PDA

View Full Version : Damn the Pundits!


Bloggingheads
05-08-2008, 09:07 PM

piscivorous
05-08-2008, 09:54 PM
Conventional Wisdom (http://http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/10863?in=00:09:34&out=00:09:50) or is this the likely scenario if Senator Obama gets elected (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1142543.ece). 10 years with a left of center, for British politics, Prime Minister Blair with general voter satisfaction. 2 years of the more leftist Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Labour support hits record low. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1142543.ece)

David Thomson
05-08-2008, 10:11 PM
There is little reason for Hillary Clinton to give up. Senator Clinton is fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party. She is not only thinking of 2008, but also 2012 and beyond. “Barry” Obama is tacitly running a “get whitey” campaign. Obama made a point to become an “authentic man of color.” His relationship with Dorothy Tillman and other Chicago area radicals should soon become a campaign issue. America is ready for a black president---if that individual embraces center-right positions. It will, however, solidly reject a socialist and dishonest pacifist.

Eastwest
05-08-2008, 10:12 PM
As much as I like David Corn, he has lost touch with the psychology of the electorate and the manner in which they can be predictably moved this way or that based on swift-boat style ads such as the upcoming General election Republican take-down of Obama.

Sad as it may be, Pinkerton is correct about the likelihood of a McCain win and the reasons for its virtual inevitability.

McCain's "Reverend problem" is in no way equivalent in psychological-influence terms to the disastrous effect of Obama's Reverend Wright problem.

Corn is just wasting his breath trying to split hairs on supposed "facts" involved in a set of psychological realities which doesn't really give a damn about "facts." Unfortunately "facts" are of only very minor relevance in electoral politics.

Corn is better qualified to be an author of encyclopedias of miscellaneous trivial facts than he is to be a pundit of the unfolding electoral scenario.

EW

osmium
05-08-2008, 10:40 PM
at the beginning, jim says the democratic party is being hijacked by The Left, and the superdelegates are designed to stop it.

then at the end, he says The Left are becoming mostly free traders and anti-tax people, and cites austan goolsbee as an example. is this the same left? how many lefts are there?

i think the truth is actually that neither of the democratic candidates are particularly left, and that The Left is a pretty powerless group in post before-i-was-born america.

David Thomson
05-08-2008, 10:51 PM
Who cares what Austan Goolsbee says about free trade? “Barry” Obama strongly disagrees with the position. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that he is lying to the blue collar voters? Please note that Obama’s public economic pronouncements are anti-free market. Is he talking out of both sides of his mouth? Who is the real Obama?

graz
05-08-2008, 11:17 PM
Holy Cow!
Jim Pinkerton is kidneystones.
Who knew?

brucds
05-08-2008, 11:19 PM
His blather defending Falwell, et. al. and damning Wright is just stupid. Kind of sad really that he thinks his "distinctions" are intellectually credible. And, fortunately, Jim's totally out of touch with the political realities of 2008. (I think we got a hint of that when he signed on with Mike Huckabee.)

Say hello to President Obama, Jim.

bkjazfan
05-09-2008, 12:41 AM
Jim Pinkerton's prediction of Senator Barak Obama losing 40 states in the general election can't be realistic. If it is then the democrats nominated the wrong guy again.

John

Freddie
05-09-2008, 01:08 AM
Uh, Eastwest, the fundamentals favor the Democratic candidate enormously. The incumbent party is the Republicans. They have a horrific economy and a enormously unpopular war. The Democrats have an overwhelming fund raising advantage. Whatever political momentum exists vastly favors a Democratic candidate.

David Thomson
05-09-2008, 01:14 AM
“Jim Pinkerton's prediction of Senator Barak Obama losing 40 states in the general election can't be realistic.”

The odds are that Jim Pinkerton is right. Whites, Asian Americans, and perhaps even Hispanics, would be foolish to vote for him. This is also true for any small business person. Obama should ultimately get only the pseudo-educated yuppies, blacks, and “I’m hip and with it” college kids. That will get him around 40% of the total vote---just like George McGovern.

David Thomson
05-09-2008, 01:17 AM
"....and a enormously unpopular war."

You should study the presidential campaign of 1972. George McGovern was not able to take advantage of "..an enormously unpopular war."

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 01:44 AM
Holy Cow!
Jim Pinkerton is kidneystones.
Who knew?

Indeed. How many times did he say "Ayers" during the course of that diavlog?

I miss the old Jim Pinkerton. He used to be a good pundit.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 02:03 AM
One interesting point Jim did raise was his claim that much of the left is becoming more libertarian. I think he's right about that, although David was right that the embracing of free trade is hardly unanimous. Certainly, I think the on-line left is quite libertarian in lots of ways.

I consider myself one of those people Jim was talking about. While I'd like to see better health, environmental, and safety standards mandated for other countries who want to sell their goods here in the US, I generally support free trade and oppose protectionism. I'm also against excessive nanny-statism; i.e., the government invading privacy and trying to dictate individual behavior.

How do other lefties here feel about this claim? Would you say you're in the category Jim was describing?

How do righties feel? Do you perceive a shift in "the left" in this direction?

