Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   In Defense of Dumb Presidents (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2118)

nikkibong 09-18-2008 02:13 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
First, the obligatory praise: excellent diavlog as always, John and Glenn.

I wonder if some of Glenn's beef with Obama's possible "first black Presidency" has to do with Obama's cultural background. After all, as was pointed out many times when HRC was trouncing Obama in the polls among black voters, Obama's history and background are extremely different from that of most black Americans. Perhaps Obama would seem a more legitimate figure if he had shared the experiences of most black Americans. (Beyond "attempting to catch a cab" in New York City, and allegedly being rebuffed.)

Also: curious to hear what you are doing with Aristotle, John! From your mention of the Golden Mean, I take it you guys are working through Nichomean Ethics. I just worked my way through De Anima for the first time last week, and I think I could use your help!!

Amork 09-18-2008 03:42 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
I am a big fan of these two guys. I rarely miss their appearances here. I am moved to write about Glen's belief that the town hall idea of JM would have made this Presidential election discourse civil. I am sure that we would have been very sick of these weekly "debates" very quickly; and it would have degenerated into what we are witnessing these days. Recalling the Republican primary debates, JM was boorish most of the time. He would harp on a point whether it was truthful or not until the debate moves on -- the same technic he is using now when he is caught stretching the truth. I think BO made the right decision to avoid that commitment; he would not have been able to get away from that schedule after the debate deteriorates.

handle 09-18-2008 05:22 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91266)
The gas pipeline through Canada. Her belief that both sides of the abortion issue ultimately agree that no one really favors abortion--and her promise to work on solutions with pro-choicers like adoption, etc. Her support of issues around special needs children. And, basically anything to do with energy production from U.S. sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91265)
first of all, i'm not foaming at the mouth. secondly, why do you assume I'm "right wing"? You show your partisanship with comments like these--you don't like hearing the truth do you. Glenn makes fundamental observations about the average middle American voter. I believe those observations, if acknowledged, could benefit either candidate. Obama could have selected Clinton to shore up those voters but he did not. His choice of Biden from "Scranton" was supposed to suffice-- it has not. An Obama/Clinton ticket would have a double-digit lead right now. These are merely truths--if the dems lose it will be because of the failure of Obama to appeal to middle-American voters who aren't necessarily impressed by his intellectualism. I'm a huge fan of McWhorter as well--so don't pigeonhole me.

No one is assuming, we read your posts. The top (latest) one is at odds with the lower (previous) one. RCP has Obama-Biden up 2% today, looks like the economy is wearing the shine off the GOP in record time.
Towing the party line is scant evidence of "reflection" in my view. You appear to be in denial about your own partisanship.

bjkeefe 09-18-2008 05:26 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
booksofdisquiet:

I'll add a follow-up question: Leaving aside the worth or lack thereof, how does the natural gas pipeline project show that Palin is capable of being reflective?

I agree with you that her answers on the abortion question in the Gibson interview showed some past contemplation.

bjkeefe 09-18-2008 05:30 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by tarajane (Post 91482)
I strongly identify with Glenn as a Hillary supporter and his comments express how uneasy and ambivalent I am about Obama's candidacy. It would have been heaven at this point to be excited and motivated about the upcoming election with Hillary on the ticket. I feel like a distant observer, unconvinced that Obama would be a good president and unconvinced that McCain is a clone of George Bush. I honestly don't know how I'll vote or if I'll vote in November.

What is it about Obama that makes you feel that way, especially given HRC's strong endorsement of him, in her speech at the convention and in other statements since? Do you see him and her as significantly different on policy views? Or is it something else?

handle 09-18-2008 05:30 PM

Re: Expect the worst
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 91378)
books:

Glad to hear that you're undecided for intelligent reasons. Probably there are a few other people like you. Still, I think Wonderment is right, in general, to say that most undecideds at this point are not at all informed citizens.

I think he's about as undecided as I am. I could sit here and type up a bunch of posts pretending to weigh the various candidates merits, and delude myself into thinking I am influencing undecideds with my subterfuge, but I am not that aggressively non-reflective as to my own intent, and influence.

handle 09-18-2008 05:34 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 91535)
booksofdisquiet:

I'll add a follow-up question: Leaving aside the worth or lack thereof, how does the natural gas pipeline project show that Palin is capable of being reflective?

