold is no longer with us, having accidentally blown himself up with a bomb intended for a dance at Fort Dix for new recruits and their dates. (http://www.anncoulter.com/)

And now they're part of the establishment, living off the system. Please.

For you to use the phrase 'thank you for your service to our country' is a smack in the face to all the men and women who actually did what their country bid them to do. Very hostile of you.

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 03:07 AM
Unfortunately a good many Americans don't have either the the time, inclination or curiosity to invest into understanding that you have obviously put into understanding and grappling with the issues. This narrows there ability to make choices based on character and other factors. I can see that you obviously don't think that character is an important trait of the future president so issues of character, who you choose to associate yourself with is an important aspect of judging the character of one under consideration for President so these issues should be ignored. Oh wait I'm defiantly confused now because it seems that many of your comments are about the character qualities and attributes of Senator Obama's opponents.

Oh I get it now. Senator Obama's opponents are just regular politicians so their character traits are open to question and denigration; but Senator Obama's self labeling of being a "different kind of politician" with superior judgment and deep understand means that any questioning of these self declared traits are therefor out of bounds. I should have seen it from the beginning but as I am so slow on the uptake I almost missed it!

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. – H.L. Mencken

Wonderment
04-27-2008, 03:48 AM
Only because of a merciful God is the author of that ditty, Ted Gold, not teaching at Northwestern or the University of Illinois now, alongside Dohrn or Ayers. That's because Gold is no longer with us, having accidentally blown himself up with a bomb intended for a dance at Fort Dix for new recruits and their dates.

So now you're at 4 degrees of separation? Obama: Ayers: Dohrn: Ted Gold.

Only two to go and if the theory is true, you'll be up to 6.7 billion people whose association with Obama is suspect.

johnmarzan
04-27-2008, 08:01 AM
obama will offer hillary a supreme court seat in exchange for her to drop out? is ezra serious? or is it a joke?

cragger
04-27-2008, 09:42 AM
Lefties like you just don't get it Wonderment.

I'm sure that like any True American, Hans would never walk out the door without a flag pin on his right lapel. The left lapel, closest to the heart, of course carries an even larger cross, since every True Christian is proud of their religion and wouldn't want anyone to think they're some secret muslim or Satan-worshiping drug-addled Obama voter (as if there was any difference between the two). Largest of all is the red R necklace, proudly telling one and all that we're the Real Americans, the Right Americans, Republican Americans! If you won't wear the bling, you ain't worth a thing.

I admit to being rather presumptious in including myself in that "we" with Hans and the boys here, but I'm trying hard to catch up having seen the light, recognized what's important, and learned to straighten up and fly Right while you Lefties crawl below in your drugged out socialist haze. In making ammends for any previous errors, I now refuse to do business with anyone who will not sign a loyalty oath before the transaction. From the checkout clerk at the supermarket to the little Girl Scout selling cookies, if they're not proud to sign a loyalty oath I'm proud to kick them to the curb to join you lefties, liberals, and the rest of your fellow travellers on that Highway to Hell.

brucds
04-27-2008, 10:55 AM
I can't believe you linked to that Steve Diamond blog. You're a first-class idiot. That thing is nothing but "I thnk" , "My best guess", etc. etc. regarding the influence of Ayers' FATHER, a Chicago big shot in the business community.

What a load of crap. But keep wasting your time with this conspiracy shit, because it exposes you as a total fucking moron. (And don't forget to leave home without your "Ask me about 9/11" button.)

brucds
04-27-2008, 11:02 AM
Obama is winning against Hillary precisely because he projects character of the highest quality. Folks who come after him with this trash - like Sean Hannity, et. al. on the far right and those in the "MSM" who tail after them like Georgie S. - have little to nothing to offer in the character department and normal people are increasingly sick of them.

Worse, for people like you, John McCain is proving himself to be a hollow man in hte Mitt Romney mold. Which is why there's not a chance in hell he's going to be elected president once Obama has a chance to give full attention to challenging his pathetic, shallow, recycled agenda.

brucds
04-27-2008, 11:10 AM
...that these comment threads have become a playground for the most infantile level of argument found among the far right. Are there any intelligent conservatives left ? After this barrage of bullshit about who takes Ecstasy and what the Weather Underground was up to 40 years ago or crackpot notions that demonize rather than rationally disagree with a decent man like Rev. Wright, the brain damage among right wingers seems to have become pervasive.