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 03:07 AM
You have to admit that these two have terrific chemistry. They're fun to watch.

No matter how far out he gets, Pinkerton never enrages me the way Mickey, Frum and the other right-wing extremists do.

And Jim definitely deserves kudos for predicting that Wright could not keep his mouth shut. It was perceptive of him to spot the egomaniac in the Rev before anyone else did.

miocid
05-09-2008, 03:13 AM
I'm guessing Jim Pinkerton is receiving a paycheck from Rupert [Murdoch]? His arguments make no sense, claiming that Obama would lose 40 states meaning McCain would win in a landslide? Is this guy out of touch with reality?

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 04:28 AM
How do other lefties here feel about this claim? Would you say you're in the category Jim was describing?


As a veteran of the 1968 Chicago Convention protests, I have had a long journey on the left. But I've always had libertarian tendencies. So I don't see a shift toward libertarianism on the left; I think many of us have always had an affinity for some libertarian ideas. There is a lot of common ground for me on issues of civil liberties and opposition to foreign adventures, for example.

I tend to think that rather than a blend of left and libertarian, what's emerging is a greater freedom to affiliate with all kinds of political networks. I haven't changed but my opportunities for activism have expanded rapidly on the Internet. The Internet allows for much more diversification of politics.

A pro-choice atheist, gun control, no death penalty, abolition of nukes, alternative energy, open borders (for people and goods) activist like me can network with libertarians or socialists or anarchists or even Republicans, depending on the political issue.

I have relatively little power when I vote for a compromise big-Dem-tent candidate like Obama compared to the enhanced power I have when I volunteer for cross-party and cross-ideology activist groups.

For example, I'm a big supporter of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, a coalition of Republicans and Dems. Not too many of those folks will show up at the open borders/legalization-for-all rally. But so what? They will have their own issues that I have no interest in. On the Iraq War and national defense, I think Republican Ron Paul has a better plan than Obama. On gay right I would definitely support the first Republican or Libertarian candidate to stand up for gay marriage.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 04:35 AM
Wonderment:

Good answer. I think you're right about two things, especially: the idea that liberals having some libertarian principles is nothing new, and that many of us tend to affiliate with groups based on particular causes, without worrying about an overarching ideology.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 04:38 AM
Wonderment:

I agree that the chemistry is still there. I'd also go along with Jim being less enraging, but I think a lot of that has to do with the good credit he built up before he went to work for Huckabee. On a related note, I find him that much more disappointing as a consequence. These diavlogs used to have chemistry plus substance, or maybe, partisanship tempered with honesty.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 04:43 AM
miocid:

I thought Jim was unhinged with this prediction, too, but I just read a scenario (http://therealistblogs.blogspot.com/2008/05/indenpendent-day.html) whereby McCain could win 40 states.

I wonder how many Clinton supporters on this forum think this would be a good idea.

Eastwest
05-09-2008, 05:15 AM
Uh, Eastwest, the fundamentals favor the Democratic candidate enormously. The incumbent party is the Republicans. They have a horrific economy and a enormously unpopular war. The Democrats have an overwhelming fund raising advantage. Whatever political momentum exists vastly favors a Democratic candidate.

Of course you are right and I would never dispute that. The election is the Dems to lose.

But we keep doing it, nonetheless.

Very simple really: Just nominate yet another martian with which a large sector of the electorate has no "chemistry." It is my contention that Obama is just such a nominee. (BTW, I really do hope I'm wrong.)

I thought Pink's analysis was much more reality-based than Corn's. The Dem insiders are frightened at the prospect of pissing off the large tide of Blackberry-jockeys and blacks enthusiastic about Barack and so really don't mind saying, "Oh, what the hell," going ahead and nominating him even knowing full well it means a general-election loss.

Why?: Still makes for full-employment and financial support for Dems in Congress and in the 2010 mid-terms. What's more Bush has created a no-win situation for whoever gets stuck with cleaning up his incredible messes both domestically and internationally.

EW

Eastwest
05-09-2008, 05:20 AM
You have to admit that these two have terrific chemistry. They're fun to watch.

Agreed: Delightful combo.

Nice reminder that this whole thing is just another goofy circus.

EW

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 06:19 AM
Brendan,

the idea that liberals having some libertarian principles is nothing new, and that many of us tend to affiliate with groups based on particular causes, without worrying about an overarching ideology.

Thanks for saying in one sentence what it took me four rambling paragraphs to articulate. :)

breadcrust
05-09-2008, 06:22 AM
J.P. probably hasn't lost his mind, but beside his seeming surety that Huckabee was in it to win it, there's this interesting bit (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/6967?in=00:22:37&out=22:50) wherein he predicts Ron Paul's victory in New Hampshire during the same diavlog where D.C. espouses John McCain as far and away the best choice (of the many awful choices) for the (R) nominee. So basically, J.P. is acting like a company man and projecting total assurance that his candidate is going to cream Obama when there is so little reason to believe it. I think D.C. is the better prognosticator.

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 06:25 AM
I wonder how many Clinton supporters on this forum think this would be a good idea.