I agree with you that her answers on the abortion question in the Gibson interview showed some past contemplation.

Contemplation, or coaching?

bjkeefe 09-18-2008 05:50 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91540)
Contemplation, or coaching?

I imagine she rehearsed variations on her answer here, but she did strike me as being a whole lot more real when she was talking about the abortion issue (and stem cells) than when she was talking about everything else. I concede the likelihood that, deep down, she's not as open-minded about abortion as a political problem as she presented herself, but when she talked about the other side's perspective, she sounded far less scripted than she did (or does) when talking about, say, foreign policy or economic issues.

handle 09-18-2008 06:14 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 91544)
I imagine she rehearsed variations on her answer here, but she did strike me as being a whole lot more real when she was talking about the abortion issue (and stem cells) than when she was talking about everything else. I concede the likelihood that, deep down, she's not as open-minded about abortion as a political problem as she presented herself, but when she talked about the other side's perspective, she sounded far less scripted than she did (or does) when talking about, say, foreign policy or economic issues.

Good point, but I think she's not only more familiar with the issue, it may have been a considered a very critical back peddle for her to articulate to win the Hill people, most of whom would like the Fed's to stay out of the womb.
If I am right, this is more strategy than reflection.

bjkeefe 09-18-2008 08:05 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91549)
Good point, but I think she's not only more familiar with the issue, it may have been a considered a very critical back peddle for her to articulate to win the Hill people, most of whom would like the Fed's to stay out of the womb.
If I am right, this is more strategy than reflection.

Yes, I think you're right. That's what I meant by her "rehearsing answers" or whatever it was I said -- she'd want to present as more moderate than she probably really is, personally, especially if the McCain people were foolish enough to think there were huge numbers of disaffected Hillary fans just waiting for the next female politician to come along.

So, I'd say "soft-pedal" rather than "back-pedal."

Dark Eden 09-18-2008 08:17 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Republican viewer here. I just wanted to say it was interesting and refreshing to hear this discussion. This gave me a lot to think about and it was very interesting hearing a sort of insider view on leftist opinion on the election without all the usual venom we come to expect these days on both sides. I enjoyed this very much and hope you two will post more discussions for our enjoyment!

bookofdisquiet 09-19-2008 11:58 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Just because I choose to judge each candidate's policy proscriptions independently and pragmatically doesn't make me a partisan. I voted for Clinton twice, Gore in 00, and Bush in 04 because Kerry was going to pull us out of Iraq. The success of the surge has vindicated that choice. I view history in the long term - 50 to 100 year windows and believe you can't make foreign policy decisions without considering their effects on the next two generations. I reject the theories of "blowback" by Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and the like-- Soviet aggression created the Taliban, not the CIA--it seems easy for our liberal intellectuals to manipulate the chain of causation. In the same vain, it seems all to easy for our conservative intellectuals to dismiss the criticisms of the methodologies we deploy in our democracy promotion as well as economic benefits to U.S. corporations.

I believe in American exceptionalism for these reasons: 1.) we have a system of government that effectively allows for political change without violence; 2.) our institutions of law; and 3.) the ideals of individual freedom are universal; 4.) our country effectively assimilates a diversity of cultures peacefully. I think Japan, Germany, and S. Korea reflect in varying degrees how fundamentally universal the basic premise of the American ideal really is-- I have no doubt Iraq will join their ranks.

I view the world through the prism of freedom or oppression, governance by consent or decree, free market choice or centralized planning (regulatory oversite is not central planning).

I was born and raised in West Virginia and now live and work in San Francisco. I read 30 books a year -- mostly nonfiction.

The bottom line is I'm a pragmatist-- I'm sorry if it's easier for you to label me as a partisan. People like me are going to decide this election.

bookofdisquiet 09-19-2008 12:04 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuel sources we have-- it's much more efficient than coal for electricity production. It can be used to replace gasoline in automobiles as well. It's thougtful because it's a long-term solution to our energy crisis and global warming.

For more on the benefits of natural gas see Picken's Plan.

look 09-19-2008 12:25 PM

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 91338)
Well, there's a lot to be thrown into the general gloominess.

The election is at the moment a virtual tie. We also had virtual ties in 2000 (an actual statistical tie) and 2004.

