Obama strategist David Plouffe released a memo last week arguing that Hillary Clinton's advantages were essentially those of incumbency, that her support was thin, and that Obama should actually be considered the front-runner.Did the quotes around "inevitable" confuse Drudge, is he just entranced by the strength of Politico's powers of inference, or does he really want to hurt Hillary? The full Penn memo appears on Politico, so there is no confusion there. You can see that Penn never uses the word, and that Politico is using quotes the way you do when you want to refer to, for example, the word "word." [UPDATE: Drudge has now removed the quotes and put the word in italics.]
Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, responded today with a memo that seemed designed to bludgeon all opposition into senselessness through the sheer power of numbers (links to 40 polls showing Hillary in the lead!)
Penn strongly implies another i-word is the best description of Hillary -- not "incumbent," but "inevitable."
The presentation on Drudge completely makes it look as through the Clinton camp is saying "inevitable," and that sounds incredibly arrogant. She's proclaiming that resistance is futile. It resonates with the negative image of Hillary Clinton as power-mad and controlling -- exactly the image we saw here:
That hurts.
[ADDED: And look at the picture Drudge is running:
Yikes! Scarily authoritarian. [IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian says, "That tiny, scary hand!"]]
Let's check the tone of Penn's memo:
....Hillary’s electoral strength has grown in the last quarter... Voters yearn for change and they say that Hillary has the strength and experience to actually bring about that change. Hillary’s message: that her strength and experience will bring real change that America needs, is resonating strongly with voters.Let's see. Strength... strength... strength... strongly... I'm strongly getting the impression that you want me to strongly think that Hillary is strong -- strongly strong -- and experienced.
... So far the debates have been the key moments where the voters get to see all the candidates side by side and they have shown just how ready Hillary is to be president and how she has the strength and experience to make change happen.I'm beginning to get it. She's has strength and experience ... for change.
There will be another debate every month from now until the end of the year, and each debate provides Hillary with another opportunity to demonstrate her experience, talk about her record on the issues, and show voters why she is the person best qualified to be president.So you say she has experience?
The reason for Hillary’s growing support is that voters want change, and they know that only Hillary has the record of fighting for the kind of change they want, and the experience to execute it.Let me get this straight. Are you trying to say she has experience? And is there some sort of theory that the people want change?
Anyway, the memo is full of polling data that amply supports Politico's interpretation of the idea Penn is trying to plant in your head, but "inevitable" is not the campaign's own word, and thinking that it is hurts Hillary.
पोस्ट्स
६९ टिप्पण्या:
One is always advised to cherchez les femmes, most especially the one that is watching you.
Compare the strong at Marge Piercy For Strong Women , for better uses of the word.
Obama strategist David Plouffe
i'm sorry, there is no way back from there to here. obama loses.
I don't know what connotation others might put on it, but "inevitable" is how I have always described Hillary. I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's just that she WILL be the next President.
Can you think of any way this won't happen?
Can you think of any way this won't happen?
Yes. Another Paula Jones will come forward. Followed by another Kathleen Wiley. Americans won't want to go through that all over again.
Hillary will peak early. The key is whether she can shield herself from the public with scripted performances. Because the more the public gets to know her, the more they dislike her.
Doesn't Hillary look like she's in that 1984 Apple commercial?
What's the title of that documentary? Triumph of The Hill?
That tiny, scary hand!
And below in another Drudge headline: Mag: Stressed Couric 'Slapped' Staffer. My image is a crazed Katie slapping someone in the face. Come to find out she just slapped someone's arm.
I can think of several ways Hillary might not win. However, if I were forced to place a real bet today, it would be on her.
Come on. Bush Sr. was "inevitable" for a re-elect at this point before the 1992 election. It's absurd to think that anyone could be inevitable 7 months before a single vote has been cast even in a primary. That said, Hillary is more likely than any other person. For my money, she has a 70% chance of winning the nomination, and if she does, then a 60% chance in the general. Sticking to numbers, would you really feel comfortable giving, say, 5-for-1 odds on anyone-but-Hillary getting the Dem nomination? If not, then you believe her odds are less than 80%.
4 years, 8 years of rule by a nagging yenta? Aargh!
I think it's a tough call. Hillary vs. Obama will be interesting down the stretch.
As for the Presidential Election, I don't think Republicans stand a chance of winning 2008. It isn't because they are promoting bad values or have turned evil or anything like that. Republicans are being shot in the foot by George W. Bush, and as much as I hate Democrats right now for being spineless turds, I think Republicans are equally turdish (hah) for going down with the Bush ship. I'd be surprised if we got anything but a landslide, though I suppose American people were dumb enough to fall for Swift Boat idiots, anything could happen. Republicans also have a situation on their hands now that they don't own Washington!