Not a Hillary supporter, but I think it's an interesting idea. It's probably already too late to even get on the ballot in some states. Hasn't Nader been working on this for months already?

On the other hand, she might not need to be on the ballot in lots of states. Somebody should do the electoral math. Let's see...., New York + New Jersey + Ohio + Pennsylvania + California + Florida + Arkansas? How many electoral votes is that so far? Does Puerto Rico count? How about Bosnia?

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 07:11 AM
Thanks for saying in one sentence what it took me four rambling paragraphs to articulate. :)

Hey, you're the Shakespeare. I'm just Cliff (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/).

look
05-09-2008, 09:20 AM
I thought Pink's analysis was much more reality-based than Corn's. The Dem insiders are frightened at the prospect of pissing off the large tide of Blackberry-jockeys and blacks enthusiastic about Barack and so really don't mind saying, "Oh, what the hell," going ahead and nominating him even knowing full well it means a general-election loss.

Why?: Still makes for full-employment and financial support for Dems in Congress and in the 2010 mid-terms. What's more Bush has created a no-win situation for whoever gets stuck with cleaning up his incredible messes both domestically and internationally.

As allbetsareoff pointed out in the 'Based on a True Story' thread, the redrawing of the districts based on 2010 census is a very big deal:
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.
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=75236#poststop

bkjazfan
05-09-2008, 09:52 AM
This is just off the top of my head: Senator Obama would take the following: California, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, New york, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington D.C. These are what I call no doubt about it "sure things." Does anyone have other states he would definitley grab? Any disputes?

John

harkin
05-09-2008, 10:00 AM
How interesting of D Corn to excuse the Rev Wright's lunacy because of his six years in the USMC. If a four-star general suggested that the US government had weakened the military by integrating it, would he be as accommodating?

I already posted the WU statements that completely refuted the flawed thinking that they somehow helped stop the war. It's funny that Corn is still willing to shill for the flag stompers but then, that's what The Nation does best.

osmium
05-09-2008, 10:04 AM
i agree with this analysis. i find that diavlogs generally leave me frustrated when one person is in "real" mode and another is in "bullshit" mode. bill scher and conn carroll are both always in bullshit mode, so i usually think that's fine. the thing about david corn and jim pinkerton is that they occasionally change from one mode to the other.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 10:05 AM
This is just off the top of my head: Senator Obama would take the following: California, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Vermont, New york, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington D.C. These are what I call no doubt about it "sure things." Does anyone have other states he would definitley grab? Any disputes?

JohnI would think that Mayor Daily wont even have to raise too many of the dead, to cast ballots, for him to win Illinois.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 10:08 AM
I've yet to see one diavlog where Mr. Corn is not in his "bullshit" mode. But I guess that has to do with perspective.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 10:31 AM
I would think that Mayor Daily wont even have to raise too many of the dead, to cast ballots, for him to win Illinois.

LOL!

And see? Barack Obama is changing politics for the better already!

osmium
05-09-2008, 10:51 AM
i agree with him on this count. the ideology of things like wired magazine and boingboing.net is a loose-regulation, capitalist, pragmatic left. i think the emerging general consensus is probably from that direction.

i disagree with jim, however, when he calls this ethos "the left," but then also tries to use "the left" as a connotation for dennis kucinich equals barry obama (equals the 1960's are back to life and you better watchit).

cragger
05-09-2008, 11:23 AM
While agreeing with both of you that there are libertarian ideals underlying various ideas and policy positions on the left, that also holds for a lot of individual voters and ideas on the right.

Unfortunately, few people have a coherent political philosophy. Many have instead a group identification and will come up with, or accept, any rationalization that supports the position of that group. As noted again in the recent Science Saturday diavlog, people are not particularly rational actors. This allows voters to like the libertarian rhetoric traditionally espoused by Republicans while ignoring or rationalizating away the relentlessly authoritarian actions of Republican politicians and judiciary.

Hardly a problem unique to the right. How much of the recent political discussion on this forum has been substantive and issues based from any side of the political spectrum, compared to the vitriol demonizing a candidate as the worst person to walk the earth and denigrating anyone who disagrees?

So I guess the question is how effective the idea of a new paradigm of interest-based internet groups of people who attempt to deal with individual issues really is or will be. You suggest that this offers more power to affect policy, events, and change than conventional politics. I can see an advantage in getting past the blinders imposed by party group identification but wonder just what effect such groups have given the mutation of democracy into a two-party system. Any examples in which a cross-party or post partisan activist group has effected some change, other than, say, picking a party or candidate based on placing that issue preeminent in voting?