That means the next election will either be another virtual tie or be decided by a significant margin of the now undecided.

While some intelligent people may still be honestly undecided (Colin Powell claims to be an example), it's safe to assume that most undecideds at this stage of a very long game are also undereducated, uninformed and -- I hate to say it -- of subnormal intelligence.

How would a good strategist appeal to this lowest common denominator of the population? Probably with lots of big lies, bogus and simplistic solutions to problems, posturing, fear-mongering and sexist and racist stereotypes.

Quote:

Stop lying. You know you're voting for McCain.
Wondie knows.

look 09-19-2008 12:43 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 91340)
Okay. Thanks.

For the record, though: MyDD's link to the NYT does not point to an existing page. Googling for exact phrases from the blockquote (e.g. | e.g.) does not show any indication that the blockquoted material ever appeared anywhere in the NYT (one false alarm hit points to something from a commenter under a Caucus blog post).

It does appear that MyDD's blockquoted material appeared in a story bylined "Nedra Pickler, Associated Press Writer," though (e.g.) and MyDD's link indicates it was an AP story on the NYT's site. I don't know whether this means the NYT withdrew the story, replaced it with an updated version from AP that doesn't have this paragraph in it, or what. (The NYT does appear to archive the AP material they run, generally.)

In the end, it's not that big a deal. I am inclined to believe that HRC wasn't on the short list, and there's nothing to say about what you remember hearing on a TV show. Just thought I'd point out that this does seem to be a somewhat sketchy anecdote, based on anonymous sources, appearing in a story that may have later been changed.

OK, thanks for doing the legwork. I'll just repeat, I did see something similar on tv, but as you say, it could have been hearsay.

bjkeefe 09-19-2008 01:01 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by look (Post 91624)
OK, thanks for doing the legwork. I'll just repeat, I did see something similar on tv, but as you say, it could have been hearsay.

Thanks for checking back.

bjkeefe 09-19-2008 01:06 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91611)
Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuel sources we have-- it's much more efficient than coal for electricity production. It can be used to replace gasoline in automobiles as well. It's thougtful because it's a long-term solution to our energy crisis and global warming.

Oh, please. Being in favor of extracting a useful resource is not evidence of being reflective. It's a no-brainer.

Exeus99 09-19-2008 01:26 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
What do you call it when your comment is quoted derisively on Instapundit? Prof. Reynolds might not agree with you, Twinswords, but he's given your statement more exposure than you could have imagined!

Ocean 09-19-2008 01:46 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Exeus99 (Post 91636)
What do you call it when your comment is quoted derisively on Instapundit? Prof. Reynolds might not agree with you, Twinswords, but he's given your statement more exposure than you could have imagined!

I think it would have been much more honorable for Prof. Reynolds to post his objections in this forum. Why didn't he?

Exeus, you probably know I prefer a direct approach. I can't avoid thinking of this kind of tactic as cowardly and self-serving.

AemJeff 09-19-2008 02:17 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 91640)
I think it would have been much more honorable for Prof. Reynolds to post his objections in this forum. Why didn't he?

Exeus, you probably know I prefer a direct approach. I can't avoid thinking of this kind of tactic as cowardly and self-serving.

Glenn Reynolds almost never participates in fora where he might be subject to feedback. (Though he did do one BHTV segment - credit where it's due.) I think he learned the trick from Rush Limbaugh - it's easier to not sound stupid if you stick to places where there's no chance of a dissenting voice.

Ocean 09-19-2008 02:22 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 91649)
Glenn Reynolds almost never participates in fora where he might be subject to feedback. (Though he did do one BHTV segment - credit where it's due.) I think he learned the trick from Rush Limbaugh - it's easier to not sound stupid if you stick to places where there's no chance of a dissenting voice.

Yes, I suspected that. It sounded like a self-enhancement strategy. Oh, well...

handle 09-19-2008 04:03 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91609)
Just because I choose to judge each candidate's policy proscriptions independently and pragmatically doesn't make me a partisan. I voted for Clinton twice, Gore in 00, and Bush in 04 because Kerry was going to pull us out of Iraq. The success of the surge has vindicated that choice. I view history in the long term - 50 to 100 year windows and believe you can't make foreign policy decisions without considering their effects on the next two generations. I reject the theories of "blowback" by Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson and the like-- Soviet aggression created the Taliban, not the CIA--it seems easy for our liberal intellectuals to manipulate the chain of causation. In the same vain, it seems all to easy for our conservative intellectuals to dismiss the criticisms of the methodologies we deploy in our democracy promotion as well as economic benefits to U.S. corporations.