Oh, and it doesn't help Republicans right now that they are 1) using war rhetoric ala Bush in 2000/2004, and 2) a pretty deep division is being drawn between neo-cons and traditional conservatives... 3) Bush pissed off evangelical Christians something awful and uhh Falwell died - another big loss for the right. (Go Pat!?)
The latest Rasmussen polls pitting Clinton vs. the leading Republicans has Clinton either behind (vs. Giuliani), tied (Thompson), or barely ahead (Romney). Clearly Clinton 44 is not inevitable, "inevitable", or even inevitable
"[ADDED: And look at the picture Drudge is running:
[Photo]
Yikes! Scarily authoritarian.]"
Inevitably, by airing that one picture alone, Hillary could sew up the Masochistic Former Husbands-Who-Take-Perverse-Comfort, Cheer, and Encouragement-In-Memories-Of-The-Person-Who-Turned-Married Life-Into-A-Living-Hell Vote.
Hellary, I think I want you.
Hellary, I think I need you.
"Can you think of any way this won't happen?"
Yes. 1) The self-appointed commander in chief in the war on global warming, former Vice-President Al Gore, announces for president. 2)"The latest Rasmussen polls pitting Clinton vs. the leading Republicans has Clinton either behind (vs. Giuliani), tied (Thompson), or barely ahead (Romney). Clearly Clinton 44 is not inevitable, "inevitable", or even inevitable." 3) Americans aren't, despite our "People Magazine"-like, irrational affection for the (dead) Kennedy’s, into dynastic politics. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton won't exactly warm the hearts of swing voters - which is where this election will be decided. In the end, two things will matter: who best offers the change sought (and party affiliation is not the determining factor here), and who is more likable. No one likes the Hillary! unless you're on her payroll (and even then...) or delusional. The Hillary!'s biggest hurdles are Gore, Obama, Thompson and Giuliani. Her biggest asset, should she clear the primary, will be Bloomberg. Folks should be asking New York's Mayor if there was a horse's head in his bed...when he announces as a third-party candidate.
One thing that will galvanize republicans and conversatives more than anything is Hilary Clinton as the democratic nominee.
I hope the democrats select her because she will be the easiest democrat to beat.
Hilary Clinton is a tax and spend liberal who will enbolden the terrorists to attack us again.
She also claims to be all knowing about everything but when it comes right down to it her intelligence is lacking, she knows nothing about policy and is a flip flopper regarding the Iraq War. She voted for it now all of a sudden wants to leave.
What leglislation has she produced in the senate? What are her credentials other than Bill Clinton's wife? She is obviously not bright, doesn't know anything about foreign policy, her health care initiative was a debacle and even the liberals in her own party hate her. If this is the best the defeatocrats can do the republicans will be in excellent shape.
Let's just face it. Drudge lies.
It's just that she WILL be the next President. Can you think of any way this won't happen?
Yeah, for her to actually run against one of the leading Republican candidates. She polls well against a "mystery Republican", but not so well against the actual specific candidates.
Her self-declared qualifications are "experience" and that she represents "an alternative". But since none of the Republican candidates are affiliated with the Bush administration and one (McCain) is famously hostile to it, the "I'm an alternative" argument isn't going to fly. Nobody outside of the Democratic base looks at Giuliani or McCain and thinks "that's just George Bush all over again". That just leaves "experience", and her experience sucks compared to everyone in the field except (maybe) Fred Thompson. She's only "experienced" compared to the empty suits she's running against within the Democratic Party.
It'll come down to charisma, and she hasn't got any. Indeed, the majority of Americans apparently won't even consider voting for her, and she is the only one of the candidates from *either* party with a negative net approval rating -- she's only slightly more liked by voters (39%) than Bush was during 2006 (37%).
Looked at that Drudge photo and two words popped into my head:
Big Nurse.
The Real Audio that goes with the Hillary photo, from around Nov 10 2003, as covered first by Imus and crew, and then by Rush Limbaugh. First wives are mentioned.
Make that Real Audio date May 1 2003.
On the shriek problem and women, Anne Carson writes :
Very few women in public life do not worry that their voices are too high or too light or too shrill to command respect. Margaret Thatcher trained for years with a vocal coach to make her voice sound more like those of the other Honourable Members and still earned the nickname Attila The Hen.
(``The Gender of Sound'' in _Glass, Irony and God_ p.120)
That audio is really sexist.
It's obvious that she's trying to yell over the crowd noise. She needs proper sound equipment and the confidence that it works.
That kind of headline is par for the course with Drudge - anything to drum up traffic to his site. Photo is a pretty good example of how he portrays people he doesn't like.
DWPitelli sums it up nicely for me. (Note to DW: I'd be happy to give those 5:1 odds provided Edwards stays in the race until February)
But since none of the Republican candidates are affiliated with the Bush administration and one (McCain) is famously hostile to it, the "I'm an alternative" argument isn't going to fly. Nobody outside of the Democratic base looks at Giuliani or McCain and thinks "that's just George Bush all over again".
