Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   New Year's Bloggin' Eve (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2461)

Bloggingheads 12-31-2008 04:34 PM

New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 

Happy Hominid 12-31-2008 04:36 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Happy New Year to the entire BH community. It's been a fun year (here at Bh at least).

BeachFrontView 12-31-2008 04:42 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
2009 is gonna suck


but


at least we have bloggingheads.tv!

Baltimoron 12-31-2008 06:29 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Speaking from the pit of my early morning January 1, 2009 hangover...Happy New Year!

Remember: Rant here, don't despair!

Baltimoron 12-31-2008 06:52 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
I agree recognizing the Hamas-led government would have been more practical, but not for the reasons Wright lays out. Hamas' credibility with those re-electing it is based on its ability to annoy Israel, not necessarily how competent Hamas is. It's clear Hamas was more competent in civil society than as a political party. As long as Hamas thumbs its nose at the Israelis, though, even opponents will vote for Hamas. A few photo-ops with Israelis and Dick Cheney embracing Hamas hacks would have defanged Hamas quicker than a missile. This is why we elect whores...errr..politicians.

bjkeefe 12-31-2008 06:57 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Bloggingheads is now linking to Newsbusters? And you have the nerve to criticize Obama for kowtowing to the lunatic fringe of the right, Bob?

Instead of the usual Happy Happy, let's make a New Year's Resolution not to do that anymore.

Well, okay. Doesn't have to be "instead of." It can be "in addition to."

brucds 12-31-2008 06:58 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Forget the political questions - Mickey should merely aspire to Bob Kuttner's coherence. I guess we'll never get Kuttner on, while we are subjected to this miserable, inchoate twit Kaus.

jr565 12-31-2008 07:25 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Re: Roberts take on Israel. There are SO many things wrong with his take its ridiculous but also typical of his mindset.

He poopoos the fact that Egypt is now allied against Hamas, and says Hamas has been embraced by Syria and Iran which only makes Iran stronger and swings power their way.

Except they've been allied with Iran for years and in fact Iran has been waging a proxy war against Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah for years. IT DOESN'T TAKE ISRAEL BOMBING HAMAS IN GAZA to get Iran involved in this conflict or those who are seeking the death of Israel to flock to their cause. You know what also gets people to flock to Hamas's cause and swing power to Iran? Hamas firing rockets at Israel and breaking a ceasefire and not getting a response from Israel! Hamas has already instigated this, has already fired the rockets, the tunnels have already been dug and weapons funneled through those tunnels, and the proxy war waged. And how does Robert think that Israel NOT responding would somehow make Iran lose influence when they've heretofore been so successful. If anything, I'd think constantly criticizing any response from Israel to agression directed at it would move power to Iran and away from Israel. Success is successful, which is why Hamas only increased their rocket attacks despite a ceasefire.

As for poopoohing Egypts involvement, if Egypt is actually shooting at Hamas on their border then I'd imagine that would widen the war to include Egypt which would not increase the power of Iran, but rather cause more ME countries to turn against Iran. ie. Egypt is now allied agaisnt Hamas (and by extension) Iran WITH the evil zionists. Fatah is aligned with Israel and against Hamas. I can't imagine having Egypt be forced (grudgingly) to work against Iran somehow makes Iran stronger. But as Mickey asks, what is Israel supposed to do, just let Hamas fire rockets every day into its country and not respond in any way?

Bob says it imperils Arab opinion against Egypt which again only strengthens Iran. But that implies that Arab opinion is really the same as Iranian opinion (which is obvsious) and Iranian opinion is already against Israel and by extension Egypt for daring to work against hamas. The problem, of course is that if opinion is already with Iran I don't see why we would try to assuage that opion and not rile it unless we were following Iranian bidding. The implication is "Don't get the Muslims mad by blocking their attempts to target and destroy Israel". No, if you want to lessen Iran's influence you don't let them get their way. Robert is essentially arguing "Just let them shell the jews and don't anger them otherwise it'll just get them more angry and they're going to target israel." It's already happening Bob. And wouldn't trying to get a peace process going when the overwhelming opinion of Egypt is already with Hamas only anger arab opinion since by extension they are already with hamas and therefore share Hamas's goal of Israel's destruction. Therefore, anything other than Kill the Jews will only anger Muslim opinion.