You make a gook point about blind spots on both sides of the spectrum, but you don't seem to take that evidence to it's logical conclusion, that we all have blind spots we must scrutinize. Yours seems to be loyalty to the military, and the idea that aggression is good foreign policy.
Soviet aggression created the Taliban but why did they support Bin Laden in attacking us? Didn't daddy Bush tell them we had their back, and then hang them out to dry? Oh yea, they are just evil and they hate our freedom. Isn't underestimating your enemy considered a common strategic mistake in military culture, right up there with not protecting your flank, over committing your forces, and letting politicians dictate actions in the field?
Your war is over budget, overbearing, and not even close to over. Your ideological excuse for it is nothing but the biggest back-peddle in American history, we went to depose Saddam and his WMDs Remember? The Shiite government is poised to wipe out the newly friendly Anbar Sunnis as soon as the Americans give them a chance, and allow the exiled Shia reclaim their homes, and the cycle of war may continue for another 10, or 100 years.
The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, The fact that you don't advocate the destruction of that dictatorship shoots enormous holes in your delusion of spreading "American exceptionalism" by cavalierly putting our troops in harms way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91609)
I believe in American exceptionalism for these reasons: 1.) we have a system of government that effectively allows for political change without violence; 2.) our institutions of law; and 3.) the ideals of individual freedom are universal; 4.) our country effectively assimilates a diversity of cultures peacefully. I think Japan, Germany, and S. Korea reflect in varying degrees how fundamentally universal the basic premise of the American ideal really is-- I have no doubt Iraq will join their ranks.

Maybe you should examine the attitudes of the people of those countries with respect to your beloved middle eastern occupation. Believing we have superior motives, systems, ideologies, and methodologies is, quite possibly the most dangerous foreign policy ever implemented... again, ask the Germans and Japanese.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91609)
I view the world through the prism of freedom or oppression, governance by consent or decree, free market choice or centralized planning (regulatory oversite is not central planning).

I was born and raised in West Virginia and now live and work in San Francisco. I read 30 books a year -- mostly nonfiction.

The fact that you are impressed enough with your reading to call attention to it in multiple posts, is disquieting indeed. I could scan 30 books a year through my own prism, looking for reasons your war was ill advised, and use the 30 book rule to refute yours, but I don't think anyone would consider this as a valid point, let alone one worth mentioning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bookofdisquiet (Post 91609)
The bottom line is I'm a pragmatist-- I'm sorry if it's easier for you to label me as a partisan. People like me are going to decide this election.

Pragmatists don't view the world through a prism, they are able to see multiple sides of the picture, and probably wouldn't conclude their world view is good enough to be spread by overwhelming military force. there is nothing pragmatic about thinking that the rest of the world is ready for our system of government and should accommodate our corporate interests, even at the expense of their own values and interests. You are a partisan for the war party, and you are in denial about it. And you are in denial about who's deciding this election, it is time for common sense and true pragmatism to prevail, and there will be no "freedom spreading " on Obama's watch. It's time to get real, and repair the damage you, and those like you, have done to our reputation, our economy, our self image, and our middle class, from West Virginia, to San Fransisco.
It has become painfully obvious to most people IMO, that the idea that the GOP is a "conservative" entity has been proven completely false.

bookofdisquiet 09-19-2008 07:43 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
You make a gook point about blind spots on both sides of the spectrum, but you don't seem to take that evidence to it's logical conclusion, that we all have blind spots we must scrutinize. Yours seems to be loyalty to the military, and the idea that aggression is good foreign policy.

Not all aggression is good foreign policy (see Vietnam and the Philippines circa 1901) just aggression against islamo-fascists to use an un-PC term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
Soviet aggression created the Taliban but why did they support Bin Laden in attacking us? Didn't daddy Bush tell them we had their back, and then hang them out to dry? Oh yea, they are just evil and they hate our freedom. Isn't underestimating your enemy considered a common strategic mistake in military culture, right up there with not protecting your flank, over committing your forces, and letting politicians dictate actions in the field?

