Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-02-2008, 04:07 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Conservative Civil War

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-02-2008, 04:30 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

I want blood! Have at it guys!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-02-2008, 05:36 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Is anybody on the Right taken aback by how much power Rush Limbaugh in fact wields within the movement? Rush seems to rely less on logic and more on infantile games (making fun of people's names, for instance), bluster, innuendo, and flat out lying. Rush never participates in fora where he (or close allies) don't get to make the rules, never participates in debates with people with whom he has more than marginal disagreements - generally never puts his ideas to the test in settings that aren't stacked in his favor. To me this isn't evidence that he's a guy who ought to be taken seriously, not on an intellectual level, certainly. Yet, even guys like Ross seem not to want to do more than just imply that maybe he gets some of his arguments wrong. Never mind that they're arguments about fundamentally important things, or that all he seems to do is demagogue (can that be a verb?) those issues. Nobody on the right really seem willing to take him on a serious way.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-02-2008, 05:37 PM
Freddie Freddie is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 110
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

I don't think either of these guys really understands the degree to which Palin is unpopular outside of the Republican base. She is really, really disliked among independents and moderates. A Republican can't win the Presidency and alienate moderate independents and Reagan Democrats. She's killing the McCain campaign among, for example, upper middle class families in the Philadelphia suburbs, and elderly Jewish moderates in Florida, etc. That's going to be just as big of a problem for her as a Presidential candidate.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-02-2008, 05:39 PM
jwpfender jwpfender is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

I take the point you are both making that the vice-presidency should not have the authority to deliver corporal punishment.

But: I think the strength of Obama's appeal in this regard (or conversely, McCain's lack of appeal) is that Obama does listen to other points of view and would amend his views based on the considered input of advisers, including the vice-president. The notion that America should have an infallible president (or more to the point, that America is itself infallible) is coming out of the wrong century, guys, and it's at the heart of this conservative breakdown.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-02-2008, 08:23 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

Guess what this link points to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Uh-huh.

In earlier news:

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
... 'fisting' and Sarah Palin.

[...]

... Sarah Palin with a bible between her thighs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
... Slate placed an image of Sarah Palin with a bible between her thighs at the top of their page and linked her to an article on fisting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Two weeks ago Slate had an image of Palin with a bible between her legs in a piece that included a link to women 'into fisting'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
They're fisting Palin at Slate right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
[Subject]Fisting Palin

Then go over to Slate and check out the Palin look-a-like grinning at the reader with a large bible clasped between her legs and the story below.
Way to keep the hate alive, kid.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-02-2008, 08:31 PM
cognitive madisonian cognitive madisonian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 648
Default Re: kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

My, your posts are becoming more and more favorable to me

Can BH have a triavlog between JG, RD, and Pinkerton? Now that would be fun.

I agree with the earlier post about the limited influence of Rush. He spent days and weeks on end incessantly insulting McCain, and that didn't stop him from getting the nomination. Rush is an entertainer, not a thinker.

If McCain loses (and I still hold hope that he'll win), either Bobby Jindal or David Petraeus will be the nominee in '12. Not Huckabee, not Palin. I'd prefer a Petraeus/Jindal ticket myself, though I could accept it flipped.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-02-2008, 08:38 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian View Post
I'd prefer a Petraeus/Jindal ticket myself, though I could accept it flipped.
In reading this I can only wonder, what possessed you to vote for Kerry in 2004?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-02-2008, 08:49 PM
cognitive madisonian cognitive madisonian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 648
Default Re: kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

What, you can't see the trend there?

Ok, let me lay out the candidates again:

Kerry
McCain
Petraeus

I think you can guess what they have in common.

There are plenty of policy issues that I very much consider when choosing a candidate--trade position, tax position, foreign policy etc. Kerry ran much to the center of Obama's current stances and history.

But I also look for leadership qualities. Every great president proved himself in some way by overcoming a significant obstacle in their adult lives. Usually this was in the way of military service.