I would not be so sure about that. It seems to me that any Republican candidate, including someone like Chuck Hagel, will be hog-tied to George W. Bush for much of the election cycle. They are, after all, Republicans. The party leaders show no signs of having actually learned anything from the debacle in 2006, or the grassroots revolt over immigration.
Clinton is fundamentally not inevitable. Think about it. The very fact that her strategy since Day One has been to paint herself as the inevitable candidate and the inevitable president show weakness, not strength. She has no fresh ideas. She has no vigor. (And say what you will about Bill Clinton's deficiencies, he had plenty of both in 1992.)
I hasten to add that Clinton/Obama seems hard to beat. However, and this is a big however:
1. The Democrats already have the black vote wrapped up, and Illinois. There may be a lot of people who don't want to vote for a woman and a black person. That's not right, but you can't argue that it's not possible.
2. Clinton was utterly brilliant to select Gore for veep, in that he made his ticket not only young but also undeniably southern (because he had the populous northeast locked up). Clinton is not southern. The entire south, with the possible exception of Florida, is already wrapped up for the Republicans.
3. Bush is not running in 2008. If the Republicans put up a fresh face with good ideas, the Republicans absolutely can compete with Clinton. Recall that Bill Clinton never received a majority of the vote, and no Ross Perot appears on the horizon.
Also, Althouse: do you disagree that Clinton['s campaign has been centered around inevitability?
Seven: Not overtly. But it may be the secret theme.
"Hilary Clinton is a tax and spend liberal who will enbolden the terrorists to attack us again."
*rolls eyes*
I'm not a Hillary fan, in fact I think she's kind of a Bitch.... but, it's that kind of bullshit that will kill the Republican party in 2008! Seriously, you sound like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, some other conservative who feeds us the same old shit. opportunism at its finest, exploiting war and 9/11 is wrong. The problem is, most of the "arguments" are just hate filled propaganda, there is no substance. "Tax and spend liberal", hello what do you think you've gotten with Bush, and guess what Rudy Giuliani is going to do with war and social programs if / when he makes it into office?
"Hillary voted for it, now she is against Iraq - she must be a flip flopper!"
How about instead, you try an argument like:
Hillary Clinton didn't vote her conscience in 2004, everyone knew it, she made a political decision to support the Iraq War because she knew that it would sink her chances of becoming President if she didn't go with the Republican majority! Maybe that isn't what you believe, but in 2004 that is ALL that I heard on Republican talk radio, news, and at the dinner table! :)
But, flip flopper? Who the hell uses that term seriously any more? Should we expect all of our elections to come down to who can pull off the best sound byte just prior to the big day? Vote for me or the terrrorists win! Flip flop Flip Flop, YEEEEEEEEEEEEIAAAAAAAAAAH. Sound familiar? It should, because that is what passes for political discourse in America today.
We disrespect our country, American system of governance and ourselves with that kind of language. The worst part, is I feel like we've become such a lazy nation. Our scholars, students, researchers all bow down before the same arguments that Republican and Democratic strategists push on our "leaders".
We've lost a nation to partisan politics and the damn see-saw is heading the other way now. How do you fix it, simple: stop with the bullshit arguments and start promoting actual solutions to our nations problems.
Why are we so eager to rip politicians with the same rhetoric that they use or that we hear on TV? Have we become so damn simple-minded that we can't think for ourselves anymore? Sadly, many comments (I include many of my own) have dwindled down to the same b.s. you hear over and over again. What the hell is wrong with us?
God help our country, we have one heck of a mess on our hands. Sorry for being so 'mean', but every time I visit my favorite sites and see this stuff it makes me vewy angwy! :( I apologize in advance if I've offended anyone, I really just needed to get that off my chest.
What leglislation has she produced in the senate? What are her credentials other than Bill Clinton's wife? She is obviously not bright, doesn't know anything about foreign policy, her health care initiative was a debacle and even the liberals in her own party hate her. If this is the best the defeatocrats can do the republicans will be in excellent shape.
How can you say with a straight face after two terms under George W. Bush hint: he is not a Democrat God, you are dumb!
If you can't beat 'em, join em, right? =/
By the way, re: polls..., do you honestly think the Republican party has a chance with their current platform? The brains at HQ better start thinking about how to solve the jaded-and-pissed-off American problem, because it is going to bite everyone on the ass.
Wise up, go back to your principles.. I loved the former more traditional Republican party. The leaders we have and the new "voice" of conservative "thought" are as bad as radical liberals who refuse to reason or argue the merits of any political issues.
It is the "you're with us or against us" nonsense that has created such a hostile political environment. I just compared the Republican party with a radical group of annoying ass liberals and sadly there is very little difference in how both approach politics in 2007. I know I'm "right" on this point.
p.s. I'd tell the same to democrat crybabies if I bothered frequenting their sites for information, but they are the same as the "rebel" -- just on the other side of the coin.