There is no perspective from which any one of sound morality can argue that the Taliban wasn't evil--unless of course you're a nihilist. And the Taliban came to power after a prolonged civil war in Afghanistan, not some promise or appointment from "daddy Bush"-- I doubt seriously you or the minions like you would have been in favor of military intervention in Afghanistan in 1996 to fight the Taliban or in our expenditure of funds to help that country. Of course, you can't really give economic aid until there is stability so what could the U.S. have done short of military intervention?

The Taliban supported Osama b/c Mullah Omar shared an ideological belief similar to his-- one that thought it took down one superpower and could now go after a second. Here is Omar's own words on why he supported Bin Laden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
Your war is over budget, overbearing, and not even close to over. Your ideological excuse for it is nothing but the biggest back-peddle in American history, we went to depose Saddam and his WMDs Remember? The Shiite government is poised to wipe out the newly friendly Anbar Sunnis as soon as the Americans give them a chance, and allow the exiled Shia reclaim their homes, and the cycle of war may continue for another 10, or 100 years.

WMD's wasn't the only reason for the war and history will be the judge of that argument. 10 million people voting in that first election is all I needed to see it was a success. Honestly, there's no point arguing with someone like you over the necessity or validity of Iraq-- it's pretty clear you're wrong, here's a better summary than i could ever give.

Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, The fact that you don't advocate the destruction of that dictatorship shoots enormous holes in your delusion of spreading "American exceptionalism" by cavalierly putting our troops in harms way.

I'm not a warmonger -- the Saudi Arabian government never tried to assassinate an American President, started two wars, or gassed its own people like Saddam. Bin Laden declared war against the Saudi's b/c they housed our troops on their lands to help them fight Saddam see this. I'm not for blindly committing to war in the cause of freedom as I think you are trying to suggest, only using force when stability, military advantage, and threat dictate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
Maybe you should examine the attitudes of the people of those countries with respect to your beloved middle eastern occupation. Believing we have superior motives, systems, ideologies, and methodologies is, quite possibly the most dangerous foreign policy ever implemented... again, ask the Germans and Japanese.

I would love to ask the Germans and the Japanese because they have benefited enormously from the universal notions of freedom and governance by consent. You're such a foolish ideologue you can't even realize that American ideology is simply freedom from oppression by popular consent--that consent being voiced by open and free speech and debate. Germany and Japan have very distinct cultures, institutions, and governments than those in the U.S. but they operate by the same ideals of freedom. Iraq will not be America light-- Iraq will be what the Iraqi people choose it to be through free and fair elections-- it will no longer be the outward expression of a madman who fancied himself the next Saladin. It seems you only believe in freedom if you have it. -- The men and women in Iraq volunteered to serve and have sacrificed for those Iraqi's-- and have fought bravely enough to guarantee that our children and grandchildren won't have to fight there in their lifetimes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
The fact that you are impressed enough with your reading to call attention to it in multiple posts, is disquieting indeed. I could scan 30 books a year through my own prism, looking for reasons your war was ill advised, and use the 30 book rule to refute yours, but I don't think anyone would consider this as a valid point, let alone one worth mentioning.

I have read as many books for the war as against it (Imperial Hubris-Hegemony or Survival, Rogue Nation and pretty much everything recently by Gore Vidal), but I'd have to say that what convinced me most was reading a collection of Osama Bin Laden's own speeches and statements and the works of Sayyid Qutb and his influence on Bin Laden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
You are a partisan for the war party, and you are in denial about it. And you are in denial about who's deciding this election, it is time for common sense and true pragmatism to prevail, and there will be no "freedom spreading " on Obama's watch.

No I'm not partisan, just rational-- but you might be in denial about Obama and freedom spreading.


Quote:

Originally Posted by handle (Post 91659)
It's time to get real, and repair the damage you, and those like you, have done to our reputation, our economy, our self image, and our middle class, from West Virginia, to San Fransisco.
It has become painfully obvious to most people IMO, that the idea that the GOP is a "conservative" entity has been proven completely false.