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 11:25 AM
British band uses surveillance state to make video The Get Out Clause, Manchester stars of CCTV (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/1938076/The-Get-Out-Clause,-Manchester's-stars-of-CCTV-cameras.html) Just thought it was a cool idea

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 12:08 PM
Perhaps it is little things like this that gets us not so PC going MY 'RACIAL HARASSMENT' NIGHTMARE (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/my_racial_harassment_nightmare_110119.htm)

Bloggin' Noggin
05-09-2008, 01:14 PM
Yeah, I think Pinkerton has been rather less even-handed since election season got started, but I'd still draw a distinction between Jim and Conn Carroll (in his new Heritage incarnation).
Jim goes off the rails a bit when he starts claiming (seemingly in his own voice) that Obama is such a pinko (as opposed to the problem that he might be successfully portrayed as some kind of loony lefty). But notice that when Corn raises Parsley, Jim doesn't just roll his eyes (as Conn did over Hagee). He admits that Parsley's views are beyond the pale and says he thinks McCain will distance himself.
Pinkerton doesn't accept principles only when it's convenient for his side.

jh in sd
05-09-2008, 01:33 PM
Wonder, Your point here about "greater freedom to affiliate with all kinds of political networks" is excellent. Over time, I believe this type of access to political discussions through the Internet will have increasing impact on the national political scene, as it allows for voters (those who care enough to put thought and effort into the process, at least) to better educate themselves on the issues.

I tend to think that the libertarian streak in anyone, whether on the right or the left, lies in an Occidental perspective and is an affirmation of free thinking.

And "even" as a Republican, I am interested in other points of view. In fact, most of my friends are more left of center. Wonder, try befriending a Rightie; we're not so bad!

look
05-09-2008, 01:50 PM
Yeah, I think Pinkerton has been rather less even-handed since election season got started, but I'd still draw a distinction between Jim and Conn Carroll (in his new Heritage incarnation).
Jim goes off the rails a bit when he starts claiming (seemingly in his own voice) that Obama is such a pinko (as opposed to the problem that he might be successfully portrayed as some kind of loony lefty). But notice that when Corn raises Parsley, Jim doesn't just roll his eyes (as Conn did over Hagee). He admits that Parsley's views are beyond the pale and says he thinks McCain will distance himself.
Pinkerton doesn't accept principles only when it's convenient for his side.When Conn rolled his eyes, I think that was in anticipation of Bill equating Wright with Parsley, which is what Bill proceeded to do. Conn then stated cogently the difference in degree, and Bill agreed. And I don't think that Conn would have ever come up with the cop at every mosque or Obama as a skinny Al Sharpton. I held my breath to see if Jim would agree that Islam was the scourge of the earth.

That being said, Jim is one of my favorites. He was having fun at the beginning asking David why the superdelegates couldn't vote as they wanted.

PaulL
05-09-2008, 02:06 PM
Great catch harkin.
I like how Corn used the fact that Rev Wright served in the Marines to give him a pass on his "soundbites".
Hey David,
Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad (the DC sniper) also served in the Military.
Do they deserve a pass too?

Bloggin' Noggin
05-09-2008, 02:10 PM
Hi look,
I know what you mean -- I wondered a little too whether Jim might just bite the bullet and say there was nothing wrong with Parsley's remark (given his "cop at every mosque" statement).
Concerning Conn, you offer a very specific defense of him against a specific charge -- one which I assume is correct, since you seem to remember it better than I do (and I don't really want to go back and check). But I wonder if you can find a defense regarding my more general point -- can you think of a time when Conn has actually conceded a point to the other side, as Jim does here? I mean, for example, does he concede that Hagee and Parsley are beyond the pale and that McCain should distance himself from them, while still reserving the right to point out that the relationships are different in their (perceived) significance? Are there any cases where he concedes anything, even if it is not his main point? (I mean in his current Heritage incarnation, not back in his Blogometer days.)

Incidentally, I suspect Matt Y is right. The difference between Wright and Parsley is NOT primarily the nature of their relationship -- as Corn points out, one might argue that a political alliance shows more about ones political views than a pastoral relationship. The big difference is that anti-American sentiments (or sentiments that sound atni-American) are objectionable to large portions of the electorate, while anti-Islam sentiments range from "acceptable" to "US Grade A red meat" for most of the electorate (or at least most that McCain might hope to capture in November.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 02:50 PM
Great catch harkin.
I like how Corn used the fact that Rev Wright served in the Marines to give him a pass on his "soundbites".
Hey David,
Timothy McVeigh and the John Allen Muhammad (DC sniper) also served in the Military.
Do they deserve a pass too?

I think that's a little bit of a false equivalence, Paul. The reason David brought up Wright's military service was in the context of Wright's patriotism being questioned. He wasn't offering it as an all-purpose Get Out Of Jail Free card. Some of Wright's words may be distasteful or crazy, but he didn't commit heinous crimes by saying them.

graz
05-09-2008, 03:30 PM
I held my breath to see if Jim would agree that Islam was the scourge of the earth.



As you were holding your breath, I think Jim was biting his tongue. Nobody is perfect.

PaulL
05-09-2008, 03:56 PM
So Timothy McVeigh and the John Allen Muhammad (DC sniper) who served in the Military were not anti-American? Just criminal?

graz
05-09-2008, 04:07 PM
So Timothy McVeigh and the John Allen Muhammad (DC sniper) who served in the Military were not anti-American? Just criminal?

Stay focused. Your two examples are not in play.
Brendan made crystal that Wright's words in and of themselves were not heinous crimes.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 04:26 PM
So Timothy McVeigh and the John Allen Muhammad (DC sniper) who served in the Military were not anti-American? Just criminal?