Too bad, because some of the discussion here used to be interesting.

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 11:23 AM
Like I said character arguments all.

brucds
04-27-2008, 11:59 AM
Drugs on the brain, indeed.

Why not prove Obama didn't work for Ayers ?

I'll waste precious minutes of my life attempting to disprove that unproven assertion when you can prove you're not drinking heavily and masturbating while writing this horseshit...

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 12:31 PM
I'm sure that such a mature argument for supporting Senator Obama is sure to persuade one or two children in the sandbox somewhere.

look
04-27-2008, 01:41 PM
...that these comment threads have become a playground for the most infantile level of argument found among the far right. Are there any intelligent conservatives left ? After this barrage of bullshit about who takes Ecstasy and what the Weather Underground was up to 40 years ago or crackpot notions that demonize rather than rationally disagree with a decent man like Rev. Wright, the brain damage among right wingers seems to have become pervasive.

Too bad, because some of the discussion here used to be interesting.

Snap back to reality, oops there goes gravity.

Will you please describe the method by which he can beat McCain? How blue-collar workers who put their hands over their hearts when the Anthem plays and how the avererage joe who will perceive as complete BS him sitting in a church watching that showboat for 20 years, will swing to Obama?

And to be honest, this site had become a echo chamber the last few months. Within the last few days, we've had extreme lefties and righties, and more sensible ones.

look
04-27-2008, 01:54 PM
So now you're at 4 degrees of separation? Obama: Ayers: Dohrn: Ted Gold.

Only two to go and if the theory is true, you'll be up to 6.7 billion people whose association with Obama is suspect.

Oy, Vonderment. My post wasn't about Obama, but about you writing a letter thanking those wannabe Che Guevaras for their 'service.' They lack even the good grace to regret attempted murder and pro-Manson rhetoric, but nonetheless live in the comfort of upper-class America.

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 02:03 PM
What really makes it so funny is to see such so much euphemistic praise, of a philosophy of violence, from a self proclaimed pacifist. I guess that is the new politics as practiced by the senator Obama supporters. The double speak of George Orwell.

graz
04-27-2008, 02:03 PM
Snap back to reality, oops there goes gravity.

Will you please describe the method by which he can beat McCain? How blue-collar workers who put their hands over their hearts when the Anthem plays and how the avererage joe who will perceive as complete BS him sitting in a church watching that showboat for 20 years, will swing to Obama?

And to be honest, this site had become a echo chamber the last few months. Within the last few days, we've had extreme lefties and righties, and more sensible ones.

It isn't possible for your questions to be answered definitively. Theories abound but wishes and fears are ruling the recent forum as well as the electorate.
I think that your approach of focusing on the hand over heart blue-collar is legitimate but potentially irrelevant. You could counter with numbers or a historical sampling to bolster your concerns about Obama's ability to win or persuade your stated voting bloc. Are they really a bloc? Will they vote in unison? Do they think like you? How can you know? As evidenced by this forum, no one has cornered the market on logic, insights or feelings.
A sampling of your posts leads me to conclude that you are in the "sensible" camp, but this still provides no special access to outcomes. If it did, we wouldn't participate in this endeavor, as extreme or one-sided as forum fluctuations are.

brucds
04-27-2008, 02:16 PM
"Re: Drugs on the Brain
I'm sure that such a mature argument for supporting Senator Obama is sure to persuade one or two children in the sandbox somewhere."


It wasn't an argument for supporting Obama. It was a reflection on what a mindless twit Mr. I Kidney You Not is in peddling his nonsense.

graz
04-27-2008, 02:17 PM
What really makes it so funny is to see such so much euphemistic praise, of a philosophy of violence, from a self proclaimed pacifist. I guess that is the new politics as practiced by the senator Obama supporters. The double speak of George Orwell.