Moreover, see my username. I like balancing Congress and the Executive branch, because that's when government works best.

I must respect the candidate to vote for him/her.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-02-2008, 09:37 PM
threep threep is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Yeeeeaaaah. Toppling the Chinese government in the name of freedom is a fantastically foolish thing to say.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-02-2008, 09:42 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Is anybody on the Right taken aback by how much power Rush Limbaugh in fact wields within the movement?
I agree with all you go on to say about Rush and why he should not be given so much attention by the Right's intelligentsia, but there's no getting around the reality that he commands an enormous audience who take his words as gospel. So, his arguments have to be taken into account if you're on the Right and you would rather not have your side split into two camps.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-02-2008, 09:43 PM
InJapan InJapan is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 92
Default Re: Fist Lady

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
My point, and I will keep repeating it, is simple. Obama and his 'liberal' fans practice the same dishonest politics of attack and intimidation as George Bush for exactly the same reasons: to paper over gaping holes in his record and shift discussion away from his astonishing collection of anti-American allies, his inexperience, and his contradictory and incoherent statements on a host of issues. Perhaps I'll stick Michelle's head over Slate's image of Palin in January. Who could possibly find that offensive?
There is probably some truth in what you have written, I suppose. Yes, as pointed out earlier by Glenn Loury, Palin is the target of misogyny by various leftists, and I suspect that some of the heat that Hillary garners likewise comes from a similar motivation.

Ultimately though the VP pick is not that important. McCain is trailing first and foremost, as pointed out by Joshua in his diavlog with Glenn, because he was dealt a weak hand. There just is no desire among a great amount of the US populace to continue on with the Republicanism that has been manifested so far in the 21st century.

Obama, should he win, was in the right place at the right time.

Thus this diavlog... which attempts to chart the future of "conservatism." My question is this: must the Republican party be perpetually identified with "conservatives"? Certainly in the early part of the history of the GOP one could say Republicanism stood for a type of progressivism.

This diavlog did not address the hard question: how can a political party (in this case the GOP) bring together people for a common political goal, who may be quite disparate in world view? E.g., the Louisiana Bible-believer and the NYC-based, Harvard graduate school economist?

Missing also is the big picture: What will the US be like in 2108? Do we care? What do we want it to be?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-02-2008, 09:44 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Take a bow gentlemen.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-02-2008, 09:45 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognitive madisonian View Post
What, you can't see the trend there?
Okay, I see it now. Follow-up, if you don't mind revealing personal info: Were you in the military? And if so, to what extent?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-02-2008, 09:47 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Nice catch.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-02-2008, 09:47 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Fist Lady

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
The bhtv borg are clearly unhappy.
Au contraire. Delighted to mock is all.

And the longer you persist in maintaining the fiction that criticism of Palin was dominated by sexism (when you seem to have exactly one datum to support this claim) or that the Obama campaign was responsible for what various online or cable yahoos might have said about Palin or Clinton, the longer I expect my delight will persist.

If, on the other hand, you drop this tirade November 5th, I'll understand that you're just electioneering, albeit more coarsely than anyone you criticize.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-02-2008 at 09:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2008, 10:05 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Fist Lady

Quote:
Originally Posted by InJapan View Post
There is probably some truth in what you have written, I suppose. Yes, as pointed out earlier by Glenn Loury, Palin is the target of misogyny by various leftists, and I suspect that some of the heat that Hillary garners likewise comes from a similar motivation.

Ultimately though the VP pick is not that important. McCain is trailing first and foremost, as pointed out by Joshua in his diavlog with Glenn, because he was dealt a weak hand. There just is no desire among a great amount of the US populace to continue on with the Republicanism that has been manifested so far in the 21st century.

Obama, should he win, was in the right place at the right time.

Thus this diavlog... which attempts to chart the future of "conservatism." My question is this: must the Republican party be perpetually identified with "conservatives"? Certainly in the early part of the history of the GOP one could say Republicanism stood for a type of progressivism.