I don't really see how dipomacy will work to correct this problem, and if we want to take Bob's position, it will only in fact increase Iran's influence (as the peace process is counter to Hamas's goals and the majority of Egyptians are pro Hamas). Bob it appears,simply wants Iran to win, hence the futility of doing anyting to fight against it.

He then says it makes it harder for us to deal with Syria and make them an ally. First of all it would never happen, but secondly do you think that the majority of Syrians are not pro Hamas or at least anti Israel? So then, were we to follow Bob's course and ally ourselves with Syria woudln't that mean then that Syria would face the exact same problems he's saying Egypt is facing in allying with Israel?(either pissing off its citizens who are pro Hamas or causing Iran to start targeting Syria).

The alternative of course is that Syria is not much of an ally. ie if allying with Israel would cause Syria to face internal strife or jeapordize the ruling party they will not do so beyond lip service gestures. So then why make deals with them since they will not/cannot be reliable partners. And at any rate, it's already established by Bob that any ally of israel against Hamas only strengthens Iran anyway. (it's always about strengthening Iran with Bob) so why add more allies since that will only strengthen Iran. Of course, Israel having fewer allies also strengthens Iran, but whatever.

He then asks the extremely bone headed question:
Quote:

What good thing does Israel imagine ensuing really in the longer run from this. I mean do they imagine a moderate government magically emerging..."
no Bob, it's you and your ilk imagining a moderate goverment magically emerging from a diplomacy that can never take place because one side is refusing to engage in it not even for a limited ceasefire.

But this bombing is not a long term solution that will fix all problems, and this is where you blogging heads keep going with this. It will not resolve all problems in Israel, but only you are suggesting that it will.

But what it will do is kill some Hamas leaders, destroy some rockets and weapons capabilities of hamas (and by extension Iran), it will destroy infrastructure and a means to get weapons into Hamas' hands. It will potentially alienate those more moderates in Gaza who suddenly have their neighborhoods destroyed against hamas, who they might view as being the cause of this (just as eventually Iraqis tired of Al Qaeda murdering them). Having Egypt firing at them too I'd imagine only heightens this. I'm sure some will also move the other way too, which is to be expected, but if Hamas is demoralized crushed, is seen to be getting hammered it may limp away and fight aother day (and I think everyone expects them too. No one attack will destroy every Hamas member ever or suddenly turn those who would side with Hamas into Israeli lovers) but some people who otherwise would join Hamas might be more reluctant to considering the cost of doing so is too high with little benefit.

And that's ultimately Israel's goal. Israel needs to teach Hamas that the cost of engaging in their rocket attacks is too expensive to continue. It may take a few more shellackings to get this through their thick skulls, but that's how they're going to stop commmiting terrorist attacks. Because they were beaten, not because they will realize that peace through negotiation is the way to go. If Bob thinks that he's the one engaging in magical thinking, not the Israelis.
This, for the Israelis is a short term step in a longer war. If anything, it's Bobs thinking that only emboldens Iran and hamas, not Israel's attempt to put the hurt on them. But if Hamas were able to carry out succesful rocket attacks against Israel and not have a response from Israel is Bob arguing that somehow Hamas would be weakened? That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Getting your weapons destroyed your people killed hurts, and Hamas can learn these lessons like any army. This is a war of attrition, not a single battle.

Finally, the biggest whopper and the most mushy:
Quote:

In fact much of Israel's history of interaction with the people of Palestine is to do things like this that radicalizes them"
right, because they weren't radicalized prior to Israel doing this current action. All the people who supported Hamas were just going about their day loving Israel, until Israel commited this unprovoked act and then they were suddenly radicalized. I think if they've signed on for a proxy war and are firing rockets into Israel and part of Hamas they are already radicalized. But to Bob apparently, Israel caused them to become radicalized, or they are merely responding to Israel's agression but otherwise wouldn't be radicals. What about though Hamas and Iran's (and the rest of the middle east for that matter) constantly attacking Israel and waging a proxy war against them radicalizing or militarizing Israel? One could certainly make the case that were hamas not to have fired rockets into Israel in this current go around, despite Israel demanding they stop and despite Israel saying if they didn't that Israel would go to war with them and despite a ceasefire that Israel would not now be bombing hamas. In fact, that's a certainy. But that never crosses Bob's mind. Its a liberal bias seen in many talking points of the libs on blogging heads. Only the enemy can have grievances, only our actions cause them to become radicalized, never the other way around.If Israel can radicalize Hamas and their followers, then by extension Muslim aggression against Israel can radicalize them too. It has almost always been the muslim powers that have attacked israel since as far back as 1948, why doesn't Bob say that they've caused Israel to become militaristic? Why doesn't Muslim agression validate Israels right to defend itself since Hamas is feeding Israel's valid grievance?