I'm not sure the question has much meaning. The overwhelmingly important consideration for these two is their actions. And even in the abstract, given that what they did was so irrational, I don't know why we'd expect their political views to be any more coherently formed than their ideas about how to behave.

To the degree that they acted so contrary to what constitutes being a good citizen of this country, I suppose you could say they were being anti-American. I don't see what that has to do with the point I raised, though.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 04:28 PM
Paul makes a valid point. While it is not directly applicable to Pastor Wright, there is a man named William Ayers whom many here seem to think is just some professor in Chicago. Instead of serving the served up bombs.

Alworth
05-09-2008, 04:34 PM
Good lord, will someone find the real Jim Pinkerton and bring him back? The old one was someone good lefties could learn from, not a guy who devolved into rants about how the economy and Iraq will be irrelevancies and Reverend Wright (Jeremiah, not Bob) and Bill Ayers will be the key decision points for the mass of Americans. I started a fun game where I counted the times where Pinkerton, like a Tourretts victim, inappropriately interjected the words "Bill Ayers" into conversation, but since I couldn't get through the diavlog, my total only hit nine.

Is this what's become of the Republican Party?

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 05:02 PM
So I guess the question is how effective the idea of a new paradigm of interest-based internet groups of people who attempt to deal with individual issues really is or will be.

Good points! First, I would say Internet-based and local community-based. I think the politics that's emerging independent of parties is doing both.

Any examples in which a cross-party or post partisan activist group has effected some change, other than, say, picking a party or candidate based on placing that issue preeminent in voting?

Yes, may. Let me give a few quick examples:

1) Marijuana laws in California (and several other states). Here a coalition of hippies, lefties and libertarians have come together to really dramatically change things. Today, anyone with a vague claim of a head or back ache can get a prescription for several ounces of "medical" marijuana , which is actually better and cheaper than street weed. Doctors set up shop next store to the dispensary and everyone is happy and free of judicial persecution. (I don't smoke it, by the way, but support legalization.)

2) Environmental protection laws. Our county has brought together another broad coalition to virtuallly prohibit large developments on land outside city limits. In other words, no more suburban tracts.

3) Families of murder and violent crime victims have come together in the city in our county with the highest homicide rate to organize around better policing, fewer guns and more programs of early intervention and violence prevention. These are all highly politicized issues, and we lose a lot of supporters around capital punishment and prison reform, but generally we have a consensus that supports youth programing, drug rehab instead of incarceration, reduction of civil rights abuses by police, a ban on handguns, etc.

4) The antiwar movement. Groups like MoveOn organize very large numbers of locals for several demonstrations and vigils throughout the year. MoveOn has been attacked as a Dem. group, but that is really only because it is a Repub. hawk who has flipped out and waged an illegal war. If Obama or Clinton fail to end the war in a timely fashion, MoveOn will continue to organize against their policies. (This was also true during Vietnam where organizing continued through the Johnson and Nixon administrations).

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 05:08 PM
And "even" as a Republican, I am interested in other points of view. In fact, most of my friends are more left of center. Wonder, try befriending a Rightie; we're not so bad!

Hey, JH, some of my best friends......

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 05:40 PM
Good points! First, I would say Internet-based and local community-based. I think the politics that's emerging independent of parties is doing both.



Yes, may. Let me give a few quick examples:

1) Marijuana laws in California (and several other states). Here a coalition of hippies, lefties and libertarians have come together to really dramatically change things. Today, anyone with a vague claim of a head or back ache can get a prescription for several ounces of "medical" marijuana , which is actually better and cheaper than street weed. Doctors set up shop next store to the dispensary and everyone is happy and free of judicial persecution. (I don't smoke it, by the way, but support legalization.) And thanks to the activist philosophies of FDR judges, the federal government has the right to bust those state sanctioned stores on federal charges. If you don't believe do some research of "commerce clause" rulings, durring the 30s and 40s, Supreme Court.


2) Environmental protection laws. Our county has brought together another broad coalition to virtuallly prohibit large developments on land outside city limits. In other words, no more suburban tracts. yes these and many other regulator restrictions and requirements contribute what to the cost of a house nowadays.


3) Families of murder and violent crime victims have come together in the city in our county with the highest homicide rate to organize around better policing, fewer guns and more programs of early intervention and violence prevention. These are all highly politicized issues, and we lose a lot of supporters around capital punishment and prison reform, but generally we have a consensus that supports youth programing, drug rehab instead of incarceration, reduction of civil rights abuses by police, a ban on handguns, etc. If you think gun legislation is going in your direction how do you account for the increasing number of states initiating and extending right to carry laws. Or right to self defense laws like here in Fl where the inherent right to self defense is now recognized and the stupid "you must try to flee first" before you can defend yourself with your concealed permitted weapon.