I would like to respond to the last two posts.
Althouse -- I really do think "inevitability" is the secret theme or maybe a better term would be the meta-theme of Clinton's campaign.
Fred -- Flip-flopper worked because that's exactly what John Kerry was. "Al Gore invented the Internet" worked because it encapsulated a problem that Gore had, which was that he stretched the truth to make himself look good too often. "Malaise" worked against Carter because the guy was full of malaise and so were his policies, even though he apparently never uttered the word "malaise" in his "malaise speech." "Read my lips" worked against Bush I because it showed what a sellout he was.
All these things -- and there are many more -- are nothing more than branding. Companies work really hard to get a few simple words out there related to their product in your head. Political types do the same thing, just most often it works against the opponent.
Also, you say "we have one heck of a mess on our hands." That's just not true, and it wasn't true under Bill Clinton. Things could be much better, but it's no mess.
All of that said, you make many good points. You are certainly right to argue that Bush has been a big-spending liberal. Why does the left hate him so much for that.
Grr.. one last thing:
3. Bush is not running in 2008. If the Republicans put up a fresh face with good ideas, the Republicans absolutely can compete with Clinton. Recall that Bill Clinton never received a majority of the vote, and no Ross Perot appears on the horizon.
Isn't that what we thought in 2006? Bush is running, and if you think otherwise.. I'd like to know why? People are very mad, I know I am... and I'd say half of Americans that vote probably couldn't tell the difference between any of the top candidates running for President, guess what? They are going to vote against Bush. Oh, but he isn't running is he? You better believe he is!
When I say "We have a big mess on our hands" I meant with regards to political discourse in America. Not Bush/Iraq stuff.
My guess is the left resents Bush supporters for the "big government" accusation, without recognizing what has happened to our government since Bush took office. Or maybe it is the idea that, neo-cons love big government, as long as it suits their needs (the way liberals do)
But forget the taxes, forget the trillion dollar debt we'll have soon, if you want to know why people like *me* hate GW - it's the patriot act! I want my privacy / liberty rights restored, and until that happens I'm going to be in pitbull attack mode on all forces that threaten my rights. That includes Mitt "I want to double Guantanamo Bay" Romney.
Believe it or not, Giuliani was my #1 for a long time... I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter due to his 'principled' more traditional views and the fact that I can't stand the Michael Moore / Ann Coulter era of politics. I used to think Rush Limbaugh was pretty intense, now I long for the days when we just had Rush :P I actually read a lot of his stuff online, now. Unlike Coulter the entertainer, he has a brilliant mind. :)
Fred -- I urge you to read Witness by Whittaker Chambers to get a sense of the terrible political discourse that went on in the ostensibly idyllic era of the 1940s and 1950s.
As for the Patriot Act, how has it encumbered your liberty in any way? I think there are good grounds to argue against it, I am just skeptical that you (or I, or anyone here) is affected by it. I am honestly, earnestly curious.
ann,
i thought you were an independent?
actually, you're full of shit.
once hillary debates any of the republicans you can kiss the republicans adios. (that's spanish for good-bye...for those who never speak to their gardener.)
seven has never heard of the 4th amendment or habeus corpus.
how is that possible?
well...he's just plain...dumb.
once hillary debates any of the republicans you can kiss the republicans adios.
I recall the same thing being said about Al Gore.
I have here a list of all the memorable things Hillary Clinton has ever said and all the great speeches she has ever given:
.
Fred,
Simplistic it may be but if it's accurate, it's going to be hard to shake. She may be a "tax and spend liberal" (though, so is Bush, obviously, given the taxing, spending and liberal expansion of gov't powers).
The Reps had a philosophy and they sold it for pork. The Dems have done the same thing and the platform they were elected on was pretty modest ("We'll suck less than the Republicans!"). It's a race to the bottom. It seems as though the race belongs to the third party. Whoever the third party candidates draw the most votes from is going to lose.
Seven: Does this concern you at all? Secret courts, secret charges, against the law to tell anyone about it even though charges were dropped. This is how we are treating American citizens in the 21st century? And some folks here think this is a fine idea? Count me out.
It does bother me. That's why I said "there are good grounds to argue against" the Patriot Act. There are good reasons to amend it. All law should be amended, constantly and forever.
On the bright side, it appears that this individual is not completely without redress.
Also, I am curious to know what is involved in the underlying investigation.
Thanks for clarifying. So am I, and it is obvious he wants to, but he is prohibited from telling us by some secret court that issues secret orders to, renders secret judgments on, and, presumably, orders secret incarcerations of American citizens. They presumably have the right of appeal, in secret. How is anyone to know if, as in this case,although the whole thing is theoretically over, anyone involved can be hauled off to jail for talking about it? What does that guy have to do, wait for them to declassify it in 25 years?