Jon 12-31-2008 08:08 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
http://tonykaron.com/2008/12/31/understanding-gaza/

jr565 12-31-2008 08:27 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Also Bob suggests that Israel did wrong by leaving Gaza unilaterally which empowered the radicals and weakened the moderates. But I thought the grievance was about Israel occupying Palestinian territory. I would think it would be viewed as a gift to Palestinians if they wanted peace. They got Gaza back without having to give up anything. This is somehow bad for Bob?

It weakened the moderates and empowered the radicals? mabye that's because the radicals saw it as a sign of weakness and hence it strengthened their hand? Mabye it weakened the moderates because there aren't that many of them? Maybe the moderates were weakend becasue hamas got Gaza through waging war with Israel and all the moderates (who haven't yet stepped forward) got was a promise for peace somewhere down the road. It also allowed them another ground from which to escalate their war against Israel and they lost nothing and still got Gaza? in fact by giving up Gaza israel in effect made Hamas' rockets stronger because they can now fire them from closer distances.

So instead Israel should have continued occupying Gaza which would make the radicals less angry at Israel for continuing to occupy "their" land? What is Bob smoking?

Bob's already established that the majority of Egyptians are pro Hamas (hence its bad that they are fighting Hamas with Israel). Who are these so called moderates then of which Bob speaks that Palesitians are supposed to side with, who give them nothign, don't exist, would expose them to phsical danger were they align themselves with them against hamas?

Wouldn't Israel continuing to occupy Gaza though, not have increased the radicals anger and thus cause more people to flock to their cause (and dont forget increase Iran's influence)?

He, Bob, says that it made Israel look like they were chased out by terrorists? What would letting terrorists fire rockets into a country and not respond look like? I don't see how the one would increase the terorrists influence but the other wouldn't.

Either Israel occupying Gaza is a grievance or it isn't. Either we should be telling Israel to continue occupying the West Bank until the time when the moderates of the region show up and get their act together or we should tell Israel that they need get out of Gaza so as to reduce the tension but not both at the same time and damn them in both cases. That is frankly schizophrenic. Yet in the meantime hamas continues to fire rockets despite no moderates being on the scene, continue to fire rockets whether Israel is in Gaza or not in Gaza.Where is this so called agreement supposed to come from that will stop the violence and is it bob's suggestion that Israel should simply ignore the rockets coming their way until it does.

Ottorino 12-31-2008 09:02 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Virtually all of Bob and Mickey's bests and worsts and predictions were about politics. How myopic can you be?

Happy New Year!

uncle ebeneezer 12-31-2008 09:17 PM

Re: Mickey's Manhood (or lack thereof)
 
Thank you Bob, for making this point:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/167...2:44&out=53:08

Happy New Year!

claymisher 01-01-2009 02:02 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
I'm sure Mickey must know about something, but he spends an awful lot of time talking about things he knows nothing about. Like cars. Yeesh.

Nogbad 01-01-2009 02:13 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Hey Bob! I am one of the original bloggingheaders
with you from day one.
Unfortunately after one of your many 'upgrades'
you stopped accepting my password for posting
and after two attempts to obtain a new password
you still would not accept either the new ones or the old one.
My attempts to contact the administrator by e-mail were not answered.
Anyway, happy New Year,
with hopes I might still get my old screen name back
someday.

Allan

Unit 01-01-2009 02:48 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Kaus' bail-out position is completely unprincipled. What kind of punditry is that?

Also he's against unions but wants the government bureaucracy, the regulators, the dept. of labor, to keep employers "in line". Never mind the public policy problems with that approach, the fact that regulations back-fire and ultimately always hurt workers, either by having to pay out of their salaries for safeties they would gladly give up or by reducing job opportunities altogether.

Bob on the other hand continues being a delight to follow: he's skeptical of bailouts, he believes in free-trade as way to obtain peace, and he wants to reduce tensions and confrontations in the world. Go Bob!

sharkdog 01-01-2009 05:53 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Mr. Wrights comments about how the enemy is hatred is eerily reminiscing of FDR's infamous "We have nothing to fear but fear it." This non sequitur is quite possibly the dumbest statement any dumb liberal has ever made. Leave it to liberals to come up with new twists to old idiocy.