4) The antiwar movement. Groups like MoveOn organize very large numbers of locals for several demonstrations and vigils throughout the year. MoveOn has been attacked as a Dem. group, but that is really only because it is a Repub. hawk who has flipped out and waged an illegal war. If Obama or Clinton fail to end the war in a timely fashion, MoveOn will continue to organize against their policies. (This was also true during Vietnam where organizing continued through the Johnson and Nixon administrations). You must be losing your memory. Give me a time and date of one significantly large anti-war demonstration that has occurred; you were around for the 60's I believe. There mostly gatherings of fringe groups that represent any and every lefty cause with little if any focus.

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 05:48 PM
And thanks to the activist philosophies of FDR judges, the federal government has the right to bust those state sanctioned stores on federal charges. If you don't believe do some research of "commerce clause" rulings, durring the 30s and 40s, Supreme Court.

Federal law does trump state law, but there is no federal enforcement, so as a practical matter everyone in the state of California who wants to purchase and smoke weed with no fear of prosecution can do so. Access is easy, safe and environmentally friendly (green!)

On your other points, I'll just say I didn't raise the examples to debate the issues but just to provide examples of how people are organizing in new, post-partisan coalitions.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 05:57 PM
Pisc:

If you think gun legislation ...

To return to the original point, pro-gun people serve as another example of a group of people who share a point of view on one issue having a measurable effect, while not necessarily agreeing on a comprehensive ideology. I know people who would generally be called lefties, but are active members in the NRA, for example.

Give me a time and date of one significantly large anti-war demonstration that has occurred ...

Jan. 27, 2007 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16841070/).

September 24, 2005 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0924-06.htm).

February 15, 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest).

And there are others (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=antiwar+demonstration+iraq&btnG=Search).

I think the larger point here is also that the organizing by MoveOn and other groups has had a real effect, in ways other than just organizing demonstrations.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 06:01 PM
Hey, JH, some of my best friends......

LOL! The other problem is that the "movement conservatives" have been so zealous in purifying their ranks that just when you think you've made a new conservative friend, he or she gets expelled from the group, and sometimes, just for being nice to a liberal.

Partly kidding, but not all.

piscivorous
05-09-2008, 06:18 PM
There is an old adage about the size of crowds at demonstrations. The larger the demonstration the higher the altitude the pictures will be taken from. I don't see any aerial shots of the crowds at best there are some 2nd story shots. I asked for large. As far a s the wikipedia link, for all it's historic accuracy, it uses a compendium of different demonstrations to come up with a magnificent total of 3,000,000 protesters. What is the size of the populations in the various countries, no use the smaller unit of city populations, where the marches took place? Not large or significant by 60s standards.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 06:32 PM
pisc:

You're arguing one example too much. I'm not going to get into this with you. Try to recall the original point.

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 06:35 PM
I'd say we're at approx. 200,000,000 Americans opposed to the Iraq holocaust by now. Those of us who were demonstrating against it from the pre-invasion period deserve a lot of the credit for influencing public opinion.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 06:37 PM
Andrew Sullivan has a post (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/non-paul-republ.html) up which is nicely related to this thread.

graz
05-09-2008, 06:39 PM
I'd say we're at approx. 200,000,000 Americans opposed to the Iraq holocaust by now. Those of us who were demonstrating against it from the pre-invasion period deserve a lot of the credit for influencing public opinion.
Yes, and I thank you for doing so.

jh in sd
05-09-2008, 08:09 PM
Hey bj, I'm nice to everyone, so I'll be your BFF, even if I do get expelled.

graz
05-09-2008, 08:39 PM
American troops are not going to serve anyone who started his political career in the living room of America-hating rich-kid terrorists.

William Ayers, Michelle Obama, Bernadine Dohrn, and Jeremiah Wright inhabit the smart suit of the hoop-shooter.

Anti-Americans based in the black nationalist churches; and in the intellectually corrupt enclaves in America's elite colleges are attempting a coup.

Americans are not going to turn their future over to Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Timothy McVeigh, Bernadine Dohrn and Barack and Michelle Obama.

Why does it hurt when I pee?
Because I have kidneystones.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 08:50 PM
Hey bj, I'm nice to everyone, so I'll be your BFF, even if I do get expelled.

I'm pretty sure you already got expelled -- just for registering on this site -- but I am delighted to accept your offer anyway.

cragger
05-09-2008, 09:15 PM
Wonder

I take your first three examples as points and will forgive the fourth, although I don't think Moveon has had much influence in the increasing disillusionment with the Iraq debacle, or that, to interject on some of the intervening posts, the size of antiwar demonstrations means much these days. I always gathered that folks figured after Vietnam that means of opposition other than marches were more effective and less likely to get them beat up.

That latter issue feeds into the main point however. As you note, the federal government trumps state and local ones, and its relative strength and primacy have been growing over the years, decades, and even centuries of US history. Halfway through our history, many felt a stronger identification with state than nation as witness the Civil War. These days, both sentiment and law, and more to the point power, are much more centralized at the federal level. There is also considerable sentiment that both the federation of states idea and the idea of Constitutional Democracy are outmoded. This unfortunately isn't restricted to the current administration. Longtime viewers may recall both Mickey saying exactly that regarding limitations on executive power, and Eric Posner arguing that the current and long-term trend toward a dictatorial executive (my phrase) is both inevitable and reasonable.