This diavlog did not address the hard question: how can a political party (in this case the GOP) bring together people for a common political goal, who may be quite disparate in world view? E.g., the Louisiana Bible-believer and the NYC-based, Harvard graduate school economist?

Missing also is the big picture: What will the US be like in 2108? Do we care? What do we want it to be?
I'll reiterate my assertion that sexism, despite KS's obsession with an illustration in Slate, is not particularly a factor for most of the opposition to Palin. The vast majority of attacks on her, particularly after the the stupid oppo frenzy that occurred just after the announcement of her candidacy, have been related to her ability to speak coherently, her religion, her record as Governor, and accusations of hypocrisy. I doubt that in the foreseeable future there will be a female candidate toward whom some sexist pushback won't be a factor, but in comparison to the attention paid to Hillary or Geraldine Ferraro, Palin's gender has not been out in the forefront.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-02-2008, 10:10 PM
thprop thprop is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 373
Angry Inflation of the Vice Presidential Role?!?!?!?!

What a couple of morons! For some reason I watched this - I dislike Ross more than Jonah. Ross is an idiot catholic (and as someone who had 12 years of catholic school - I mean that in the worse sense). He actually believes that tripe the child molesters based in Rome toss out there and bases his entire worldview on this idiocy. Click those heels for the former Hitler jugend - Heil Ratzinger!

The vice presidential role is inflated when the presidential candidate is a 72 year old cancer survivor. Sarah Palin is a dolt who is eagerly awaiting End Times, speaks in tongues and wants to cast out witches. She is anti-intellectual and anti-science like most evangelicals. She gives a speech about the need to devote more resources (in a frozen budget) to special needs kids while in the same speech criticizing fruit fly research. I guess she did not notice or no one told her that some of the most important work on autism is done using fruit flies.

As Richard Wolffe of Newsweek said of this display of keen insight:
I'm going to be as restrained and measured as I possibly can about this. But this is the most mindless, ignorant, uninformed comment that we have seen from Governor Palin so far, and there's been a lot of competition for that prize.

PZ Myers of Pharyngula hit it on the nose:
This is where the Republican party has ended up: supporting an ignorant buffoon who believes in the End Times and speaking in tongues while deriding some of the best and most successful strategies for scientific research. In this next election, we've got to choose between the 21st century rationalism and Dark Age inanity. It ought to be an easy choice.
__________________
Even a blind man knows when the sun is shining, he can feel it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-02-2008, 10:23 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

A fascinating discussion. I think Ross underestimates the damage Noonan, Parker, Brooks, and Frum have done to their reputations among conservatives. Joining the Liberal lynch mob against Palin was neither courageous nor helpful. People won't forget. No one was demanding they praise or gush over Palin. They could have remained noncommittal or uttered platitudes. Instead all them tried to give the MSM additional ammunition to use against her.

Parker did it for the publicity and will be forgotten in a month. And Noonan with her sneering elitism has probably decided to move left in any case - no doubt to a hoped for NYT ed page position.

How Palin does in the future will depend on her positions on foreign policy, immigration, trade, etc. We still don't know how many of her talking points have been dictated by the need to support McCain.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-02-2008, 10:45 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
A fascinating discussion. I think Ross underestimates the damage Noonan, Parker, Brooks, and Frum have done to their reputations among conservatives. Joining the Liberal lynch mob against Palin was neither courageous nor helpful. People won't forget. No one was demanding they praise or gush over Palin. They could have remained noncommittal or uttered platitudes. Instead all them tried to give the MSM additional ammunition to use against her.

Parker did it for the publicity and will be forgotten in a month. And Noonan with her sneering elitism has probably decided to move left in any case - no doubt to a hoped for NYT ed page position.