Baltimoron 01-01-2009 06:08 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
They never even tried. They never even let Hamas trip itself up. Most probably Hamas would have called the bluff. At that point the EU could have stepped in and suggested a conference...but perhaps some percentage of moderate Palestinians would been able to take political cover for a news cycle to be skeptical of Hamas. Instead, Hamas came out shiny. Sometimes, the "realist" skepticism about these stunts undercuts the PR value that a good stunt can award the player. The North Koreans have been sawing off table legs and objecting to flagpoles for decades...it never fails to work.

bjkeefe 01-01-2009 06:29 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkdog (Post 100202)
Mr. Wrights comments about how the enemy is hatred is eerily reminiscing of FDR's infamous "We have nothing to fear but fear it." This non sequitur is quite possibly the dumbest statement any dumb liberal has ever made. Leave it to liberals to come up with new twists to old idiocy.

Shorter sharkdog:

Quote:

I now proceed to misquote FDR's most famous line to prove my assertion that liberals are dumb, which just goes to show how smart I am.

Francoamerican 01-01-2009 11:51 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
The survival of Bloggingheads

I for one would be willing to chip in to help Bloggingheads stay afloat. I won't say that all the dialogues are equally scintillating but some of them are really first rate and deserve a wide audience. They are certainly worth the price of a subscription to the New Yorker or the New York Review of Books....

So why don't you ask your audience---many of whom spout off with gay abandon on subjects they know nothing about---to put some money where their mouths are?

nikkibong 01-01-2009 01:21 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Mickey's getting festive!

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/167...4:43&out=44:52

Unit 01-01-2009 02:46 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkdog (Post 100202)
Mr. Wrights comments about how the enemy is hatred is eerily reminiscing of FDR's infamous "We have nothing to fear but fear it." This non sequitur is quite possibly the dumbest statement any dumb liberal has ever made. Leave it to liberals to come up with new twists to old idiocy.

I don't think Bob Wright is a liberal in the American sense of the world. You should try and read his book Nonzero, for instance. He's more of a free-market fundamentalist.

Aside from FDR's intent in uttering his famous phrase, he then proceeded to scare the business and investing community to no end and produced a regime of uncertainty that prolonged the Great Depression.

cognitive madisonian 01-01-2009 03:29 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Oh dear. I sincerely wanted to listen to the entire diavlog but Bob's introductory comment in the best and worst made me want to throw something at my monitor. It's embarrassing that Bob and some others are continuing to try to sacrifice John McCain's reputation at the altar of the Chosen One.

Bob, John McCain dared to run a campaign against Obama. Maybe you think he should've just not run, and encouraged everyone to vote for the Lord Obama. But he dared to run a campaign, with the gloves on tight. No use of Jeremiah Wright, which disappointed me. No use of Obama's Nazi comment, or his wife's comments, which again disappointed me. Obama mocked him for his shoes, his houses, and his battle wounds, and McCain got savaged for daring to bring up that yes, Barack Obama was friends with a couple that plotted the murder of 30 million Americans and cheered Charles Mansons' crimes.

Bob, put a sock in it. Principled liberals like Mark Shields have come around to praising McCain for running a principled campaign. It's time you do too. You dishonor yourself and a great American by continuing this regrettable smear campaign.

John M 01-01-2009 03:42 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

You dishonor yourself and a great American by continuing this regrettable smear campaign.
Dear My Friend Cognitive Madison,

Thank you for remembering me. I ran for president in 2008, you may recall. I will be at B. Hussein's inauguration. I have no plans for afterwards. Maybe we could have lunch. The economy is fundamentally sound. We are all Georgians.

cognitive madisonian 01-01-2009 03:46 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John M (Post 100227)
Dear My Friend Cognitive Madison,

Thank you for remembering me. I ran for president in 2008, you may recall. I will be at B. Hussein's inauguration. I have no plans for afterwards. Maybe we could have lunch. The economy is fundamentally sound. We are all Georgians.

:D

You forgot that you're running for reelection (thank goodness).