I applaud any progress made by folks who can come together locally to try to address a problem or issue on a rational basis rather than by how it fits in with a party agenda or works as an interest group wedge. I do question whether that will have a long term benefit given the federal dominance. Both libertarian philosophy (back where this started) and the Constitution seem to recognize that liberty can only exist when the power one man holds over another is limited.

Wonderment
05-09-2008, 10:13 PM
American troops are not going to loyally serve any individual who started his political career in the living room of America-hating rich-kid terrorists.

Yes, that draft-dodging communist scumbag Bill Clinton will never get elected president, and if he does the loyal generals will quickly engineer a coup d'etat to save the Republic.

bjkeefe
05-09-2008, 11:04 PM
Wonderment:

... draft-dodging communist scumbag ...

Thought you were talking about W for a moment there.

look
05-10-2008, 12:54 AM
Hi look,
I know what you mean -- I wondered a little too whether Jim might just bite the bullet and say there was nothing wrong with Parsley's remark (given his "cop at every mosque" statement).
Concerning Conn, you offer a very specific defense of him against a specific charge -- one which I assume is correct, since you seem to remember it better than I do (and I don't really want to go back and check). But I wonder if you can find a defense regarding my more general point -- can you think of a time when Conn has actually conceded a point to the other side, as Jim does here? I mean, for example, does he concede that Hagee and Parsley are beyond the pale and that McCain should distance himself from them, while still reserving the right to point out that the relationships are different in their (perceived) significance? Are there any cases where he concedes anything, even if it is not his main point? (I mean in his current Heritage incarnation, not back in his Blogometer days.)BN, nothing leaps to mind about Conn conceding points, but in comparison to Jim, I think we're talking apples and oranges. I can't recall (except this DV) where Jim conceded anything, but can recall three times he stubbornly asserted controversial points (cops at mosques, skinny Al Sharpton, and the viral anti-immigrant email). And no-sir, he wasn't going to back down, either. I'm not sure it's fair to say Conn has started parroting Heritage views. He very possibly believes what he says, and is now free to say it.

Incidentally, I suspect Matt Y is right. The difference between Wright and Parsley is NOT primarily the nature of their relationship -- as Corn points out, one might argue that a political alliance shows more about ones political views than a pastoral relationship. The big difference is that anti-American sentiments (or sentiments that sound atni-American) are objectionable to large portions of the electorate, while anti-Islam sentiments range from "acceptable" to "US Grade A red meat" for most of the electorate (or at least most that McCain might hope to capture in November.
I haven't read the Matt Y piece yet, and confess general ignorance of the Parsley details. The anti-Islam vs. anti-Americanism angle is interesting to consider, but I think the public will still draw a distinction between the 20-year time-frame and the political expediency of McCain. Also to be factored in is the anti-White rhetoric that's tied in to some Black Liberation Theology. Also, McCain denounced the words of the Ohio radio-show host who kept saying 'B. Hussein Obama' over and over when introducing McCain.

look
05-10-2008, 12:56 AM
As you were holding your breath, I think Jim was biting his tongue.
Precisely! Well said.

look
05-10-2008, 01:18 AM
I think that's a little bit of a false equivalence, Paul. The reason David brought up Wright's military service was in the context of Wright's patriotism being questioned. He wasn't offering it as an all-purpose Get Out Of Jail Free card. Some of Wright's words may be distasteful or crazy, but he didn't commit heinous crimes by saying them.

From 1959 to 1961, Wright attended Virginia Union University,[2] in Richmond. In 1961 Wright left college and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division attaining the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright joined the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center.[11][7] Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson (see photo of Wright caring for Johnson after his 1966 surgery). Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House Physician, Vice Admiral Burkley, personally wrote Wright a letter of thanks on behalf of the United States President.[12][13][14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

I think it's interesting to note that the Marines had only been desegregated in the early '50s. His experience in the military must have contributed significantly to his world-view.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

jh in sd
05-10-2008, 01:48 AM
I've heard if speed reading, but Jim and David must have taken a speed talking course recently. Either that or too much coffee before the diavlog.

johnmarzan
05-10-2008, 03:05 AM
they keep getting their opening lines wrong! bloggingheads dot tv dot net, lol.

JLF
05-10-2008, 10:32 AM
Yep. Increasingly these days it has to do with perspective. Anyone who agrees with me is talking truth. Anyone who disagrees is talking bullshit. It's another reason why no one listens to reason and everyone votes to the guy they'd like to have a beer with. It's always been this way to some extent, but I think not ever to this degree.

Personally, I blame it on LBJ for giving us the anti-war movement.

JLF
05-10-2008, 10:44 AM
Bottom line for any true Leftie position, it seems to me, is a more egalitarian distribution of income and wealth, though I don't see that happening short of another Great Depression.

In the meantime, I think the Right is redefining itself around some 21st century realities as well. Large majorities believe it government's responsibility to provide all with health care, education, and a secure old age, not just "access" based upon wealth. Watching Republicans deal with that will be as interesting as watching Democrats deal with the growing divide between rich and poor, well-educated and ill-educated.

deebee
05-10-2008, 12:19 PM
Haven't had a chance to listen to this Diavlog yet, but there is a very interesting updated assessment map of who would win which states. Check it out at

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

salvador
05-10-2008, 02:52 PM
Pinkerton and people like him in the Media are all completely dishonest when it comes to Rev. Wright, especially when they go on to issue their double standard for Black America and reveal their true bias against Obama and Wright.

Comparing Rev. Wright to either of these preachers is slanderous. These preachers equate white Christian America with God's will, and in their hateful speeches against Islam, homosexuality, immigrants and countless other communities, reveal the deep seated bigotry that white America still relies on, especially in the most segregated of places, the church.

The true intellectual dishonesty comes when you compare Wright's so-called hate speech with these pastor's true hate speech.

In Rev. Wrights supposedly most offensive comments, that the US government reaped what it sows on 9-11, he is stating a political and historical argument that US policy of imperialism around the world for the past century has compelled parts of the world to view us as oppressors and some in their twisted anger, have acted against us with the force of terrorism. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a political argument and not a denigration of a people, but a full-throated critique of the state.

In contrast, Hagee's and Parsley's statements directly attack a group of people, whether the LGBT community or the one billion followers of Islam, and then go on blame them and their way of life for 9-11 or a Hurricane. Ironically, Katrina as an act of god (actually a failure of the state to respond) directly ravaged the black population that Rev. Wright has spent his life trying to lift up out of the mire of American society.

For those who call the US infallible, you may find Wright's statements offensive, and I would personally find your unequivocal defense of the US government's actions in the world offensive. But it is a far stretch to equate statements that blame a government with statements that flatly blame the life and religion of other people.

I would be astonished if I ever saw Pinkerton wearing a flag pin. He has a stated view of the separation of church of state, and I would go out on a limb to say he is also not a chest-beating patriot who puts the state above the critique of free individuals.

One of Pinkerton's most revealing declarations of bias is that Obama's relationship with Wright is "100 times closer than McCain's with Parsley," as if that has anything to do with Parsley and McCain. Again he falls in line with the traditional media to become an apologist for McCain. I would ask Pinkerton, what if Wright didn't exist? What if the media didn't have Wright's sermons to play over and over?

My point is, Wright has NOTHING to do with Parsley's statements and their reflection on McCain, yet he represents a convenient diversionary argument to draw the attention away from the fact that Parsley's statements are 100 times more offensive than anything that has come out of Rev. Wright's mouth.

They are hate speech against a people and religion while Wright's statements are polemics (granted ill-conceived i.e. AIDS) against a government that for the majority of its history has treated blacks as less than human and still treats much of the world with arrogance and disregard. Its no wonder the politicians and people of the ruling class embrace those pastors such as Hagee and Parsley who so well articulate their biases against the rest of the world.

graz
05-10-2008, 04:20 PM
[QUOTE=salvador; "Pinkerton and people like him in the Media are all completely dishonest when it comes to Rev. Wright, especially when they go on to issue their double standard for Black America and reveal their true bias against Obama and Wright."

I don't know if the distinction will matter to you, but I see it as less of lie than a self-deception. Pinkerton excused Hagee by rationalizing that he is afforded the right to these comments because he is searching for theological truth.

Whereas Wright, as you clearly stated is expressing political speech.
You see what your up against.
Political speech as one man's version of the truth - First amendment protected.
Theological wish thinking and hate - revered as universal (in many churches in our United States) truth.
Wright = anathema
Hagee, Parsley = God made word.

Which one is gonna gain traction on Fox 'n friends?

Wonderment
05-10-2008, 04:21 PM
My point is, Wright has NOTHING to do with Parsley's statements and their reflection on McCain, yet he represents a convenient diversionary argument to draw the attention away from the fact that Parsley's statements are 100 times more offensive than anything that has come out of Rev. Wright's mouth.

Absolutely. If David's report on Parsley's remarks are true, he should be compared not to J. Wright but to A. Hitler.

I would like to read the text of his words (though I have no reason to doubt David Corn), but he certainly sounds like a genocidal maniac.

graz
05-10-2008, 04:29 PM
Absolutely. If David's report on Parsley's remarks are true, he should be compared not to J. Wright but to A. Hitler.

I would like to read the text of his words (though I have no reason to doubt David Corn), but he certainly sounds like a genocidal maniac.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg&eurl=http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/05/john-mccain-rod-parsley-pastor-problem.html

JimN
11-05-2008, 02:42 AM
Jim,

Consider yourself scourged and raked over the coals!

Foobs
11-05-2008, 03:27 PM
Not Pinkerton's finest moment...

bjkeefe
11-05-2008, 03:51 PM
“Jim Pinkerton's prediction of Senator Barak Obama losing 40 states in the general election can't be realistic.”

The odds are that Jim Pinkerton is right. Whites, Asian Americans, and perhaps even Hispanics, would be foolish to vote for him. This is also true for any small business person. Obama should ultimately get only the pseudo-educated yuppies, blacks, and “I’m hip and with it” college kids. That will get him around 40% of the total vote---just like George McGovern.

Nyah, nyah, nyah-nyah, nyah.