How Palin does in the future will depend on her positions on foreign policy, immigration, trade, etc. We still don't know how many of her talking points have been dictated by the need to support McCain.
Wow, this is what has become of so-called "conservatism." And RC apparently imagines himself as some sort of arbiter of the term, someone capable of discerning who really deserves to call themselves "conservative," and who doesn't. It's this sort of astonishing arrogance that tempts me to say you deserve to lose. I'm not entirely opposed the conservative project - really I'm not. But what this post represents is a going to be a real source of schadenfreude after Tuesday - regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race, the legislature will undoubtedly reflect a complete rejection of the point of view represented here.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-02-2008, 11:10 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War (PS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I agree with all you go on to say about Rush and why he should not be given so much attention by the Right's intelligentsia, but there's no getting around the reality that he commands an enormous audience who take his words as gospel. So, his arguments have to be taken into account if you're on the Right and you would rather not have your side split into two camps.
Or, at least Rush has to be genuflected to every time something like "where the conservative movement should go from here" gets debated. His brand just has too much loyalty among the populace. It's analogous to the way that Democrats always (feel they) have to go through the ritual of uttering the "we honer John McCain's service" shibboleth before they criticize him.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-02-2008, 11:14 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Wow, this is what has become of so-called "conservatism." And RC apparently imagines himself as some sort of arbiter of the term, someone capable of discerning who really deserves to call themselves "conservative," and who doesn't. It's this sort of astonishing arrogance that tempts me to say you deserve to lose. I'm not entirely opposed the conservative project - really I'm not. But what this post represents is a going to be a real source of schadenfreude after Tuesday - regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race, the legislature will undoubtedly reflect a complete rejection of the point of view represented here.
More than just schadenfreude, I'd say. If rc's attitude is prevalent among conservatives, it will cause practically unqualified joy among the left. Yes, it's good to have a strong opposition to keep your own side honest, but if we had the left, plus the moderates, plus most libertarians, plus those conservatives cast out for apostasy, I'm sure we'd have enough different difference voices.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-02-2008, 11:20 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Fist Lady

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I'll reiterate my assertion that sexism, despite KS's obsession with an illustration in Slate, is not particularly a factor for most of the opposition to Palin. The vast majority of attacks on her, particularly after the the stupid oppo frenzy that occurred just after the announcement of her candidacy, have been related to her ability to speak coherently, her religion, her record as Governor, and accusations of hypocrisy. I doubt that in the foreseeable future there will be a female candidate toward whom some sexist pushback won't be a factor, but in comparison to the attention paid to Hillary or Geraldine Ferraro, Palin's gender has not been out in the forefront.
Agreed. I'd also say that she got something back in return by virtue of her gender. Not only was hurling the "sexist!!1!" card an easy defense that blunted criticism and made many that much more hesitant to criticize her again, it also made everything she did adequately get reported in glowing terms. ("She gave a great speech at the convention! She impressed foreign leaders at the UN! She did great in the debate!")

And really, there's no getting around the fact that a lot of her die-hard supporters are male conservatives attracted to her looks and the specifically feminine aspects of her personality. Wink, wink. Know what I mean, know what I mean?
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-03-2008 at 03:56 AM.. Reason: add link
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-02-2008, 11:44 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War (PS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Or, at least Rush has to be genuflected to every time something like "where the conservative movement should go from here" gets debated. His brand just has too much loyalty among the populace. It's analogous to the way that Democrats always (feel they) have to go through the ritual of uttering the "we honer John McCain's service" shibboleth before they criticize him.
You're making some good points. I think there's some truth to the idea that some people really don't want to take Tush on, on the merits. It's just not a winning strategy. Having said that, I glad to see Ross bring up his set of objections.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-03-2008, 12:09 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War (PS)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
You're making some good points. I think there's some truth to the idea that some people really don't want to take Tush on, on the merits. It's just not a winning strategy. Having said that, I glad to see Ross bring up his set of objections.
I share your happiness, or at least part of me does, when thinking in terms of the long-term health of the nation being aided by a robust check on liberalism spinning out of control.