I'll agree that this administration is hardly conservative -- it's much more like the JFK administration-- grandiose statements that Americans will fight anywhere for freedom and getting us into a war. Only this time, the public has chose to win because their is no other alternative.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty".
-John F. Kennedy -

Ocean 09-19-2008 07:51 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Oh, boy! You're not going to get a standing ovation from this audience for this one...

Tom Wittmann 09-19-2008 08:09 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Glenn aggressively argues that Obama had to pick Hillary Clinton to live up to his claims that he is a uniter. The problem is that we don't know why Obama didn't pick Hillary. Perhaps there is (not yet published) oppo research that makes HRC radioactive. Maybe he spoke with Hillary (or Bill) and they demanded conditions that were too onerous.

I personally thought Hillary was the best choice, but I had the humility to know that I simply am not in command of enough facts to really know.

You can be absolutely sure that Obama and others at the top of the Democratic Party know things that have not (yet) been reported about Bill & Hillary.

Finally, the hindsight view that Hillary would have prevented McCain from picking Palin assumes that Palin was a good pick for McCain. It is way too early for that. Palin was gorgeous and charming and unknown and gave McCain a good bounce. There is a good chance that she is a fad who will not weather well. Then Picking Hillary to pre-emt Palin wouldn't have been such a good idea, would it?

bjkeefe 09-19-2008 10:10 PM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Follow-up: here's Sarah Palin, aka the person who "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America," being ... uh ... reflective?

ledocs 09-20-2008 03:17 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Loury asserts that Obama was insufficiently calculating to see that Hillary would have helped him win the election, had she been his running-mate. Obama was misled by arrogance, or insecurity, personal antipathy, or some combination of these things. McWhorter does not dispute this assertion but merely thinks that Obama will win anyway, after which McWhorter prefers an administration in which Obama will garner most of the press attention. But why grant this point? It might be true, it might not be true. Isnít it possible that the Obama team concluded that Hillary would not help them in the electoral college, in the final analysis? Arenít her negatives very high? Was she really going to bring them the independents and swing voters? If Obama loses some of Hillaryís female supporters from the primaries, might he not have lost even more working-class white males he was hoping to get in the general as a result of having Hillary on the ticket? McWhorter seemed to accept tacitly Louryís point, that there would have been a net gain to Obama in choosing Hillary, that any rational being, including Obama and his team, would have seen this, so the failure to choose Hillary was, strictly speaking, irrational. This seems far from obvious to me. Regardless of what was going on in Obamaís head, I donít think itís obvious that Hillary would have been a net benefit in electoral college politics.

Uhurusasa 11-05-2008 12:45 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
i was wrong!!!!! the fat lady has sung!!!!!

bjkeefe 11-05-2008 01:00 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhurusasa (Post 96640)
i was wrong!!!!! the fat lady has sung!!!!!

And the skinny man has spoken. ;^)

Isn't it great?

Uhurusasa 11-19-2008 10:15 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 96642)
And the skinny man has spoken. ;^)

Isn't it great?

perhaps! until the dust of the economic stampede settles, i'll reserve judgement on the greatness of it all!! it is significant!

if an obama victory can move this country beyond the catharsis politics of our flip-flop two-party system (like two wings without a body), towards a three-party(left, center, and right)system, then i'll say "great"! a firm three-party system will really make the lobbyist work for a living. the ease of big-money manipulation of U.S. politics is short-change for the cause of liberty!

the celebration of an african-american president as the sign of a post-racial america is strange. the fact that more people ran towards obama than from him because of the economic stampede is even stranger! as long as we easily rally against something,how clear are we about what change we are embracing.

if obama counter-balances the courts, i'll be happy!!! even as the lobbyist get what they paid for,we will all be short-changed! we are beyond "1984", well into "a brave new world". every age is a dark age!!

bjkeefe 11-19-2008 10:32 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhurusasa (Post 97856)
perhaps!!

Ah, don't be that way. Embrace the moment. It is great now. Just because it might get less great somewhere down the road is no reason to ruin today by worrying about tomorrow. Remember what Satchel said about the roses.

Uhurusasa 11-19-2008 10:38 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
well, you think for yourself, and i'll do so for mine, then we will both be happy!!

bjkeefe 11-19-2008 10:40 AM

Re: In Defense of Dumb Presidents
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhurusasa (Post 97861)
well, you think for yourself, and i'll do so for mine, then we will both be happy!!

Whatev.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.