Arizona is lucky--Kyl and McCain are probably the best 1-2 pair of senators in the nation. I hope that Flake eventually gets McCain's seat...in maybe 20 years.

nikkibong 01-01-2009 04:20 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100224)

No use of Obama's Nazi comment, or his wife's comments, which again disappointed me.

what nazi comment?

cognitive madisonian 01-01-2009 04:24 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...o_Nazi_Germany

baltobuy 01-01-2009 04:31 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve -- Unfair competition for auto industry
 
You guys failed to mention that the additional $1000 it would take to make a decent american car is probably spent on health care for older workers and retired workers in US companies. Honda, Toyota, and other non-union mfrs have younger workers, so don't have to pay this tax. It's an argument put forth by Krugman in NYT for nationalizing health care. The current "capitalist" system gives unfair advantage to new car companies, whether they are domestic or foreign.

harkin 01-01-2009 04:33 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Bloggingheads is now linking to Newsbusters? And you have the nerve to criticize Obama for kowtowing to the lunatic fringe of the right, Bob?

Instead of the usual Happy Happy, let's make a New Year's Resolution not to do that anymore.

It's nice to know that even though the year changes the BH voices of censorship remain.

Bob, while I disagree with you quite often, feel free to link to anyone you (or one of your guests) deems relevant. Props for never 'kowtowing' to those who want Mickey (and others) banished from BHTV. The marketplace of ideas here thrives.

Happy New Year everyone.

Francoamerican 01-01-2009 05:06 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100237)

Here's the "infamous" quotation provided by Cognitive Madisonian (how unfortunate that the names of the illustrious dead are so often invoked by an unworthy posterity)

“...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

What is so unreasonable about comparing American racism, segregation and Jim Crow laws to Nazi antisemitism? In the context of postwar America, the comparison seems to me perfectly just. It would scarcely raise the eyebrow of any historian today. Notice that Obama says "uncomfortably similar;" he doesn't equate the two forms of persecution, although for the victims I daresay they were equally distressing (please no one needs to remind me of the holocaust).

A case of cognitive dissonance, Cognitive Madisonian?

cognitive madisonian 01-01-2009 05:33 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francoamerican (Post 100240)
What is so unreasonable about comparing American racism, segregation and Jim Crow laws to Nazi antisemitism? In the context of postwar America, the comparison seems to me perfectly just. It would scarcely raise the eyebrow of any historian today. Notice that Obama says "uncomfortably similar;" he doesn't equate the two forms of persecution, although for the victims I daresay they were equally distressing (please no one needs to remind me of the holocaust).

We were not fighting antisemitism. We were fighting genocide. His comment was a sloppy suggestion that somehow the US government was guilty of crimes on par with Nazi Germany, something his wonderful pastor doubtlessly believes. Poor Barry was just trying to fit in and didn't care that his words were insulting. Uncomfortably similar? If you can justify that comment, I dare say that you'd be well served to catch up on the Holocaust.

uncle ebeneezer 01-01-2009 06:20 PM

Re: Same Old Mickey
 
I love the fact that Mickey managed to point to: Immigration, Card Check, unions and the John Edwards scandal as the most important things from 2008. Way to mix things up Mickey. Totally unpredictable.

PS how did Obama not get mentioned as far as the biggest surprise of 2008? At this time last year, it was almost inconceivable that he could beat Hillary, let alone win the Presidency, let alone do it with an electoral landslide.

bkjazfan 01-01-2009 06:57 PM

Re: Same Old Mickey
 
Wow! That's a name we hardly hear anymore: John Edwards. Before the sex scandal I thought it was strange of him to be running as a populist while living like a king in a mansion. I don't think he has a chance to reinvent himself but one never knows.

John

rcocean 01-01-2009 07:41 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100224)
Bob, John McCain dared to run a campaign against Obama. Maybe you think he should've just not run, and encouraged everyone to vote for the Lord Obama. But he dared to run a campaign, with the gloves on tight. No use of Jeremiah Wright, which disappointed me. No use of Obama's Nazi comment, or his wife's comments, which again disappointed me. Obama mocked him for his shoes, his houses, and his battle wounds, and McCain got savaged for daring to bring up that yes, Barack Obama was friends with a couple that plotted the murder of 30 million Americans and cheered Charles Mansons' crimes.

Bob, put a sock in it. Principled liberals like Mark Shields have come around to praising McCain for running a principled campaign...

You're completely off-base. McCain didn't run a "Honorable Campaign" nor was he a victim because someone made fun of his wounds. Why no Rev. Wright "GD AMERICA"? Not because of "honor", but because McCain didn't want to offend his "base" - the Washington Press Corp and the DC elite.