On the other hand, I want to see a real split between smart conservative thought and the kind of mindless bloviation that Rush represents, so that the latter can be marginalized. I think that this would also be good for the long-term health of the nation.

And, as long as the US remains as powerful as it is, "nation" in both of the above instances could be replaced by "world."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-03-2008, 01:02 AM
fncll fncll is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Arguing that the VP isn't important so Sarah Palin is good enough is disingenuous. The VP used to be a symbolic position except in case of a tragedy... but Bush/Cheney changed that relationship entirely. And just as the idea that any incoming President will give up the powers that Bush and Co. grabbed for themselves, so it is that the VP position will never go back to being what it was. And if you need confirmation, listen again to Sarah Palin when asked about the role of the VP during the only VP debate...
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-03-2008, 02:09 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

I was listening to this one and thinking, "What's the deal with Jonah Goldberg? He doesn't seem to be for any kind of conservativism, just against Democrats." And just a minute later he quotes Irving Kristol, about how conservativism needs to be not against government, but against the left. This is why Goldberg is so boring.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-03-2008, 02:11 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
I was listening to this one and thinking, "What's the deal with Jonah Goldberg? He doesn't seem to be for any kind of conservativism, just against Democrats." And just a minute later he quotes Irving Kristol, about how conservativism needs to be not against government, but against the left. This is why Goldberg is so boring.
B-b-b-but he invoked the name of Edmund Burke, too!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-03-2008, 02:49 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A Heart as Black As Coal

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Oops!
Oops is right. What a surprise. kidneystones passes along more wingnut lies.

The article he links to (on a virtually unknown site) refers to:

Quote:
... a Jan. 17 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that was made public today first on the Web site newsbusters.org, which calls itself "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." The story later was linked on The Drudge Report.
The following was posted today on the website of the San Francisco Chronicle:

Quote:
Lies, Half Truths and Contradictions: Chronicle ''Hidden'' Audio on Obama

It's not true.

But the Drudge Report, the Republican National Committee and apparently even GOP VP candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fell for completely fabricated news from a shady website called Newsbusters today suggesting the San Francisco Chronicle has ''hidden'' audio with Sen. Barack Obama regarding his statements on coal.

''Barack Obama explained his plan to the San Francisco Chronicle this year,'' she told a rally in Ohio Sunday. ''He said that sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry.''

She added, ''And you've got to listen to the tape.''

''Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?'' Palin asked the crowd, according to a report from CBS News. Someone in the crowd shouted, ''Liberal media!'

Let's be very clear: the Chronicle did not, and has never, hidden any interview, audio or video, of Obama from its readers.

The truth: the paper's January editorial board session with Obama included comments about coal. The entire interview has been in the public domain, available on line to the public -- and to the McCain campaign -- since early January.

''How can anyone suggest that we hid an interview that we did, immediately put up on the web -- and advertised to our readers,'' said editorial page editor John Diaz Sunday, regarding his hosting of Obama at the session. ''We promoted it like like hell...and I'm sure the Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign scrubbed it. You can still find the whole 48 minutes and 33 seconds on line.''

Obama's campaign responded to Palin's comments today, noting correctly that the wide-ranging interview also included the Illinois Senator's comments that the idea of eliminating coal plants was ''an illusion.''

Apparently neither campaign, until now, ever felt there was much worth mentioning regarding Obama's coal comments. But it's now two days before the election and McCain is in a do-or-die battle in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

A final note: the shoddy Newsbusters blog has been caught in the past simply fabricating news regarding the Chronicle's coverage. Our paper has demanded corrections for their fiction, but to no avail.

We contacted Bill Riggs, regional press secretary of the Republican National Committee tonight on his emailing of this erroneous report suggesting a ''hidden'' Chronicle audiotape to political reporters. His response: he didn't confirm it, or write the headline. He just sent it out.

He got taken. And so did the rest.
Maybe it's understandable why the wingnuts are trotting this one out now.