Interesting insofar as Wonderment can square his pacifism with the violent
actions of various social activists historically.
But to extrapolate this seeming contradiction as a way to paint all Obama supporters as Orwellian double speakers is overstating, overgeneralizing and predictive of your own bias.

harkin
04-27-2008, 02:22 PM
Dear Dr. Ayers,

Thank you for your service to our country.....................
..............Your support for Barack Obama suggests you have learned the lessons of peace. Obama is the better choice over warmongerers like John McCain and Democrats like Hillary Clinton who failed us when Bush lied the country into yet another senseless and horrifying war.


Ayers and his wife in the past few years:

"America makes me want to puke"

"To live in the United States, is to be in the heart of the monster"

"America is an imperial warmonger steeped in jingoistic patriotism, unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion, white supremacy....."

Ah yes, the 'lessons of peace' have never been more eloquently phrased.

According to Wonderment's philosophy, Ayers and Dohrn are still performing a great 'service to our country'.

I would never suggest violence against the United States, but I certainly can understand if Ayers, Dohrn and Wonderment think that blowing up fellow Americans , including policemen, security guards and other horrible criminals such as young adults dancing (the bomb that exploded in a Weatherman NY hideout in 1970 was to be placed at a building in Fort Dix used for USO dances) is still a viable option to help bring down 'the beast'.

This is really just another way to say 'kumbaya' and anyone criticizing Obama for associating with this man of peace is a racist, xenophobic hatemonger, presumedly a drooling one.

look
04-27-2008, 02:58 PM
It isn't possible for your questions to be answered definitively. Theories abound but wishes and fears are ruling the recent forum as well as the electorate.
I think that your approach of focusing on the hand over heart blue-collar is legitimate but potentially irrelevant. You could counter with numbers or a historical sampling to bolster your concerns about Obama's ability to win or persuade your stated voting bloc. Are they really a bloc? Will they vote in unison? Do they think like you? How can you know? As evidenced by this forum, no one has cornered the market on logic, insights or feelings.
A sampling of your posts leads me to conclude that you are in the "sensible" camp, but this still provides no special access to outcomes. If it did, we wouldn't participate in this endeavor, as extreme or one-sided as forum fluctuations are.My over-arching point was that there are legitimate questions from the right, many of them addressed logically here, and his Obama angst is only adding to the chatter.

The point is, it doesn't much matter if Obama is 'real' if he can be done in by the framing of him, and brucds is killing the messenger.

A sampling of your posts leads me to conclude that you are in the "sensible" campWell, duh. ;-)

brucds
04-27-2008, 02:58 PM
In polling, more folks - by six points - believe that Hillary Clinton "looks down on average Americans" than say that about Obama.

So if the argument is which Democratic candidate is better positioned to connect with the mainstream, it's obviously Obama. Hillary's negatives are in the "don't even go there if you're running for President" territory. As for beating McCain. That would be tough if McCain weren't so absurdly out of touch on the issues. The guy's a walking disaster on both domestic and foreign policy and it won't be terribly difficult for Obama to make that case. If McCain were the man he's been presented as for years by an adoring press, he'd be unbeatable, probably by ANY Democrat. He's not. Just today we learn more about what a phony he is with the story of him using his wife's corporate jet at absurdly cut-rates - which is technically legit BECAUSE it belongs to his wife's company. There's tons of stuff like that, aside from his being wack on the issues, including crazy ministers. Real ones.

Democrats need to toughen up and get to the serious business of taking this old coot down. Clinton soap operas are part of the past. Thankfully.

Wonderment
04-27-2008, 03:28 PM
In making ammends for any previous errors, I now refuse to do business with anyone who will not sign a loyalty oath before the transaction.

Clean thinking, Cragger! I think we should also have a national salute when greeting each other, maybe a brief recognition of our president and a wish of good health to him. I mean, we wouldn't shoot people for not doing it, but we'd know for sure who to round up in case of a national emergency.

Wonderment
04-27-2008, 03:31 PM
What really makes it so funny is to see such so much euphemistic praise, of a philosophy of violence, from a self proclaimed pacifist.

Please read my posts before ranting about them.

Wonderment
04-27-2008, 03:33 PM
Interesting insofar as Wonderment can square his pacifism with the violent
actions of various social activists historically.

I haven't "squared my pacifism" with any violence. I categorically reject all acts of violence, including making a bomb in Greenwich Village and dropping hundreds of thousands of them on innocent civilians.

Wonderment
04-27-2008, 03:35 PM
I would never suggest violence against the United States, but I certainly can understand if Ayers, Dohrn and Wonderment think that blowing up fellow Americans , including policemen, security guards and other horrible criminals such as young adults dancing (the bomb that exploded in a Weatherman NY hideout in 1970 was to be placed at a building in Fort Dix used for USO dances) is still a viable option to help bring down 'the beast'.

Please refrain from blatantly lying about me. Try to keep to what I say, instead of making stuff up.

graz
04-27-2008, 03:48 PM
I haven't "squared my pacifism" with any violence. I categorically reject all acts of violence, including making a bomb in Greenwich Village and dropping hundreds of thousands of them on innocent civilians.

Thanks...I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. But haven't you painted yourself into a corner by cheering the goals while denouncing the tactics of these activists would turned to violence even if for a short time? Fortunately, you are not running for office, but you must recognize the incendiary effect?
Your opponents are never going to apply the relative perspective or concede that Ayers has now embraced the ways of peace. Just flesh it out if you wouldn't mind?

Wonderment
04-27-2008, 04:19 PM
Thanks...I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. But haven't you painted yourself into a corner by cheering the goals while denouncing the tactics of these activists who turned to violence even if for a short time?

I don't think so. I am supporting and grateful for all the peace work done by activists in that period, short of violence. It is regrettable and wrong that Ayers and others turned to violence as a means of resistance to the Vietnam holocaust.

But some context is in order. An insane war of mega-death and devastation was being inflicted on Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians. Conscripted US children (disproportionately black and Latino) were being shipped to the jungles to murder or be murdered. They were dying by the thousands. Torture and illegal weapons of mass destruction were being employed in attempts to starve the population.

NONE of the perpetrators of this mass violence were ever brought to justice. Only a handful regret their crimes. And none have their words or deeds subjected to the kind of scrutiny that Ayers gets.

Imagine for a moment that McCain, who went on 23 bombing missions in Vietnam was "revealed" to have started his campaign with a fellow-Republican who suported the secret carpet-bombing of Cambodia. Imagine further that he had a friend who said in 1968, "I wish we killed more of these bastards." Would anyone so much as blink? Would anyone call them to task as "unrepentent terrorists"? On the contrary, we expect people like that to be honored advisors in the McCain administration just as Kissinger was in the Bush administration.

graz
04-27-2008, 04:27 PM
... and this would be where a legitimate jumping-off point for a real debate could begin. I wish someone from the other team would at least offer a counter to this rationale for context. Anybody? And no points for insults, ad hominem or denial of the facts if not the interpretation.

look
04-27-2008, 04:53 PM
As for beating McCain. That would be tough if McCain weren't so absurdly out of touch on the issues. The guy's a walking disaster on both domestic and foreign policy and it won't be terribly difficult for Obama to make that case. If McCain were the man he's been presented as for years by an adoring press, he'd be unbeatable, probably by ANY Democrat. He's not. Just today we learn more about what a phony he is with the story of him using his wife's corporate jet at absurdly cut-rates - which is technically legit BECAUSE it belongs to his wife's company. There's tons of stuff like that, aside from his being wack on the issues, including crazy ministers. Real ones.This race is so fascinating because it could go any way, but I think Hillary would have the edge in the general, with regard to being a down and dirty fighter and having the womanly appeal of protecting mother, which she would be able to play to the hilt against McCain. I'm a pessimist as to Obama's chances based not only on the inherent racism remaining in America, but how he will be relentlessly drubbed with the Wright/Ayres/Patriotism issues. McCain can easily squeak through with either Dem just by virtue of the wise grandfather motif, not the least of which will be based on the nostalgia of some boomers for America's golden age of Kennedy/NASA/prosperity/honorable POWs. I think it's also probably quite easy for McCain to 'reason' with the public for how we're 'almost there' in Iraq. I don't know how accurate it is, but the case has been made that America could have won in Viet Nam, except for the negative pressure of the press, etc.

bjkeefe
04-27-2008, 07:14 PM
look:

I don't know how accurate it is, but the case has been made that America could have won in Viet Nam, except for the negative pressure of the press, etc.

You don't really think that GOP talking point holds water, do you?

You might read Karnow's Vietnam: A History (http://www.amazon.com/Vietnam-History-Stanley-Karnow/dp/0140265473/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209333941&sr=8-1), if you want a fairly comprehensive examination. Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest (http://www.amazon.com/Best-Brightest-David-Halberstam/dp/0449908704/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209334024&sr=8-2) is also good. And there are any number of other really good works out there that clearly show how there was no hope of the US winning that war, short of completely annihilating the indigenous population.

I grant that there was a negative press reaction to the war, which grew over time, but I don't think it was propaganda so much as just reporting the facts.

look
04-27-2008, 07:41 PM
[QUOTE=bjkeefe;75359]look:
You don't really think that GOP talking point holds water, do you?
QUOTE]
Brendan, that's why I said I didn't know how accurate the claim was. I appreciate the reading suggestions.

bjkeefe
04-27-2008, 08:34 PM
look:

Didn't mean to sound dismissive of you. It's just that I think that the idea itself is nothing more than political mud that has been thoroughly rebutted since the mid-1970s at least, and I'm surprised, given what else I've heard you say, that you would still entertain it.

I guess it shows the power of the Big Lie tactic -- repeat anything often enough, and some people will eventually wonder if it might not be true.

Wonderment
04-27-2008, 08:45 PM
At a Miami press conference today, McCain claimed to have heard a new Wright clip (new to McCain) in which Wright compared “the United States Marine Corps with Roman Legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our Savior.”

I think McCain easily out-slimes Hillary with that one. And it's just the beginning.

Semper Fidelis

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 09:51 PM
Before one gets too carried away with the truths reviled by either Mr. Karnow or Mr Halberstam it should be noted that they strongly advocated for involvement in Vietnam. It was only latter did the recognize the "errors of their way" and their subsequent works should be read with that in mind. Along with Neil Sheehan they were the heavyweight reports in the early days of Vietnam. All three were advocates of our involvement there and later soured on it. Much like David Frum today with his reversal of stands on Iraq and I imagine suffer the same sort of angst we see in Mr Frum today.

Mark Moyar the author of Triumph Forsaken (http://www.triumphforsaken.com/index.php?pr=Home_Page) may sum it up a quite different view of the contributions of Mr. Karnow and Mr Halberstam
Halberstam’s History (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI2N2RhOTRjMTQxZGY2NWE0NmYzOWJjOWE4ZDhhMjg=)

Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow inadvertently caused enormous damage to the American effort in South Vietnam—making them the most harmful journalists in American history. The leading American journalists in Vietnam during 1963, they favored American involvement in Vietnam, in stark contrast to the press corps of the war’s latter years. But they had a low opinion of South Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem and decided that he would need to be removed if the war was to be won. Brazenly attempting to influence history, Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow gave Diem’s opponents in the U.S. government negative information on Diem in print and in private. Most of the information they passed on was false or misleading, owing in part to their heavy reliance on a Reuters stringer named Pham Xuan An who was actually a secret Communist agent. The journalists convinced Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to accept their reports in place of much more accurate reports from the CIA and the U.S. military, which led Lodge to urge South Vietnamese generals to stage a coup.

bjkeefe
04-27-2008, 10:00 PM
pisc:

You've got a point there, regarding the evolving views of Karnow and Halberstam. I'm not saying those two books should be treated as gospel. It's just that they are two of the best books that I've read for getting an overview.

Also, I think it adds something to their credibility to know that their minds did change over the course of the war.

I am not going to debate the larger question of whether Vietnam was winnable. I consider that question asked and answered. You're entitled to your own view, of course, and you're welcome to rebut, but my mind is made up on this one.

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 10:05 PM
pisc:

You've got a point there, regarding the evolving views of Karnow and Halberstam. I'm not saying those two books should be treated as gospel. It's just that they are two of the best books that I've read for getting an overview.

Also, I think it adds something to their credibility to know that their minds did change over the course of the war.

I am not going to debate the larger question of whether Vietnam was winnable. I consider that question asked and answered. You're entitled to your own view, of course, and you're welcome to rebut, but my mind is made up on this one.So at this point I must assume that you are a big fan of David Frum as his credibility has been so enhanced.

bjkeefe
04-27-2008, 10:34 PM
So at this point I must assume that you are a big fan of David Frum as his credibility has been so enhanced.

I would say that I would probably take his views on Iraq more seriously now, and hear him as less of a blatant cheerleader. I don't think he's made a strong enough statement about the specifics of why invading Iraq was a bad idea to say much more than that.

Ultimately, I don't think your proposed comparison is valid. There's quite a bit of difference in evaluating what a change of mind means when talking about reporters as opposed to political operatives. To my mind, both Karnow and Halberstam had long and distinguished careers in which an ideological agenda was not foremost on their minds. By contrast, Frum has always had a clear ideology on display during his career, not least of which was working for the Bush Administration and helping it to sell the invasion.

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 11:09 PM
I would say that I would probably take his views on Iraq more seriously now, and hear him as less of a blatant cheerleader. I don't think he's made a strong enough statement about the specifics of why invading Iraq was a bad idea to say much more than that.

Ultimately, I don't think your proposed comparison is valid. There's quite a bit of difference in evaluating what a change of mind means when talking about reporters as opposed to political operatives. To my mind, both Karnow and Halberstam had long and distinguished careers in which an ideological agenda was not foremost on their minds. By contrast, Frum has always had a clear ideology on display during his career, not least of which was working for the Bush Administration and helping it to sell the invasion.

Re: Israel-Palestine: Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle-dum (bjkeefe - 11/05/2007 06:32PM)

ohcomeon: I mean at some point it becomes; why bother? I believe that one sentence encompasses my feelings about disputing David Frum and what he had to say on just about everything in this diav


Re: Neo-geopolitics Edition (bjkeefe - 11/09/2007 07:43PM)

Wonderment: I would get very exhausted around here responding to Lake, Mickey Kaus and David Frum ... And speaking of Mickey, here's some first-hand testimony from the wingiest of wingnuts, Ace

Re: I blame the end of the cold war (bjkeefe - 11/06/2007 12:58PM)

BN: I'm gradually realizing that, for all his apparent intelligence, Frum is just an idiot in disguise. Or maybe the Bush administration is so bad and Rudy wants to stay close enough to Bush that t



Will the real bj please stand up?

bjkeefe
04-27-2008, 11:33 PM
piscivorous:

I don't think your examples of other things that I've said about Frum do much to support your case. If you can't see why I might simultaneously think more of Frum's current views on Iraq than I did in the past, while still thinking he's got it wrong on most other things, I'm sorry.

I probably should not have treated your question as a reasonable hypothetical in the first place, and instead gone with my gut instinct that you were, once again, more interested in bickering for bickering's sake.

I'll add a more general observation: If your life revolves around the search for inconsistencies among my comments in different threads in a forum of this sort, you really need to get a better one.

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 11:48 PM
piscivorous:

I don't think your examples of other things that I've said about Frum do much to support your case. If you can't see why I might simultaneously think more of Frum's current views on Iraq than I did in the past, while still thinking he's got it wrong on most other things, I'm sorry.

I probably should not have treated your question as a reasonable hypothetical in the first place, and instead gone with my gut instinct that you were, once again, more interested in bickering for bickering's sake.

I'll add a more general observation: If your life revolves around the search for inconsistencies among my comments in different threads in a forum of this sort, you really need to get a better one.

let me ease your troubled concious and assure you that it is not my lif's goal or ambition and it didn't really require all that much effort to find these specific "inconsistencies" as to regards to your assessment of Mr. Frum. I think I spent a whole 15 minutes on it this not so challenging task.

bjkeefe
04-27-2008, 11:51 PM
let me ease your troubled concious and assure you that it is not my lif's goal or ambition and it didn't really require all that much effort to find these specific "inconsistencies" as to regards to your assessment of Mr. Frum. I think I spent a whole 15 minutes on it this not so challenging task.

I don't have a troubled conscience. All I feel for you is pity and contempt.

I don't care how much time you did or didn't spend. Whatever it was, I still say you'd be happier if you had spent that time otherwise.

I'm going to ignore you for a while. Feel free to have the last word.

piscivorous
04-27-2008, 11:58 PM
Actually I think the last word came two comments ago.