Macho:
Societal expectations and a Right to Privacy
I'm brown skinned, so I automatically fall under 'potential suspect' when I enter airports. Fine, I dealt with the inconvenience when I traveled between Madison, Wisconsin and Texas. I was taken aside and inspected at least once before each each flight, sometimes a second time at the gate. I'm not a threatening looking kind of guy, nor am I as in-your-face with people that aren't sparring over politics! Life was never screwy like that before, and luckily now that I'm in CA it happens less often. That's probably because there are so many more brown people here than in WI.
Free Speech
When I first started blogging, I had a number of government sponsored and paid agencies visiting my blog --I admit it was an angry political blog and often mentioned George W. Bush. I probably deserved initial 'website scrutiny', but I've experienced and witnessed a number of things that lead me to believe I may be on some terrorist watch list. It angers me and the experiences (which I won't list here) coupled with a damn helicopter hovering very closely above my place of residence frequently... (sometimes 6 to 10 times a day) is starting to really upset me. Now, the helicopter may be coincidence - but the surveillance or whatever it is suspiciously began soon after I'd written some highly passionate pieces that mimicked ANN COULTER'S language, only they were channeled at Bush! *roar*
The Mexican threat to American prosperity
The borders are now a security threat issue, as if that is going to stop a damn lunatic from attacking American interests. I was in El Paso when an agent shot and killed a Mexican for crossing the border. It bothers me that a country founded by immigrants would stoop to accepting such idiots to 'secure' our border from the Mexican threat. I know we don't have to provide a haven for everyone, but I would hate to destroy the "dream" of America for anyone that is trying to simply 'survive' and make things better for their family.
Privacy Rights
I can't stand that the government can impose themselves on peoples' lives without 'reason', as long as some schmoe with an Ivy League degree considers me or anyone a potential suspect, that schmoe can acquire private financial statements, phone records, online activity, and medical records without a warrant!
One liberty I've lost as an American is the right to proudly call myself American? I've lost the right to say what I believe, feel and think about our country because some strategist thought it would be clever to paint dissenting opinions as unamerican or unpatriotic. McCarthyism is back and our own government sponsors it, that is a problem for me!
Part of why such an aggressive government is 'acceptable' now, is because the Patriot Act (oh, the irony) gives our President and his monkeys authority to do just about anything as long as it is "believed" that someone is a potential terrorist. We've given too much power to the government and I would like to personally rip it out of governments hands and slap uncle sam's face a few times for allowing "security" and fear of the shadow warriors to destroy the core foundation of our country - Liberty.
I am just one American, but I truly believe we've given our government a right to carry out terrorist activities of its own. What sucks most about government sponsored terrorism, is when American citizens are the victims of the terror.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
AMERICANS pay the price when our government is empowered as much as it has been The fact that we live our lives (as citizens) in fear of terrorism and on the verge of Bankruptcy should raise questions within anyone who considers America a free nation. Finally, we may owe allies for decades to come as a result of our acceptance of foolish policymaking! Anyone who champions the Constitution should refuse Bush's idea of American patriotism and fight against the Act that has given Bush unlimited power over our "free society".
Luckily, Bush has burned a lot of bridges with the Republican party and hopefully party leaders (and you guys) will help return the party to its limited government / principled policy roots.
Haha, Blake, so true!
Democrats: We'll suck less than the Republicans!
You know what's sad? That may be all it takes for them to takeover the White House, House and Senate.
Ouch!
Seven Machos said... "You are certainly right to argue that Bush has been a big-spending liberal. Why does the left hate him so much for that."
Because, inreference to the decider in chief, you left out the word "lying" and he is no liberal..trust me on that one..so the phrase "lying big spender" is more to the point.
and then 7 goes on with an attempt to be droll:
"I have here a list of all the memorable things Hillary Clinton has ever said and all the great speeches she has ever given: ...hahaha then he leaves a biggggg space"
Well thats rather an astounding take following close on the heels of a president for whom English is clearly a second language, badly learned, even worse in application.
After reading this thread top to bottom, even with the dubious Drudge origins, it sure looks like the neoGOPs have never stopped hating Bill Clinton and have morphed that hatred over to Hillary without loosing a beat. Moreover, there is no positive agenda put forth other than "I hate Hillary therefore vote GOP".
Hey, as lawyers must be taught from day one in law school, if you don't have a winning case yell louder.
It seems to me that any Republican candidate, including someone like Chuck Hagel, will be hog-tied to George W. Bush for much of the election cycle. They are, after all, Republicans.
The public does not view all Republicans as equivalent, as is demonstrated by the fact that Rudy still has strong positives despite Bush being only slightly more popular than rectal cancer.