From The Jed Report: Ohio's GOP Senator: McCain "Will Put Coal Out Of Business"

Quote:
Video of a June 21, 2005 Senate floor debate between Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and John McCain on legislation proposed by McCain to fight global warming has just surfaced. I'll post video within the next couple of hours [the video is now embedded at this same link, as well --bjk], but for now, here's some text. Voinovich told McCain that his legislation would "put coal of out of business." McCain agreed that his legislation would "require sacrifice" acknowledging that critics said it would cost "thousands of jobs." Nonetheless, McCain (correctly) stood by his legislation, and even said that he wanted a tougher set of rules.

Here's more from Voinovich's statement:

Quote:
On one side of this debate, there are proposals to create a mandatory domestic program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the amendment that will be proposed by Senator McCain, to my understanding, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

It is my understanding that the amendment, according to Charles Rivers Associates, which analyzed its provisions, would cause the loss of 24,000 to 47,000 Ohio jobs, in 2010, and energy-intensive industries to shrink by 2.3 to 5.6 percent in 2020. We are talking about manufacturing industries, energy-intensive manufacturing and chemical and many others.

The McCain amendment will put coal out of business by forcing fuel switching to natural gas.
And John McCain's counter-argument:

Quote:
Does it involve some sacrifice on the part of the American people? Yes. ... This amendment, I am sure, will be attacked--thousands of jobs will be lost, we will find some obscure scientist, some will talk about the dangers of encouraging the use of nuclear power. The fact is, we are going to win on this issue. The reason we are going to win is because every single month there is another manifestation of the terrible effects of what climate change is doing to our Earth.
Does McCain have even a single conviction left?

Here's Barack Obama on Clean Coal, speaking 9 September 2008, in Lebanon, VA.

Here's a relevant proposal from Obama's official campaign web site:

Quote:
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

Obamas Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five first-of-a-kind commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.
More info available on his energy issues page.

Hope, and the truth, kick fear's ass.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-03-2008 at 03:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-03-2008, 03:02 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A Heart as Black As Coal

And speaking of black hearts, check out this just-released video of Palin stabbing McCain in the back.

Wink, wink!

(h/t: TJR)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-03-2008, 04:34 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: A Heart as Black As Coal

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Here's the Obama transcript, seems pretty clear to me:
We note, first, that kidneystones pulled a slimy manuver: substantially editing his post (to add the "transcript") after my response went up. (Original post time: 01:58 AM, last modification -- so far, anyway -- 03:10 AM.)

We note, second, that kidneystones provides no link to the source of this alleged transcript. It appears, however, that he copied it from NewsBusters, (or some wingnut blog copying from them -- they're all foaming at the mouth over this), which does not give any link to the source for their alleged transcript.

You can find a link to the audio of the full interview on the SF Chronicle's website by visiting this page, if you're interested. I'm not going to bother -- I think between kidneystones and Newsbusters, the total credibility is still zero.

Challenge to kidneystones: Provide a link to your transcript source, or admit you're just, once again, passing along hearsay from your fellow wingnuts.

Meanwhile, it's almost like CBS is reading kidneystones's posts:

Quote:
An Obama spokesperson said that Obamas remarks were taken out of context and pointed out that in another part of the interview, Obama said that the idea of eliminating coal plants was an illusion.

The point Obama is making is that we need to transition from coal burning power plants built with old technology to plants built with advanced technologies--and that is exactly the action that will be incentivized under a cap and trade program, the spokesperson said. We know that additional work is necessary to develop and deploy these technologies. That is why Obama has argued for a robust funding program for carbon capture and sequestration. Its strikingly similar to what McCain has said (in fact McCain goes a step further saying he wants to transition completely away from coal).
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 11-03-2008 at 04:49 AM.. Reason: wordsmithing, add link
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-03-2008, 07:34 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Transcript from kidneystones incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
You can find a link to the audio of the full interview on the SF Chronicle's website by visiting this page, if you're interested. I'm not going to bother -- I think between kidneystones and Newsbusters, the total credibility is still zero.
Changed my mind. I downloaded the audio file (48:33 in length) from the above link and listened to the whole interview.