Because of Race, the WaPo and NYT ruled Wright "unacceptable" as a campaign issue. They really didn't like the guilt-by-association with Ayers either - but were willing to accept it. So McCain played by their rules - just as always.

McCain has always been willing to call those who opposed him "racists" (immigration) "corrupt" (Campaign Finance) or "traitors" (Iraq). That's Straight talk. But anyone who questions HIS motives is dishonorable. He is a phony.

Finally, I'm glad someone attacked him for his "wounds" McCain's been playing the war hero card in politics for 25 years. He and his supporters CONSTANTLY bring it up in every situation. Men like Ford, George Bush, Dole, Wallace, and McGovern never talked about being "War Heroes". But McCain can't talk on any subject for more than 5 minutes without mentioning the Hanoi Hilton or his "wounds". Cf: the Saddleback forum.

cognitive madisonian 01-01-2009 08:03 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 100246)
You're completely off-base. McCain didn't run a "Honorable Campaign" nor was he a victim because someone made fun of his wounds. Why no Rev. Wright "GD AMERICA"? Not because of "honor", but because McCain didn't want to offend his "base" - the Washington Press Corp and the DC elite.

Because of Race, the WaPo and NYT ruled Wright "unacceptable" as a campaign issue. They really didn't like the guilt-by-association with Ayers either - but were willing to accept it. So McCain played by their rules - just as always.

McCain has always been willing to call those who opposed him "racists" (immigration) "corrupt" (Campaign Finance) or "traitors" (Iraq). That's Straight talk. But anyone who questions HIS motives is dishonorable. He is a phony.

Finally, I'm glad someone attacked him for his "wounds" McCain's been playing the war hero card in politics for 25 years. He and his supporters CONSTANTLY bring it up in every situation. Men like Ford, George Bush, Dole, Wallace, and McGovern never talked about being "War Heroes". But McCain can't talk on any subject for more than 5 minutes without mentioning the Hanoi Hilton or his "wounds". Cf: the Saddleback forum.

It sounds like you're coming at McCain from the 'right', which isn't necessarily all that unusual, but is on this forum :p

He liked to joke about the press being his base, but knew as did everyone else that when it came time to run against the real golden boy (Obama), the Times would sharpen their knives. And, they did. The press coverage was embarrassingly one sided; I think it was Jake Tapper that later openly admitted that the mainstream news coverage was a disgrace. One of the most glaring things the Times did was a front page hit job on Cindy McCain, while still glorifying Michelle Obama.

The press wasn't his base and he knew they weren't. No matter what, they were going to say nasty things about him, because that's what happens when you run against a photo-friendly liberal golden boy.

Mark Shields nailed it: McCain could've won had he run with Jeremiah Wright. It would've been a more contentious election, and he might've lost the popular vote, but he would've won the electoral college. And he refused to, because of his honor and dignity. Two words for which Obama lacks a proper definition.

Anyway, this is delving off into sidebar issues, but I think it's naive to ignore that the immigration debate is tainted by bigotry and issues of American "identity." A majority of both Democrats and Republicans supported comprehensive immigration reform, and the minority killed it. Not everyone who opposes immigration reform is a bigot, but that doesn't mean that bigotry doesn't play a substantial role in the debate. All you have to do is turn on Michael Savage some evening (I actually don't recommend it, but if you have nothing better to do sometime)...

I know that some, mainly on the right, don't like McCain's righteous anger, but I see nothing wrong with it, the same as with Lieberman. Many great leaders have had a righteous, moralistic approach to things.

McCain has actually rarely spoken about his war experiences. When he does, he has talked about the worst of it. Remember the RNC acceptance speech? That wasn't John the Heroic Pilot. That was John the Prisoner. That was the man who saw the horrors of war in a way that no one else in politics has, and knows the extent of its vileness more thoroughly than all but a handful ever will.

If you remember, Kerry's military service was a major part of the DNC four years ago. I had no problem with it. They earn the right to talk about it, the same as Mitt Romney earned the right to talk about his business adroitness by going out and proving himself. McCain proved himself in a way few ever could. And for Obama to run an ad mocking him for not being able to use a computer was utterly disgraceful.

bjkeefe 01-02-2009 04:15 AM

Re: Same Old Mickey
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 100245)
Wow! That's a name we hardly hear anymore: John Edwards. Before the sex scandal I thought it was strange of him to be running as a populist while living like a king in a mansion. I don't think he has a chance to reinvent himself but one never knows.

John

I don't care about Edwards, but I will point out that getting caught cheating on one's wife, reinventing oneself, and running as a populist while living in a mansion (or seven or nine) came awfully close to working for John McCain.

bjkeefe 01-02-2009 04:35 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 100239)
It's nice to know that even though the year changes the BH voices of censorship remain.

It's not so nice to know that even thought the year changes, harkin still has no voice besides his victim's whine.

It is not censorship to say that an unreliable source is an unreliable source and should not be given credibility.

Francoamerican 01-02-2009 05:48 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100242)
We were not fighting antisemitism. We were fighting genocide. His comment was a sloppy suggestion that somehow the US government was guilty of crimes on par with Nazi Germany, something his wonderful pastor doubtlessly believes. Poor Barry was just trying to fit in and didn't care that his words were insulting. Uncomfortably similar? If you can justify that comment, I dare say that you'd be well served to catch up on the Holocaust.

Actually, the US and its allies were not fighting genocide (a word that only came into widespread use after WW II); they were fighting the military aggressions of Nazi Germany. Very little in fact was known about the "final solution" until the end of the war. Neither the US nor its allies did very much to help the Jews while the war was going on.

Racial or religious or ethnic bigotry is the same whatever particular group is singled out and made the object of legal discrimination or persecution. Before the Nazis began systematically exterminating the Jews, they passed laws that excluded them from certain professions and designated them as inferiors. How does that differ from laws that "segregated" blacks and prevented them from exercising their civil rights?

bjkeefe 01-02-2009 05:55 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100247)
I think it was Jake Tapper that later openly admitted that the mainstream news coverage was a disgrace.

It was Mark Halperin, who has on other occasions, sung a different tune about his colleagues. As to his post-election bloviating, there are any number of questions about his motivations, leanings, and credibility. And sanity, even.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100247)
The press wasn't his base and he knew they weren't.

Up is down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100247)
And he refused to, because of his honor and dignity. Two words for which Obama lacks a proper definition.

Black is white.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100247)
McCain has actually rarely spoken about his war experiences.

War is peace.

In 1982, in 2008, and all points in between.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100247)
McCain proved himself in a way few ever could.

Fellow POW Phillip Butler:

Quote:

This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 660 military POW’s in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled as follows: Medals of Honor – 8, Service Crosses – 42, Silver Stars – 590, Bronze Stars – 958 and Purple Hearts – 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe. Among the POWs John wasn’t special. He was just one of the guys.
You again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian (Post 100247)
And for Obama to run an ad mocking him for not being able to use a computer was utterly disgraceful.

If you believe that being a POW forty years ago is the only reason he can't, and further, that being a POW forty years ago fully qualifies someone to be President, maybe. If you think, instead, that being aware of how the world works today, probably not.

McCain himself said he didn't have the slightest idea of how to use a computer, so I'm not sure what the problem is here. Is this more of your crypto Thou Shalt Not Criticize Our Saintly War Hero guff? If so, you're in some kind of company. Just not good.

Or are you suggesting a candidate's own words are off limits?

In any case, your standards are laughably inconsistent. You're calling foul for McCain portrayed as being out of touch (by his own admission), yet you said above that you wished McCain had run a campaign consisting of attacks on Obama's wife, distorted and out of context quotes, wild exaggerations about someone Obama knew casually, and Jeremiah Wright.

bkjazfan 01-02-2009 09:29 AM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
From what I gather Hamas destroyed what business infratructure was left when the Jewish population moved out of Gaza. This included but not limited to agriculture hot houses and factories. Kind of sounds like a Robert Mugabe form of economic development.

John

bjkeefe 01-02-2009 12:47 PM

Re: New Year's Bloggin' Eve
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bkjazfan (Post 100277)
From what I gather Hamas destroyed what business infratructure was left when the Jewish population moved out of Gaza. This included but not limited to agriculture hot houses and factories. Kind of sounds like a Robert Mugabe form of economic development.

John

Pardon my obsessiveness, but ...

Your reply does not have anything to do with my comment to which it's attached. I have asked you before, and I'll ask you again, to think about what you're doing when you want to post comments, because you mess up the flow of the subthreads when you click "reply" on one comment and actually address another.

Yeah, maybe it's a little thing. But if so, then it should be equally trivial to get it right.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 PM.

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