As for party loyalty, the party doesn't have much loyalty to Bush at this point. Even if he WASN'T dragging the party popularity down with his negative approval rating he's still a lame duck, and Presidential candidates have never refrained from bashing a lame duck President of their own party when doing so served their interests. It is even easier to do so in Bush's case, because he has made it so easy to attack him AS A REPUBLICAN for his spending, his excesses, his bad management, et al.
Sure, they might lose Bush's support if they start bashing his performance -- but is that a bad thing? In the California governor's elections here in California, Schwarzenegger basically told Bush to stay out of the state and not campaign for him, and that worked beautifully.
Anyway, you're right that the party leaders are out of touch, but the candidates (except McCain) aren't among the leadership. The immigration debacle showed that they're a lot more in step with Republican values than the Republican leadership is.
Seriously, you sound like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, some other conservative who feeds us the same old shit.
That's like saying "you sound like one of those leftists like Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, or Joe Lieberman". You've got to be pretty darn far out to the Left before Giuliani makes sense on any list of "conservatives" next to Coulter, Limbaugh, and Bush.
It's just that she WILL be the next President.
Can you think of any way this won't happen?
Yes. Hillary, the Great Unifier, addressing a national audience whom can no longer avoid paying attention, rising out of the woodwork to prevent suffering a shrill haridan for president.
Rev: I thought that might be misinterpreted. Rudy Giuliani is a lefty in disguise, so NO I wasn't calling him an extremist.
The point I trying to make was that exploiting war, 9/11 (and I'll throw in Christianity) is evil. This is a problem we've had with people like Rudy, Ann, Rush, and the only reason you are OK with it is that it hurts the 'idiots' on the other side of the political spectrum. On principle, I think distorting reality and perception to crush an opponent is disingenuous and shouldn't be encouraged as a tool for political manipulation.
I also didn't mean to call out all conservatives who fall within a specific frame of thinking. I'm just calling out the tactic used to deceive the millions of sheep that live among us.
fred soto spouts so many misconceptions, i'm doubting his republian bona fides:
"war rhetoric ala Bush in 2000"
really? what war was he talking about in 2000?
"though I suppose American people were dumb enough to fall for Swift Boat idiots"
yeah, imagine that. veterans that said they had no respect for him for his posing and slandering of them as murderers. are you saying they lied about their own opinions or that Kerry never slandered them?
what made these veterans more "idiotic" than Kerry?
"Falwell died - another big loss for the right. (Go Pat!?)"
more of a loss for fundraising on the left. no more scaring people with Boo! Falwell!
"I was taken aside and inspected at least once before each each flight, sometimes a second time at the gate. I'm not a threatening looking kind of guy, nor am I as in-your-face with people that aren't sparring over politics! Life was never screwy like that before"
before what, 9/11? and your point is what? airport security was too lax before 9/11, too tight now, and you want goldilocks security that is just right?
"I'm just calling out the tactic used to deceive the millions of sheep that live among us."
they can't fool The Republican, Soto! man, I got so tired of this tactic in '04: "I'm a hardcore warmongering christianist republican, but I just can't vote for Bush this time because he won't nationalize healthcare, repeal the 2nd amendment, or raise taxes."
I'm a hardcore warmongering christianist republican, but I just can't vote for Bush this time because he won't nationalize healthcare, repeal the 2nd amendment, or raise taxes.
Agreed. Soto raised my eyebrows with his criticism of Bush's "you're either with us or against us" line. Thats been a common distortion of the Left, and makes me suspicious. Republicans who support the war understand the context: the line was directed at nation-states, not individuals. It was meant to warn nations that they could not remain "neutral" by allowing terrorists to set up shop inside their borders. Sorry Soto, but you do appear to be a "concern troll". We'll see.
hdhouse: so the phrase "lying big spender" is more to the point.
Where has Bush actually lied? Specifics please.
fen asks....and with a straight face?
"Where has Bush actually lied? Specifics please."
well...how about:
1. i'm not into nation-building
2, aluminum tubes
3. yellow cake-anthrax-chemical wagons
4. WMD
5. brownie's doing a heck of a job
6. we're not wiretapping without warrants
7. i know nothing about the outing of plame
8. i felt libby's sentence was excessive
9. we're "winning" in iraq
10. al queda is behind all terrorism
11. i never discussed the firing of the u.s. attorneys
need more...??
fen,
speaking of lying liars and the lies they tell:
there's g.w..'s bff gonzo:
As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers.
"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.
Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have.
It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.
"I was taken aside and inspected at least once before each each flight, sometimes a second time at the gate.
Excuse me for not crying you a river. Guess what, I'm as white as Wonder bread and I've been givin the 'step over here please' treatment about 4 times in the last 3 years I have been flying. Last trip to Disney World, wife was pulled aside for the same thing which of course bothered my 8 year old daughter who thought mommy was in trouble.
Perhaps we just need to go back to turning a blind eye so no one is 'offended'. Allah forbid.
I know we don't have to provide a haven for everyone, but I would hate to destroy the "dream" of America for anyone that is trying to simply 'survive' and make things better for their family.