It turns out that the transcript that kidneystones posted is not correct. His version has added sentences at the end that are not present in the audio file, clearly, to make what Obama did say sound worse.

I have done some transcribing, from the audio file that I downloaded from the SF Chronicle's site. The section of the interview pertaining to coal starts at about 25:12.

Quote:
Q: Senator, you introduced a bill promoting coal to liquid fuels and then you said you'd only support them if they emitted fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline. Now, all the scientific evidence points to coal being dirtier than pretty much anything else. So how are you going to square your support for coal with the need to fight global warming?

Obama: I've already done it. I voted against the Clear Skies bill -- in fact, I was the deciding vote -- despite the fact that I'm a coal state and that half of my state thought that I'd thoroughly betrayed them because I think clean air is critical and global warming is critical. But this notion of no coal, I think is an illusion because the fact of the matter is, is that right now, we are getting a lot of our energy from coal and China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is we have to figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon? And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it? If we can't, then we're going to still be working on alternatives. But --

Q: Alternatives including coal?

[Here's where kidneystones's transcript picks up. I copied what he posted and verified it, with one minor word change as I heard it, up until the point where his transcript adds the non-existent sentences.]

Obama: Let me sort of describe my overall policy. What Ive said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody elses out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; its just that it will bankrupt them because theyre going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas thats being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing that Ive said with respect to coal, I havent been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

[NB: kidneystones's accurate transcript ends here. Timestamp is 28:04. His version has two additional sentences that are not in the audio file. Resuming from the audio file now, directly from the last sentence above, Obama still speaking.]

That, I think, is the right approach. The same with respect to nuclear. Right now, we don't know how to store nuclear waste wisely, and we don't know how to deal with some of the safety issues that remain, and so it's wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy. But I tell you what, if we could figure out how to store it safely, then I think most of us would say, that might be a pretty good deal.

The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine -- and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue -- what's the best approach to take. As opposed to us saying at the outset, here are the winners that we're picking, and maybe we pick wrong and maybe we pick right.
At this point, we're at 29:00, and the discussion turns to Iraq, then to the environment as pertains to automobile emissions, then to automobile efficiency and mandating increased MPG standards. We pick back up at 39:07, where the only other mention of coal occurs.

Quote:
Q: Well, we might get into your powers of persuasion and experience here. Is that going to be achievable to really promise something like a forty miles a gallon when this thiry mile a gallon level was such a battle to get to?

Obama: Well, my instinct is that the American people are increasingly mindful of the costs that are associated with a bunch of gas guzzling. And this is part of the question of leadership that is so critical. And part of the argument that Senator Clinton and I have on many of these issues. The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important and to force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. And climate change is a great example. You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal -- under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal-powered plants, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, they will pass that money [sic] onto consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election. People will say, oh, Obama and Al Gore, these folks -- they're gonna destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars or whatever their number is.

If you can't persuade the American people that yes, there's going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term -- because of a combination of a more efficient energy usage -- and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances -- but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit -- if we can't make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson. You can be the master of Washington. You're not going to get that done.
The next question asked, at 41:55, concerns race relations. The question after that, at 46:00, concerns a Bill Clinton complaint about caucuses. That's the last question.

To repeat: kidneystones should use better sources than Newsbusters. The transcript is incorrect. It has added sentences that Obama did not say.

Wingnut lies, in other words. I'm shocked, shocked.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-03-2008, 08:17 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Transcript from kidneystones incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Wingnut lies, in other words. I'm shocked, shocked.
Brendan, thanks for all the work to underscore the wingnuttery.

Sadly, for the McCainiacs, this as well as Obama's aunt (asylum status) seem to be the extent of the October surprise. If only they would have started their fear campaign sooner - then they might have been trounced completely as well as bankrupted intellectually.

The old fear of the dark, money grubbing, un-American, bogeyman may well have lost its effectiveness this time. Perhaps an Obama victory will further erase the potential for that type of campaign. What else will they run on? I hear that there is a new conservative movement afoot. Let them fight it out in the free marketplace of ideas. rc ocean to the rescue.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-03-2008, 09:59 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
B-b-b-but he invoked the name of Edmund Burke, too!
Yeah, he loves to drop those, like he got them out of The Big Bathroom Book for Conservatives.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-03-2008, 11:21 AM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

Ok, we are pretty muchy assured that Obama is going to win. Now, what is the stock market going to do on Wednesday? Up, down, or no change. This is what I am curious about.

I heard that Warren Buffett wants Obama to retain Henry Paulson at the Treasury at least for a short term. Another "headscratcher."

John
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-03-2008, 03:57 PM
bookofdisquiet bookofdisquiet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 212
Default 9/11 Bush Republican now Obama Democrat

The Republican party has ceded the party of Lincoln to the intolerant religious moralists, the anti-immigration xenophobes, and the frothing out the mouth free market acquisitors. It will be a marginal party in America for the next decade.

9/11 changed me from a democrat to a republican and now the McCain campaign has reversed that transformation. I see an Obama vote as a vote for unity and bipartisanship and a McCain vote as a vote for divisiveness. It is truly sad because a man like McCain could have moved the Republican party away from the Rush Limbaugh's of the world and into the 21st century, instead he appeased them. I'm one of those small "c" moderates that Rush says good riddance too-- well I say good riddance to him-- he can have his loud mouthed hate faction all to himself and he and the Colters of the world can be drowned out by the implementation of the fairness doctrine for all I care now.

Obama is the better man, the better candidate, and more what America needs to move us past our post-9/11 morass.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-03-2008, 04:19 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Fist Lady -

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Slate still has an article linking Sarah Palin to fisting and I won't shut-up about it.
Please DO NOT SHUT UP about it. Blog about it, trail it behind an airplane, buy space on the goodyear blimp. I find it hilarious. I may use it as a sig.

The actual article compares Palin to Anita Bryant and I think that is quite a fair comparo. The only thing that has anything about "fisting" is a reference to a link and a link to a site called Christian Nymphos ( Oh they also mention anal sex and "masturbating for your husband", I assume all of these would be problems as well ) . The context of the article is how religious folk are using sex as a way of selling their religion the same way that christian rock uses that unholy beat of rock'n'roll to sell religiosity.

If you can use the tenuous connection between Palin and fisting/anal sex/masturbation in the article as a solid link then based on that metric I can easily say that: Palin/McCain etc. call Obama a terrorist,baby killer, muslim, anti-american, anti-semite, ... since the connections McCain and Palin are making are far stronger than the one you profess to make between Slate and a Fictitious Fisting Palin. ( I am making an obvious assumption here of course :-)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-03-2008, 04:28 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: 9/11 Bush Republican now Obama Democrat

I take back my last post... there is hope for you after all...
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-03-2008, 04:53 PM
laurelnyc laurelnyc is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42
Default Re: The Conservative Civil War

As far as criticism of the right's embrace of R Limbaugh (whom I can't stand), the left is no better with their embrace of Keith Olbermann (whom I can't stand either). Unfortunately, it seems that lunatics such as Limbaugh & Olbermann are becoming more popular in America and are getting more air time. What we need more of are true moderates who are willing to criticize both the left and the right equally. Unfortunately, politics today is too competitive and no one is willing to admit mistakes; honest political commentary is a rare thing indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-03-2008, 05:02 PM
cognitive madisonian cognitive madisonian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 648
Default Re: kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem?

Surprisingly (based on my preferences for candidates), no. I guess I'd never vote for myself
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:23 AM.


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