Well from what I can see, anyone who uses this line of thinking seems to feel that the only border that should be unmonitored is the Southern one. If your'e from Europe or Africa, tough, fill out the paperwork and BCICS will be with you in a decade or so.
But that's not racist.
It is scary to me that so many people on the far left cannot differentiate among (1) lying, (2) being wrong, and (3) changing your decision based on new facts.
Excuse me for not crying you a river. Guess what, I'm as white as Wonder bread and I've been givin the 'step over here please' treatment about 4 times in the last 3 years I have been flying.
And I have been given the "step over here, please" treatment somewhere along the line at least once on every trip I have made since 9/11/01 (probably because I am travelling alone with no checked baggage).
It is scary to me that so many people on the far left cannot differentiate among (1) lying, (2) being wrong, and (3) changing your decision based on new facts
The problem is that the prevailing wisdom among many now is that Bush and Co. deliberately manipulated intelligence regarding Iraq. That said you may as well plan on flying to the moon versus trying to debate the issue. Give them Clinton quotes about Saddam and WMDs and you get that deer in the headlights look.
When debating stuff with the Left, I am reminded of a Letterman show when Kevin Pollack was doing his Christopher Walken impersonation and Pollack remarked how conversations with Walken are so disjointed.
Pollack: Hey Chris, how you doing?
Walken: Frankenstein never scared me.
Pollack: Scuse me?
Walken: Marsupials scare me. Cause they’re fast. And they dart. That’s crazy.
That’s what I see when Lucky or HD start posting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcKQGiih8_A
And I have been given the "step over here, please" treatment somewhere along the line at least once on every trip I have made since 9/11/01
I've gotten it pretty regularly, although not every trip.
War Rhetoric
comment re: 2000, 2004 -- There were two contrasting types of war rhetoric, but it was rhetoric nonetheless. In 2000, Bush wanted to be a peacemaker, he wanted to save Americans from Bill Clinton's war-mongering ways. He spread a message of the importance of bipartisan and being 'good' Americans. Together, we would escape the warmongering and corruption that was a result of Bill Clinton's poor values and judgment. In 2004 -- Bush was more of the man he set out to destroy, than the man he wanted us to believe he was as he entered his first term.
On Security:
I've learned to live with the inconvenience, but it is kind of embarrassing to me when I am the only person pulled aside. Good chance my skin tone had something to do with that. I would gladly take the inconvenience of airport security over giving terrorists access to hurt my friends, family and American citizens. However, I can never agree with giving government full access to citizen records without a warrant or a more stringent system than is currently in place. The problem I was trying to share has more to do with people that carry out our law. Racial profiling, racism, ignorance, play a strong role in the blunders that have occurred in our attempt to be a more "secure" nation.
Ideology
I don't recall declaring myself Republican, I often use words like "our" or "we" to refer to Americans or people of like mind. My personal and political views are spread throughout the spectrum, I do appreciate limited government and strongly favor our Constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges over fear-driven policy that neo-cons are selling and bloated government that has become a mainstay in American government. If you must label me, I guess you can call me libertarian; I love Ron Paul's mind and I'm not embarrassed to say so.
I used to call myself Democrat, then as I became more conservative I shifted to "Clintonian Democrat", through the years I've been seeking conservatism the way I seek the evangelical faith. (my parents and siblings are very religious) I usually 'attempt' to think outside of the bounds of political parties, but there is no respect in that today. Thinking independently instantly brands people as participating in flip floppery! :) I guess the truth is: I hate institutions of all types, be it governmental or religious because the people that run the institutions are susceptible to corruption and evil. I was recently called a conservative asshole and a "left of left" pundit off of an article I wrote that attempted to attack what I perceive as injustice and abuse of American trust. ("partisan hackery")I despise that our American system of governance is determined by sound-bytes and deceptive language.
The net result is you end up with a lot of misinformed people who follow the least slandered leaders or policy beliefs. What kind of democracy is that? It is a tainted Democracy and we should try and alleviate the problem.
Is Hillary inevitable?
I don't know. Does she belong on this list?
1) Death
2) Taxes
Seven Machos said...
It is scary to me that so many people on the far left cannot differentiate among (1) lying, (2) being wrong, and (3) changing your decision based on new facts."
1) granted, Bush lied. his administration lied. 2.) they discounted "wrong" in favor of lying 3.) they have flipflopped so often on the Iraq rationale that it is now spelled Iran and we are on a war course with them.
Tell me, 7, how many lies is your threshold? 2? 30? how many?
hoosier: "
The problem is that the prevailing wisdom among many now is that Bush and Co. deliberately manipulated intelligence regarding Iraq."
probably because we actually read.
try it sometime.
Lucky said:
probably because we actually read.
Whose we? Tell me, was the Clinton Administration lying or using the intel that they had? What did they read? Did Clinton destroy all the WMDs during Operation Desert Fox.
Don't wait for the translation, tell us now.
In 2000, Bush [was one way], In 2004 [he was different]
Why, its almost as if some major event happened to the United States between 2000 and 2004 that changed a lot of people's attitudes about American foreign policy and war. We've narrowed the date down to sometime in later 2001, but the exact day remains hard to pin down...
I acknowledge that much of the left holds the same set-in-concrete worldviews today that they held on September 10, 2001 -- but while it may be impossible for YOU to believe, the fact is that many Americans seriously re-evaluated their opinions about America's relationship to the rest of the world, the Muslim world in particular, after the 9/11 attacks. Bush was one such person.
In any case, bashing Bush for changing his mind about nation-building is hypocritical unless you *also* believe that our nation-building activities in Afghanistan are wrong. If, like most Americans, you think rebuilding Afghanistan is a smart move and Iraq is a waste of time then you've got no right at all to bash Bush for nation-building -- you favor Bush's nation-building yourself, just not ALL of it.
the left holds the same set-in-concrete worldviews today that they held on September 10, 1901. This group of people is stale and the opposite of progressive.
Really, far-left kooks: it's time for a revitalization. Just the other day I heard another far-left kook talk about how great things are in socialist Sweden. Never mind that things are manifestly not great there and that Sweden now has a center-right government. For the left, apparently, the litany and the mantra will never change, regardless of the facts on the ground.
What facts are you talking about, Macho-- I hope you aren't including me in your attacks?
Rev: Are you suggesting that by 'not thinking like a Republican' you must be ignorant to the world around you?
As for 9/11, the condescending and sarcastic lines don't help your argument, because it shows that you aren't willing to discuss the issue you'd rather participate in the 'non-Republicans' are idiots kind of discourse. Yes, there are people who 'think differently' that love our country, dealt with the tragedy of 9/11, and are trying to help our country the way 'you' are trying to help.
I had friends experience serious trauma and lose family members on 9/11. I have over ten family members that participated in wars dating back to world war II and several are in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. I love them, I am proud of my history and family and yes, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Nazi's, -whatever-, they are all affected by this problem. Stop belittling and disrespecting your adversaries and try to understand why people feel the way they do and why they think the way they do. The reason I talked about 2000 and 2004 was to explain that war rhetoric IS in fact used for political reasons. It still is, you just slammed me with the UnAmerican / unPatriotic line of attack, only you did it in a more pleasant way than most assholes who use that language.
As for the rest of your statements: We have to ask ourselves, are we at "war" with terrorism or Islam/Muslims? Are they one and the same now, because they weren't in the wake of 9/11. The rhetoric after 9/11 was that it was a bunch of "shadow warriors... men with no face", which helped build the case for fighting a tactic that we find heinous and they find 'honorable'.
Al Qaida laid claim to the attack on the United States and even told us the 'reasons' they attacked us and they are up to no good again as they are planning something heinous, but as you say we are at war with Islam now, and a people will never bow down when their religion is attacked and they will resort to atrocious behavior to defend those beliefs.. I am not saying any attacks on civilians are justified, far from it. What I am suggesting is that so many people choose to ignore history, and as you argue, a lot of revisionist history does take place but it happens on all sides of the issue not just the left.
It is a vicious cycle of political friction, it is a stupid cycle we need to break. We have ourselves to blame for accepting political discourse under the terms of our so-called party "leaders".
Lucky: probably because we actually read.
So it should be easy for you to provide proof that Bush deliberately lied about WMDs in Iraq. Still waiting...
Also, since you can read, do you understand the difference between WMDs and a WMD program? Do you even know what WMDs are? Three types, please list them...
Don't hurt yourself, like last time [attacking in ignorance of links between the Baath & Nazi parties. That was rich]
Rev: Are you suggesting that by 'not thinking like a Republican' you must be ignorant to the world around you?
I didn't mention "thinking like a Republican"... whatever that's supposed to mean.
As for 9/11, the condescending and sarcastic lines don't help your argument, because it shows that you aren't willing to discuss the issue you'd rather participate in the 'non-Republicans' are idiots kind of discourse.
Fred, anyone who whines about Bush's foreign-policy shift without realizing that 9/11 caused it IS an idiot, whether that person is a Republican or otherwise. If you want to be treated like a grown-up, start thinking like one.
We have to ask ourselves, are we at "war" with terrorism or Islam/Muslims?
Legally speaking we are at war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both of which are, of course, entirely Muslim. Metaphorically we are at war with radical Islam.
One more thing:
a people will never bow down when their religion is attacked and they will resort to atrocious behavior to defend those beliefs.
Islam is, of course, the aggressive party here. If Muslims feel that they are being "attacked" then that is because Muslims are ignorant of reality.
They can bow down or they can be put down. Either result is fine with me.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा