October 13, 2008
"I understand that there's a deep human impulse to vehemently deny that subliminal messages are effective or even being attempted."
Jac thinks McCain is responsible for manipulating people into thinking that Obama is a terrorist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
211 comments:
1 – 200 of 211 Newer› Newest»jac is, apparently, a very callow youth with a limited understanding of American political campaigns. Nepotism does not befit this blog
Howard Stern fines many supporting Obama because is he pro life and has Sarah Palin as his running mate
Amazing. Those crazy subliminal McCain messages!
McCain is obviously doing a poor job of associating Obama with terrorism since he's still down in the polls.
That said, it would be better if the McCain campaign had used the term "domestic terrorist," just to be clear.
It's not a very effective attack ad but you wonder if part of McCain just wants to remind everyone of what an asshole Bill Ayers is. Spoiled rich kid who blew up some buildings while McCain's rotting away in a POW camp.
And the big problem with Ayers is he's still the same punk he always was, writing in 2001 how he wished he had set off more bombs. At the very least, Obama won't be talking to him anymore, and other people will now be forced to shun Ayers.
So it's a good ad. Bill Ayers should be shunned. He's a piece of shit.
And his books on education and efforts at school reform have been worthless as well. The Chicago Public schools, for the most part, are terrible.
So Bill Ayers was a failure as a domestic terrorist and he's a failure now.
And now Barack Obama will never speak to him again.
Oh, so (Obama's a terrorist) that's what (Obama's a terrorist) Jac thinks (Obama's a terrorist) is it? Tell me, (Obama's a terrorist) how does this (Obama's a terrorist) subliminal messaging (Obama's a terrorist) work anyway? (Obama's a terrorist) I'm curious. Ha ha ha. (Obama's a terrorist) That Jac, (Obama's a terrorist) he's such a kidder.
Subliminal messages, like polygraph machines, are modern-day black magic. There is little evidence that they actually work.
Chip,
LOL! This is such unadulterated nonsense that the best course of action is to treat it that way!
Oh......and go Rays!!!
Roger J: If a blog never links to something disagreeable, then it never exposes its readers to alternate viewpoints. The readers spiral into themselves so tightly that they end up with their heads buried firmly in their butts, and they sniff their own assholes and claim that it's roses.
revenant, I agree and I'd say more, but I'm really concerned suddenly that Obama is a terrorist, and I'm not sure why.
I saw this old and senile man today in downtown Madison.
John McCain is pretty old, isn't he?
Anyway, this old and senile man was angry and shouting at everyone around. It was pretty scary.
John McCain can curse a blue streak -- he was in the Navy and could get really angry.
This really old and angry senile old man I saw was wearing a Navy hat too and cursing out everyone very angrily.
I don't know what jac is talking about. I just know that this old angry senile old ex-navy man was shouting and really angry in downtown Madison today.
Was McCain in Wisconsin today?
I understand that there's a deep human impulse to vehemently deny that subliminal messages are effective or even being attempted. The notion that our thoughts are susceptible to being manipulated makes people mad.
I understand that there's a deep human impulse to vehemently deny that ACORN is being effective, or even being attempted. The notion that our votes are susceptible to being manipulated makes people mad.
BHO's problem is that he we don't know him, as the McCain campaign has repeatedly reminded us in a variety of ways. But, we do know Palin.
And, of course he's not like you.
Unlike the situation with BHO, folks do feel that they know Palin. This makes sense since (regardless of vetting and time on the national stage) she is something that BHO will never be: as she explicitly puts it herself; she's one of us.
Hire her because she's one of us. Catchy slogan--One Of Us.
Regardless of the association, can we all be clear that Ayers is a pariah, worthy of being shunned?
Anyone who claims that Ayers has now been rehabilitated is just full of s*it, and I'm sorry if that includes your son Ann.
Obama's passion goes over the edge.
That's a subliminal message. There's an equation between two senses of passion that you don't notice.
This is just funny. I'm sorry.
Subliminal or not, the message is truth. Reformed?? Just because a few people say so? Give me a break, please.
Then why is he "just a guy who lives in the neighborhood" to Obama?
Just crap. Sorry. If you don't want to be tagged with hanging around with domestic terrorists - "reformed" or not - then don't hang around with them, sir.
Keep wearing your tinfoil hat, Jac, so the mother ship can find you and take you home.
And thank you, chickenlittle. :)
I obviously didn't see yours before I posted.
sorry, I should have said "reformed" instead of "rehabilitated", but Jac is still full of sh*t.
jac is, apparently, a very callow youth with a limited understanding of American political campaigns. Nepotism does not befit this blog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I don't understand holding politicians responsible for some Americans' stupidity. There are plenty of people who would swear up and down that Bush claimed Saddam had nukes, or was somehow responsible for 9/11, when he never did anything of the sort. The same problem here - some people will hear the name Obama and terrorist in a sentence and think "Muslim".
There was nothing "subliminal" about Obama saying McCain wanting to wage war in Iraq for 100 years, or seriously thinking you had to make $5 million to be considered rich. It was just typical dirty politics. But somehow I'm supposed to think he's above all that? Sorry, no.
Oh, you silly Althouses and your subliminal-message fixation!
And his books on education and efforts at school reform have been worthless as well. The Chicago Public schools, for the most part, are terrible.
I note that as far as I can tell BHO has never ever attended a public school in his life? And certainly would not allow his children to attend a Hyde Park school (with Ayers kids, LOL, :) much less a Chicago Public school with or without CAC money. I don't know if they have been attending Rev Wright's Sunday School though.
As for associations, clearly BHO has been doing the "McCain is Old" thing.
On the Ayers topic, He's an unrepentant terrorist, self proclaimed many times over the last 40 years, most recently in 2007.
My dear boy, was Senator McCain wearing a night shirt with the words terrorist written on it or did you just imagine it?
Sorry about my ignorance about your family, Prof. Althouse, but didn't one of your sons experience Obama's thuggish Chicago-style politics first-hand when they tried to caucus, and they were told something like "you can leave now, your vote will be counted"?
I found this interesting documentary put together by Clinton supporters the other day:
http://www.wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm
How anybody can watch that documentary and not be absolutely disgusted is beyond me. Now, I suppose that Obamatons will claim that it wasn't The One that was responsible for these shenanigans, just other Obamatons.
And the fact that Obama once worked with ACORN, and promised to give them a hand in setting the agenda for his presidency, and gave them $800,000, has nothing to do with those 10,000 fraudulent registrations that they found in Cincinnati, and those 8,000 the found in Cleveland. That's just coincidence. Again, these people are just beyond Obama's control.
He's brought Chicago machine politics to the national stage. How any law professor, of all things, can support this guy is beyond me.
and chickenlittle is entirely correct about anyone who would call Ayers a "reformed, productive member of society."
Think for a minute about McCain's favorite description of Ayers: "unrepentant terrorist." Can't find anything wrong with that. And it seems that any true reform must necessarily include repentance.
fred4pres wrote: Howard Stern fines many supporting Obama because is he pro life and has Sarah Palin as his running mate
Come again?
"My dear boy, was Senator McCain wearing a night shirt with the words terrorist written on it or did you just imagine it?"
Hah! And the Baron wins!
Jac,
BHO has been tying McCain associates with bad bad Bush and doing the McCain is old schtick.
why is the BHO associates with TerroristAyers and Dohrn any worse? Ayer and Dohrn are terrorists.
jac wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
??
You should defend your statement that Ayers has been reformed. By whose standards?
Should you not be concentrating on the hip new music young Master Althouse Cohen. I hear if you play Clay Aikens latest single backwards it says "Barry is an Arab Terrorist."
You must investigate. We breathlessly await your report.
Don't worry John, if Obama loses, McCain's poor attempt to use Rovian Mind Control will be the least of reasons for people rioting.
People were mean to Jesus too, comes with the whole messiah thing. It was "wine" at the Last Supper, not "whine".
The price of oil is going down. Says McCain.
Oil is black, Obama is black.
Oh, that subliminal McCain is at it again ;)
jac makes an excellent point. First, lacking other reasons to oppose him, Obama's opponents have specialized in guilt by association: Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, his briefly present father's Islam, etc. etc.
Second, by running commercials saying little more than "Obama" and "terrorist" they obviously want to associate Obama with terrorism.
A similarly unfair association is used by the animal rights commercial airing in California. If enacted, the proposition will mandate more room for farm animals. It will primarily affect egg-laying chickens, raising the cost of eggs some 25%, effectively replacing California eggs with Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Mexican eggs, as well as increasing the price of the only animal protein pregnant and nursing women can buy with their WIC coupons.
But the ad irrelevantly shows a downed heifer being jabbed with the forks of a lift truck. As far as I can tell, such cruelty is already prohibited by statute, and this proposition would not address that issue. But the commercial gives the impression that voting for this proposition will end heifer jabbing in California.
Obama's no terrorist but he sure didn't object to hanging out with Bill Ayers all those years. As for the notion that Ayers is no terrorist, the Weather Unhderground was preparing to explode a nail bomb at an enlisted men's dance at Fort Dix when the bomb went up prematurely and blew up a Greenwich Village townhouse.
Even if Ayers didn't personally kill anyone, some of the people with whom he co-founded the Weather Underground went on to kill three people (including a black cop) in a Brink's armored truck robbery.
Obama knew all this when he was endorsing Ater's education books. It just didn't bother him. The Weather Underground, as he saw it, had their hearts in the right place. They just went a little too far. They should have planted fewer bombs and aplied for more grants.
Didn't you teach jac that if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas? I don't think that BHO is a terrorist, but I think he is entlirely too comfortable hangin' with the lefty version of Timothy McVeigh. Only difference between Ayers and McVeigh is political orientation and competence.
Why I believe that harlot Sarah Palin thrust out her breasts at the last rally to dazzle the populace.
We need a post dissecting this evil ploy.
Things would sure be a lot more interesting if someone were to turn up a couple of old Nazi political allies for McCain. He was only 9 years old in 1945.
Jac said...All of that rhetoric is carefully constructed to avoiding mentioning that Obama has only associated with Ayers long after he became a reformed, productive member of society.
Ayers and Dohrn declared war on the United States. I don't recall a Peace Treaty.
They still say they'd bomb again and wish they had done more. here is a nice piece from 1998 with Connie Chung.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQsYzBlXK6M
If you want more, go search YOUTUBE for MSU SDS
You know that no one ever asked Frank Sinatra Jr his opinion on music.
I wonder why.
Hmm...back to pointy breasts, are we?? :)
I think the Althouse blog is subliminal. I can't stop reading it.
Obama's opponents have specialized in guilt by association: Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, his briefly present father's Islam, etc. etc.
If McCain had attended Westboro Baptist for 20 years and worked closely with Terry Nichols the Left would, of course, never think to suggest that this might raise questions about his moral character and judgment. Why, that would merely be "guilt by association"; all sorts of normal Americans hang out with terrorist bombers and attend crazy churches.
It is particularly funny to hear a leftie whine about "guilt by association" in the Rezko case, considering how many times the Keating Five scandal -- in which McCain was cleared of wrongdoing by a Democrat-led Congressional investigation -- has been mentioned.
Do you really think OJ's criminal trial on the eve of the election was a coincidence?
Repeat after me.
The hidden hand... of subliminal McCain... at it again.
@JAC:
Years ago as a college student at Madison, I attended the opening night premiere of The War At Home , a film that chronicles the antiwar left in Madison. In the film, photos of the four domestic terrorists responsible for the Sterling Hall blast appear. The photo of Leo Burt, the only one of the four still at large, was met with rousing cheers. That shameless sentiment, apparently still embodied within Ayers, is precisely why Ayers is not reformed.
mccullough said...
So Bill Ayers was a failure as a domestic terrorist and he's a failure now.
And now Barack Obama will never speak to him again.
At least not until November 5.
Obama has specialized in associating with the guilty.
ah jac: using wikipedia continues to mark you as as callow.
try again. I know the logical fallacies far better than you. But let me spell this out for you: the kinds of arguments you are seeing, apparently for the first time, have been a fixture in American politics since the federalists passed the alien and sedition acts. My point was to look at some historical perspective. That was the sense I used callow: youthful and uninformed--and you reaffirmed my assessment. spend the next several years of your life informing yourself--then we'll talk
One thing that yet again is missing from this discussion: A clear reason to vote for McCain.
Vote for me! I'm not the other guy!
As a campaign slogan, that doesn't work. Too bad McCain's attempts at branding have absolutely no traction. Let me guess: it's all the MSM's fault. (Yet somehow, 'tho he cannot brand himself, McCain's subliminal messaging is working? Sorry, I don't buy it).
Its a legitimate issue. Why *was* Obama paling around with a domestic terrorist? Why hasn't he thrown Ayers under the bus? And BTW, why is ANYONE befriending Ayers?
Same with Wright. Its a legitimate issue raised by Clinton - why was Barry sitting in a church listening to "G*d Damn America"?
I hope Obama wins, but its a legitimate issue.
Didn't you teach jac that if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas?
You can lie down with dogs and get up without fleas. I do it all the time.
The rod and reproof are what give wisdom, but a boy left on the loose will be causing his mother shame ;)
Proverb 29: 15
MM:
LOL
Vote for me! I'm not Bush!
Things would sure be a lot more interesting if someone were to turn up a couple of old Nazi political allies for McCain. He was only 9 years old in 1945.
Well, if McCain were to be associating closely for the last 10 years or so, with ex-nazi's and SS guards who stated that they wished they had killed more jews and were not in the least sorry about torturing and gassing jews, I would think that would be a rather relevant issue.
It doesn't matter how old Obama was when Ayers was in his active terrorist state. What matters is that he associated with him NOW.
This shows that either
1. Obama is an idiot and unable to make judegements about other people's character or how those types of people might affect his future ambitions.
or.
2. Obama agrees with the philosophy and actions of Bill Ayers.
Or
3.BOTH.
Madison Man: the clear reason I have for voting for McCain is that he is not Obama and I do not want Obama to be president. Thus I cast my ballot against Obama. You may not agree with my reason, but thats your issue and not mine.Hope that answers your question.
Why has no one mentioned the great Kevin Nealon's subliminal guy skits. Great stuff.
Former law student,
Nice try with tossing in Rezko with the Ayers and Wright associations.
Repeat after me: In 2005, when Barack Obama was 43 years old, Tony Rezko, while Barack Obama knew he was under federal investigation for corruption, helped Obama buy his $1.5 million house.
This is not an "association." This is a recent transaction with a corrupt guy. Now, maybe Obama didn't do anything wrong (we have only Obama's word to go on since Rezko hasn't publicly said anything) but we won't know until an investigation is done.
So Obama, like McCain, while being a pretty decent and smart guy has also displayed some very poor judgment, at the least, and has exhibited some attributes that are pretty typical of most politicians.
If Obama were truly the most honorable man in the world, he would have demanded that the Senate Ethics Committee investigate his dealings with Rezko.
He didn't.
well: and more to the point, I dont want send Garage Mahal some memphis ribs if I lose..:)
Ditto Roger J. I don't want Obama to be President....ever.
I was torn on whether I was going to vote for anyone at all this year or to write in a name since my vote is futile anyway. BUT when McCain picked Palin, I have decided to vote Republican.
You can take the boy out of Madison, but you can never take the Madison out of the boy.
I think people have a clear idea of what voting for Bush would mean. And it's pretty easy to vote against that -- look at what the economy has done under Bush's tenure, for example. (Is it fair to blame Bush for that? Of course not, but everyone will).
But what does voting for not Obama mean, and how is that different from not McCain? Given that they are both Senators, I don't think the difference is at all definitive.
Exactly my point, DBQ. I figure it would be easier to see with people like the Nazis who were obviosuly evil, as opposed to a terrorist bomber who... well, gosh, who can tell?
MadisonMan is planning to flip a coin, apparently.
In a sane world, Chicago and Illinois would be embarrassed by all these associations. As has been said here many times, if you want to get anywhere in Chicago, these are the people you have to associate with.
I want to hear someone on the left say, "Yeah, that's disgusting: Ayers really IS the equivalent of McVeigh; Wright our equivalent of Duke; etc."
Otherwise how can one help but be left with the impression that, even if they're not pro-terrorism and pro-racism in general, it's okay if it comes from their side. ("No enemies to the left!")
I present that Democrats who don't get this might be racist.
Let's change the actors-
Ayers is now OJ Simpson.
Would it be dumb to fund raise at OJ's?
Would it be startling if Daley defended OJ?
And really what is the difference between Ayers and OJ.
OJ was found-not guilty-of murder, and OJ never admitted to wanting to do better.
So the only difference being perhaps the "victims"...
OJ's victims were innocent-Ayers victims were legitimate targets.
Right? That and oh ya-OJ is black.
Therefore those that can see how it would be stupid for a political party to embrace OJ but not Ayers are the real racists.
This is a little tin foil hat-like, but see if this is reasonable: Usually JAC's posts are really very thoughtful, even if I often disagree with his conclusions.
Now we have this post, which to be honest is just silly. Maybe Prof. Althouse linked to it because it was bad. You know, tough love and all that--a lesson to not post without thinking it through first & etc. Or maybe she is just mad at him for some reason.
Sorry to go all Naderish on you, but I just don't think there's a huge difference in how the Executive Branch will function in the next 4 years for either outcome, President McCain or President Obama.
Either President will be hamstrung by all the debt that the current administration has foisted upon us. Either President will have to cut the budget for just about everything -- except entitlements -- and raise taxes. It's just inevitable, thank you George Bush and the Republican Congress (200n-2007) and Democratic Congress (2007-present). Just lie back and enjoy it because it's inevitable. Brought to you by a Republican President.
I know the logical fallacies far better than you.
You should consider putting that knowledge to use. JAC's appraisal of your initial reply was correct. Also, your claim that this sort of thing is "a fixture in American politics" is a non sequiteur fallacy.
JAC is wrong for a number of reasons, none of them having anything to do with his age:
(1): Ayers may or may not be a "productive" member of society (I've not seen any evidence of what he produced), but it is objectively false that he is "reformed". As others have repeatedly pointed out, he neither regrets being a terrorist nor rules out further terrorist attacks in the future. Is a man who rapes ten women and, decades later, speaks of the rapes fondly and without regret a "reformed rapist"? Or merely an inactive one?
(2): JAC makes the unsupported assertion that Palin "deliberately caused people to associate the word terrorist with Obama" without providing any evidence that (a) any statistically significant quantity of people make that association or (b) that this is because of Palin.
(3): He performs the standard lefty bleat of complaining that Barack Obama's picture has been put next to that of another human being. In this case the human being is non-white, so we're supposed going to think that Obama is just like the other non-white guy (in cases where the other guy is white, of course, the hidden message is that Obama "isn't like us"). No evidence is offered for the alleged racist content of the ad, other than that both Ahmadinejad (whom, as the ad notes, Obama pledged to meet with unconditionally) and Obama have light-brown skin. So do the leaders of every pariah nation Obama pledged to meet with, of course.
There are probably problems beyond those, but that's enough for now.
Madison Man--well said
But remember people the Democrats are all about defending the little people-only rich guys like Ayers et al get to be fundraising,ex-terrorist, yet non-repentant pillars of Democratic fundraising Chicago society!
Poor guys that couldn't escape to the ivy resorts of college campuses get to be legitimate targets!
But what does voting for not Obama mean, and how is that different from not McCain? Given that they are both Senators, I don't think the difference is at all definitive
Umm... one is a socialist race baiter who doesn't really like the United States and has an agenda that will destroy our country......and the other is a namby pamby moderate in Republican clothing pretending to be a conservative who probably won't be able to do a damned thing. (and as Martha Stewart says....That's a good thing) The less government does the better.
Obama with a democrat controlled Congress and a fillibuster proof legislature will be able to cram his socialist agenda down our collective (pun intended) throats. The best McCain will be able to do is to veto a few bills and give Sarah Palin a good 4 years of training for her run in 2012.
I'd love to see some stats on boomer parents using Obama to bond with their kids.
Strange days.
And denial rules.
Everyone is numb from the financial panic. There're a lot of folks in the financial press saying that the length of the average recession since 1940 is 10 months. True. But we all know that this is something different.
The messages are not below the level of consciousness or physical response. The messages are an ax to the forehead. We've run off the cliff and are still magically suspended in air. Even levitating as today's market shows.
People are afraid, and they don't want to believe--cannot believe--that the smiling handsome young man is not what he seems. It is impossible. All the beautiful people and the wise ones love him. Give him some slack.
The other man is old and ugly and twisted, scarred from 40 years of battle. His woman knows nothing. She is a primitive.
Things are not what they seem.
It is particularly funny to hear a leftie whine about "guilt by association" in the Rezko case, considering how many times the Keating Five scandal -- in which McCain was cleared of wrongdoing by a Democrat-led Congressional investigation -- has been mentioned.
A careful review of what McCain did for his vacation air travel provider shows he was more of an "unindicted co-conspirator" than a mere associate. Luckily Cindy has her own corporate jet now, so Johnny doesn't have to suck up to big money constituents any more.
Obama's former law firm represented church organizations that partnered with Rezko to develop affordable housing. That didn't work.
In 2005, ... while Barack Obama knew [Rezko] he was under federal investigation for corruption
Excuse me? How did Obama know this? For that matter, how would Rezko know this? Are the feds that sloppy?
More crazed lefties on the Upper West Side-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI
Revenant: I would refer you to david hume on the issue of logic to resolve issues of value. logic has limited utility when referring to issues of value and not the relation of words to one an other--which, is, of course, where logic has any value.
Sorry, Dust Bunny Queen, I just don't see how Obama will be able to pay for anything, let alone everything. He could go the Bush route and borrow all the money from China, but I think that well will dry up. If it does not dry up in reality, I think politics will prevent it (to which I add thank goodness).
Madisonman. That IS our only hope ....that both of these guys will be unable to do much of anything at all.
However, the sheer economic astupidity, and lack of common sense on the part of the liberals and their determination to get their "legacy" and agenda accomplished is frightening.
theo: will look forward to your observations.
By taking over banks among other things, we will be handing Obama another head start; the kind he has so comfortably become accustomed.
Former law student,
"Excuse me? How did Obama know this? For that matter, how would Rezko know this? Are the feds that sloppy?"
It's called leaking the information to the media to disseminate and it's a very effective law enforcement technique. It gets witnesses cooperating with the government and puts pressure on the target to cooperate.
For example, the feds leaked that Rezko is now cooperating with them and giving dirt on Gov. Blagojevich. The feds hope that other witnesses will then feel pressure to turn against the governor. There is also speculation, but it's just speculation, that Rezko might be talking about Obama as well.
I like Obama and McCain, and I don't know what the hell people expect, some knight in shining armor for President I guess.
Given what you have to do to move ahead in politics (as in other ventures) I doubt you'll find two candidates who are much better (there are probably plenty who are equal) than the two we've got.
But this Obama is great McCain is corrupt, etc. is pure bullshit (just as the McCain is great Obama is corrupt or a terrorist sympathizer is pure bullshit).
It's time for people on both sides to grow the fuck up.
Theo,
Around here (Chelmsford) all I see are McCain/Palin signs. What's it like in your neck of the woods?
Either President will have to cut the budget for just about everything -- except entitlements -- and raise taxes.
Entitlement spending is over half the budget (58% of the remaining budget after interest on the existing debt). It is also growing faster than non-entitlement spending is, and the rate of growth will only accelerate as the baby boomers retire. If you take entitlement cuts off the table you're only delaying the inevitable -- entitlement spending is growing faster than the economy itself is.
so I plan when I return
What, there's no internet in France? Live-blog!
It is annoying, though, that blogger puts everything into the local language. When I was overseas last summer for a week, in a country with a completely different alphabet, it was very hard to figure out what things meant on the page.
My son is wrestling with all the information coming at him, too. He has never had a political bone in his body, and he hears all this stuff, His workplace is all Liberal, and he said the few conservatives have learned to keep their heads down.
He throws these things at me - McCain crashed his planes, and this, that and the other thing... much of which is debunked
I remember the saying about being liberal when you are young, and I hope he is just too busy to actually vote on election day.
But it struck me the other day - I used to worry about the kind of world I was leaving my kids - just the kind of world I see Obama usher in, with all the Ayres/ACORN thugs, and lies and deception, and all the small means of assuming power - and I realize, my kids are going to vote this on themselves.
It will be their choice. I am powerless to stop it. And I will have to live in the aftermath.
My kids grew up in relative affluence, and like many boomers, we did not put many requirements on them. Life has been easy. They got great grades, and went to good schools, they're used to being provided for, so the notion of the government providing isn't all that troubling to them. As it is to us.
They grew up into the age of the Nanny State - sit down, shut up, strap you into that seat, you can't eat that, it's bad for you... zero tolerance. They're used to being told what to do. Even though I hated the seat belt laws, and didn't buy into the Nanny State, it was all around them.
I halfheartedly joke that when we are old, this generation will put their parents in an old folks home, strap them into chairs for their own safety, and tell them, "No Coffee for you! It is a drug and it is bad for you!"
My hope - for my son, and for Jac, is that they can look beyond the age factor, see McCain as he was at their age, imagine themselves being drafted, and ask themselves, which of these two guys would I want beside me in that case?
Because, as any boomer can tell you, age is something that happens to us - don't judge us by it. Remember us as PEOPLE of character.
And, no, Jac. Obama is not a terrorist. But his advisors are. Some of them. And some of them are corrupt. But, if a guy is fighting the release of his birth certificate, he has a bigger problem than that. It's about honesty.
End of rant. Vote McCain/Palin.
Rev wrote: "There is little evidence that they actually work."
I think the evidence is actually against subliminal images being effective.
As to the lie detector, the big problem with them is that there is a subgroup of people who have no morals. The brain development necessary for us to care about and attach to others occurs from 20 weeks gestation to 9 or 12 months after being born. If the child does not have what they need during that time their brain development will be retarded. No attachment, no morals.
To the people who did not develop a functioning orbital prefrontal cortex lie detectors are worse than useless. As are other human beings to this subgroup.
There is a lie detector that has a better track record in a limited area: the plethysmograph. It measures changes in blood flow to an organ. Some people call it the Peter Meter. It is very helpful when you are conducting psychosexual evaluations with people without morals.
I personally do not do any testing with those people as I prefer to keep them out of my office. It is safer that way.
Trey
I personally enjoyed the videotape of the old fat white republican man waving the monkey with the Obama sign around at Obama supporters.
Classy.
Now it is not fair picking out one or two nuts in these affairs but I guess we should use the same barometer when measuring the one or two nuts who spew hatred on liberal blogs...and conservative blogs.
I am not horny. I am doing a 21 year old from Queens who works at a gas station. How hot is tat? I get hard just hearing him use the cash register.
I love pointy breasts.
I love the older movies where women wore those blouses and their tits looked like torpedoes ready to fire.
But what happened to the tits when the blouse and bra came off? Was it all an illusion?
Titusbackintown:
What makes you think the fat old white guy with the sign is a Republican?
oops, i've Just nOticed Here that I stopped talkiNg about subliMinal messages. yoU Surely have my from-The-Bottom-of-my-hEart apologieS and a True pledge never tO Play PErfiDious threadjacker. ever again!
Rose for president.
Rose: Thanks for those thoughts. They really resonated with me.
titus, welcome back! I don't think I said that earlier. I missed your posts.
Excuse me? How did Obama know this? For that matter, how would Rezko know this? Are the feds that sloppy?
The Illinois legislature began publicly demanding an investigation into Rezko's crooked dealings in February of 2005. The Chicago Tribune and Associated Press ran articles about it over the next few months. Three months later, the Obamas and Rezko did their famous home deal.
Maybe Obama just hadn't heard. He does seem to have an amazing knack for not hearing about any of the dirt on the people who fund and back his political career, after all, and Rezko was his biggest financial supporter.
You know that no one ever asked Frank Sinatra Jr his opinion on music.
Nonsense.
It is true that there are examples of him not handling the spectre of such well, especially in later years.
Ever notice how examples tend to be like underwear? So easy to wedge, and usually by people who wouldn't know a wedge from a crack in a loony bin.
"It will be their choice. I am powerless to stop it. And I will have to live in the aftermath."
Kind of like the rest of us having to live the last eight years of Bush that have impacted us.
How is your 401K? Your retirment savings? How much did you lose this year?
Oh, nevermind it was all the democrats fault.
dbp: Sorry. Bad time with editing tonight.
Anyway, we're practically neighbors. I don't want to say the exact town, but I live 150 yards from the line of march of the Minutemen on the 19th of April in '75, and the name of the place rhymes with "I'm bored."
Sorry, nothing but Obama signs around here. But, of course, we're better than you hicks in **wrinkles nose** Chelmsford.
On the other hand, I don't have a trust fund or drive a car of Swedish manufacture, so I suppose I really don't belong here.
But I do drive a Subaru and use a Macintosh computer. That counts for something.
/Massachusetts humor
Chelmsford, biotech, interesting.
I work for a biotech company headquartered in Mass too. Hugs.
I am sure the fat white old man at the Mccain rally was waiting in line with the Obama monkey was because he was a democrat. Yea, that's the ticket. He was a plant. Although he was an extremely good actor. Calling the Obama supporters commie faggots (which is just ignorant, no fags want to be commies).
My brain was just washed, and I can't do a thing with it.
How is your 401K? Your retirment savings? How much did you lose this year?
Oh, nevermind it was all the democrats fault.
Well, for lack of a better description of the perps.. YES!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozFhWTfO8YQ
Chelmsford is a dump.
I didn't no anyone actually lived there. Isn't it like Haverhill or one of those northern suburbs that is like a living hell.
I travel to work at my companies corporate office in Cambridge. Yes, the peoples republic of Cambridge and I have not seen one John Mccain sign-but that is to be expected. They are a bunch of commies in Cambridge. Rich, educated commies-but commies nontheless.
MadisonMan said...
"Brought to you by a Republican President."
How was that economy doing on November fifth 2006, MM?
At any rate, even if we accept your predicate that the next President will be forced by circmstance to act in exactly the same way on all matters of spending, taxation and so forth, it by no means follows that they will be the same or that there aren't clear reasons why Obama must be defeated and McCain grudgingly preferred.
Theo Boehm said...
"BTW, I'll be in France on Election Day, so I plan when I return to treat you to a first-hand account of the Eurogasm upon the election of President Obama."
One might have thought that the exultation of foreigners at the election of a given candidate would be a freestanding reason to vote against said candidate, but c'est la vie.
Revenant said...
"If you take entitlement cuts off the table you're only delaying the inevitable -- entitlement spending is growing faster than the economy itself is."
And yet Obama - who, lest it be forgetten, has "lost" JAC - wants to add even more entitlement spending. How did we end up with a major party candidate who wants to expand this spending when we ought to have both parties competing to tell us their plans for shutting down the existing catastrophe?
Everythings the dems fault lem. End of discussion.
Sorry, forgotten, not forgetten. I didn't intend a Larry the Cable Guy schtick.
As to the lie detector, the big problem with them is that there is a subgroup of people who have no morals.
The big problem with them is that they don't work on anybody. The "lies" are being detected not by the machine, but by the interrogator himself. Human beings are pretty good at figuring out when people are lying, and experienced interrogators are even better.
Titusbackintownok:
Thanksthat's what I thought, you don't know if he's Republican or not.
Since you're from Massachusetts, you're aware that plenty of Democrats toss around racial slurs, too, and won't vote for Obama because he's black.
OK, i need to go wash my pussy. My 21 year old but boy is coming over to eat my ass.
One might have thought that the exultation of foreigners at the election of a given candidate would be a freestanding reason to vote against said candidate....
Simon, It's good enough for me, but, as I said, I'm just one li'l ol' protest vote in an ocean of Obama love.
BTW, who do you suppose is really the Admiral of the Obama Sea?
Everythings the dems fault lem. End of discussion.
No, only the loss of about 1 1/2 trillion of the country's wealth
Rose--
Tell your son that Neil Armstrong crashed twice and may have caused his Gemini flight to abort. A little embarrassing. But he came back.
And tell everyone else you know to stand up and do the uncool thing.
(Being Columbus Day and all)
I commented a couple times on his blog. I think Jac's wrong.
How many times have Democrats used past associates against Republicans? The most recent time was this season, with the allegation that Sarah Palin is a Buchanan supporter, which quickly became an allegation of Nazi sympathies.
Fair's fair. To call Ayers "an unrepentant terrorist" is precisely true.
40 years after your last murder, they won't stop calling you a murderer. If you robbed a bank in 1978, they can still call you a bank robber, quite accurately. And if you wrote a recent book saying you liked robbing banks and wished you'd robbed more banks, it would be entirely fair to say you are an "unrepentant bank robber."
Ayers doesn't want anyone's forgiveness. He's made that clear. So while it might offend the nasal orifices of some in the media, McCain has every right to call Obama out on this association.
I say this as a (drumroll) confirmed Obama supporter.
As I said to Jac: Vote for Obama, but don't vote for the media. McCain and Palin are not engaging in anything resembling hate speech. That's a media gimmick and intelligent people shouldn't fall for it, no matter who they're voting for.
One might have thought that the exultation of foreigners at the election of a given candidate would be a freestanding reason to vote against said candidate, but c'est la vie.
I find it amusing that you end a little snip against foreign involvement with a french phrase.
Geez, John Stodder...you had me until the drumroll.
Why?? May I ask?
MM - I sometimes fear that my sense of humor might sometimes be a touch too dry for the web without the sledgehammer of an emoticon.
Theo, I don't know, but I'm hoping that he's the Titanic and that we find that iceberg soon.
Or that McCain is the Bismark and Obama the Hood. Sometimes one lucky shot is all it takes...
Didn't we vote that we didn't want Titus back? Shows you what Althouse thinks of democracy...
"I say this as a (drumroll) confirmed Obama supporter."
Hope for Change is contagious!
"Or that McCain is the Bismark and Obama the Hood. Sometimes one lucky shot is all it takes..."
Careful! You'll be accused of being a rage-filled assassination fantasist!
"Things would sure be a lot more interesting if someone were to turn up a couple of old Nazi political allies for McCain. He was only 9 years old in 1945."
Reductionary idiocy.
Now, Josef Mengele was captured in the mid-1980's, as I recall. If someone found evidence that McCain had been working closely with, and having each other's families over for dinner etc., with Mengele in the early 80's, where Mengele had not disavowed/"repented" his Nazi past, that would deservedly be a huge issue. Judgment, choice of associations, etc.
Yet you disagree based on how old McCain was at the time Mengele was committing the crimes he still stood by to his grave?
You brought up the Nazi thing, not me. So in the foregoing, Obama is to McCain as Ayers is to Mengele. Does it not count because Obama is just, like, so dreamy? Or because Ayers might be an ass, but he's "our" ass to you? I find this spinning that it's about "what happened when Barry was 8 years old" both transparent and pathetic.
I'm very impressed with how Barry's managed to brush it off, though. The guy is hella good at "the game". Too bad he can't hold the policy stuff together in his head without a teleprompter. Reminds me a lot of GWB in that regard, incidentally.
While I agree wholeheartedly with JAC, I wouldn't call McCain and Palin's actions subliminal.
They're being blatantly overt in riling up their crowds.
And I dare any of you to prove me wrong by pointing to any evidence of McCain-Palin mobs/crowds shouting "terrorist" and "Arab" before they introduced the Ayers/"Who is Obama" bullshit nine days ago.
Ok, I would be willing to say that maybe Obama is not a terrorist...(not really)
But what about first timer Michelle ;)
Titus: We have some friends who live in Chelmsford. They go to church at our home parish in Burlington, and have kids close to the age of our kids. They like Chelmsford, because it's within tolerable distance of Boston, but it's a whole lot cheaper than the ultimate expensive town we find ourselves in.
I say "home parish," because my youngest is a choir boy at the Boston Archdiocesan Choir School in, yes, Cambridge. Harvard Square and all that. It's at St. Paul's, the brick church with the tall bell tower on Mt. Auburn, just up from Bow St.
Anyway, we, and particularly I, mostly attend church there now, as the choir school parents are very involved, and we are responsible for the 11 o'clock mass on Sunday. You'll often find me waving a collection basket under the noses of Harvard professors, street people, and everyone in between, which is as it should be.
Titus, if you're in Harvard Square at 11 on Sundays, you should come. There's gorgeous music, intelligent homilies, and it's generally good for the soul, everyone being welcome and all.
Sorry for a little O/T word with Titus.
Not that I'm trying to reform him or anything....
Didn't we vote that we didn't want Titus back?
No, we didn't. Think of althouse as a big tent.
Although it looks like she wears a size 9.
Althouse is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
Well, to be more precise, Althouse runs her blog (and it is her blog, so at top and bottom it's some version of a dictatorship, benevolent and/or whatever) more along the lines of a Republic than a Democracy.
la Serenissima Repubblica dalla Althousiana
Althouse is not a Democracy. It is a Republic.
More like neutral Switzerland ;)
Simon? Palladian? Anyone? Where are all the right-leaning people who still believe in the virtues of Republic over pure Democracy?
Good analogy, Lem, although I think of Althouse a bit like the Doge: Appointed for life. Can't escape. Ultimately responsible for everything, but with limited means of control.
Zachary,
Now it's the whole crowd and mob that's shouting (chanting?) "terrorist" and "Arab"?
Since when do a few yahoos in the crowd become the crowd?
Please point to me where "the crowd" is chanting this, as opposed to a handful of individuals.
reader_iam said...
"Althouse is not a Democracy. It is a Republic."
More of a benevolent dictatorship, I would think. :)
original george said:
There're a lot of folks in the financial press saying that the length of the average recession since 1940 is 10 months. True. But we all know that this is something different.
I've always been of the suspicion that the growth of the 90s was mostly artificial, and we've been riding for a fall all the while since. On 1/2/1990 the Dow was at 2800. On 1/7/2000 it was at 11,500. It went up 8700 points in 10 years.
By comparison the Dow was at 900 in January of 1965, and didn't break 1000 until late 1972. It took 20 years to go from 1000 to 2800. The growth of the 90s cannot be rationally explained or justified.
Either a cross-post, or you posted too soon: beat you to it.
Lets hope her serenissima doesn't come asking for her son ;)
Blake said:
"I want to hear someone on the left say, "Yeah, that's disgusting: Ayers really IS the equivalent of McVeigh; Wright our equivalent of Duke; etc."
Sorry Chip, but Blake now has made the new "comment of the month". IMO
Why?? May I ask?
We're down to two candidates. I've been listening carefully to both of them, and watching them carefully too. And watching the news. If the main thing we needed the president to do is to oversee the War on Terror, then I think McCain would have run a better campaign, and he would be my choice. But McCain is clearly at sea when it comes to dealing with the kinds of issues the next president will be facing. I feel more confident in Obama's cool, logical, unemotional approach. I'm also impressed by his economic advisors. They are sober, experienced people who are capable of massaging the myriad interests who need to be encouraged to work together. The credit crisis is going to be replaced by prolonged credit squeeze to flush out the system. There will be a recession. It calls for sheer pragmatism and a kind of suave touch I don't think McCain has. I thought he had it, but his campaign -- not Obama, not the media, but McCain himself -- has dissuaded me.
Democrats are going to be around the table dealing with this problem. I'd rather the top Dem be Obama over Pelosi or Reid.
Much of what Obama says he'll do, for example with Iraq, I think he'll end up not doing. It's going to be his headache to deal with the nuts on the left who will scream betrayal, but I am fairly certain he does not want the history books to say he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Health care, global warming, tax hikes, yada yada... we'll be fighting about those things in 2012. They won't get done in his first term given what's taken precedence.
All that said: I would encourage everyone in a state where it matters to vote Republican or anything but Democratic for every down-ballot race. I hate with the passion of a thousand suns Dana Rohrbacher, my congressman, a real buffoon. But I'll vote for him. It would be great if Obama had to deal with at least one Republican house of congress. That's not going to happen, but let's not give him a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Check that: Let's not saddle him with a filibuster proof majority. My big fear with Obama stands: He'll be another Carter. But if he's got to deal with winning Republican votes to get anything passed, he'll be a lot better president, and ultimately will be grateful that he could look at Pelosi and say: Nope, can't get it through the Senate.
It was a tough call, but McCain unfortunately made it easier. If I were a Republican, I'd be calling the party and asking them to gear down their support for McCain and start plowing resources into saving some of their congressional seats. Divided government, or something close to it, should be what the Reeps are playing for. McCain is highly unlikely to win.
My just previous comment was in response to Simon's 9:42 (footnote to that previous comment of mine: see my 9:32).
At least Althouse doesn't have to preside over the marriage of her blog to the sea every year.
Wait--my son just ran in with a curious message (and curiously delivered, for reasons I won't get into at present)--and based on that, I just have to ask:
IS IT TRUE THAT THE CHAMPIONSHIP-WINNING GIANTS ARE LOSING TO THE BROWNS???
Now it's the whole crowd and mob that's shouting (chanting?) "terrorist" and "Arab"?
Since when do a few yahoos in the crowd become the crowd?
Please point to me where "the crowd" is chanting this, as opposed to a handful of individuals.
I never said the entire crowd was chanting. Don't twist my words to try and distract from the point I made. And I'll make the point again, more specifically:
I dare any of you to prove me wrong by pointing to any evidence of people attending McCain-Palin rallies shouting "terrorist" and "Arab" before they introduced the Ayers/"Who is Obama" bullshit nine days ago.
Thank you very much, John. A very thoughtful reply.
That's the best reasoning by far that I've read in favor of voting for Obama. I have all the same concerns that you do about McCain.
I just hope you're right. I'm crazy worried about what the Dems will do with all that power, but it is not in my hands.
John Stodder: Curiously enough, I agree with you, too. In my case, living in the bluest of states, my vote for McCain is a classic protest vote. And there is NOTHING I can do about the completely Democratic Mass Congressional delegation.
I totally agree about the necessity of a two-party system and the maintenance of checks on any source of complete power.
I want to hear someone on the left say, "Yeah, that's disgusting: Ayers really IS the equivalent of McVeigh; Wright our equivalent of Duke; etc."
I don't even need an "our". I'd settle for a "the"; I don't expect sensible liberals to take ownership of Wright, I'd just like them to stop making excuses for Obama following the man. What makes his friendship with the two men so outrageous is that most *liberals* think the two men are odious individuals, too -- or at least they would if partisan fervor wasn't inspiring them to make excuses.
No wonder the weather is calling for precipitously cooler weather tomorrow: something like a 20-degree degree drop, which, I wish to note explicitly, is roughly the traverse between both the burst and somnolence of Summer and the bracing cool and dying off of Autumn.
No wonder the weather is calling for precipitously cooler weather tomorrow: something like a 20-degree degree drop
I blame George Bush.
We are in the 8th inning and Obama is a couple of runs ahead.
We can still win this thing...
Miracles do happen, do they?
O Shoot, I just compared the never ending political season to Baseball.
I'll take that back.
Rev: I blame serendipity, myself.
What's the subliminal message here?
John Stodder said...
"Much of what Obama says he'll do, for example with Iraq, I think he'll end up not doing. ... Health care, global warming, tax hikes ... They won't get done in his first term...."
How much are you willing to bet on that, John? Because you're betting all of our lives and fortunes on it. And to add insult to injury, you're proposing to validate the behavior of the media and the left in their vicious assault on Palin. Neither of these strike me as wis prescriptions.
Zachary,
Now that you've changed your comment (I didn't take your original words out of context or distort them), my answer is that I have no idea.
I don't know why anyone would go to a political rally unless they were paid, other than to get laid.
I do know that this "story" is being blown out of proportion. I'm sure we can find nutjobs at both candidates rallies (college campuses have no shortage of these).
As far as Obama "palling around with terrorists" I think that comment is over the line. McCain is right to pull back the rhetoric, not because of a few yahoos in the crowd, but because that stuff goes too far.
I have no doubt that Obama would probably step over the line once or twice as well if he were behind in the polls.
Ampha - don't see a hidden message. Just another lefty whine about Palin beng a huntress.
How about this: John Lewis compares McCain campaign to George Wallace. But remember, folks, it's the right that's responsible for the smears, fearmongering, racism and intellectual dishonesty in this campaign. Pay no attention to the fact htat it comes 100% from Democrats, it's the right that's doing it.
What is wrong with Lewis that he would dishonor himself this way, that he would throw away his reputation so recklessly? In one stroke, Lewis has erased the honor that once attended his name.
Simon,
Lewis, like Alcee Hastings, is a black congressman.
We hold them to lower standards of conduct because they are black.
No news here.
Jen Bradford: I, an unrepentant hippy (thought not a dumb one) am voting for McCain.
My 23-y/o son, the product of an Ivy and now working in Hollywood, is also voting for McCain. He, too, is not a dumb one.
Perhaps his having lived in the UK, where nanny-statism is in full flourish, has something to do with his Obama aversion. He tells me, though, that most of his friends from university are also of the 'No way Obama' bent.
As for the enhanced bonding? Well, who knows... we're on opposite coasts for now, but perhaps the phone and e-mail substitute to some extent.
Regarding the subliminal message fears... Somebody needs to do a lot more reading up on psychology and the already numerous texts showing the falsity of such.
Because you're betting all of our lives and fortunes on it.
As are you, Simon, as are you. As are all of us, in whatever we're choosing.
How weird it is to me to watch a true conservative continually buttress the notion that any bet is a sure one.
Well, as I said the last time I had cause to disagree with him, Lewis played a courageous role in an important struggle in our history. But this - this evil, insidious, deliberate slander, this lie by someone who should know better is a black mark on his record that he will never be able to erase.
Reader, I just don't see any argument that McCain will be any worse than Obama on any issue, and on several issues, including the most important of all, it seems obvious that he will be better. That is a sure bet, unless one thinks Obama is going to undertake a road to damascus conversion between November 5th and January 20th.
Lewis still is a courageous and great man who is also a race-baiting demagogue, too.
It sounds like Lewis went off the reservation.
Meaning - I don't think Obama is welcoming this bit of news.
John Stodder says, defending his support for Obama: Much of what Obama says he'll do, for example with Iraq, I think he'll end up not doing.
This is Althouse's reasoning, also. I don't get it.
First, you both praise how cool and practical Obama is, but then you turn around and say he won't do the things he says he's going to do, because he will be constrained by the times or the budget or some other Great Force. Well he sure as hell won't be constrained by the Congress, because it's going to be Democratic, and there's a good possibility it will be filibuster-proof.
Then you cite the advisers he has surrounded himself with, praising them, at least his economic team. This, in the very thread that is discussing his links to Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc. Are you kidding me? Obama is a creature of the Chicago machine, and has never taken an unpopular stand in his entire political life. What makes you think he's going to be able to stand up to the Congressional Democrats? What makes you think his team of advisers is any better than the jerks he has been hanging out with, up till now?
Finally, I can't believe that anyone wants to put Joe Biden a heartbeat away from the presidency. That's just insane.
EEK! Helluva final score on that football game tonight. Jeez, even I can get the "helluva" bit.
Joan, there is a feel of swimming in an Egyptian river to it, isn't there.
I agree that Obama's economic advisers are first rate.
I also think he'll ignore them when they go against his political wishes.
The economic evidence is this: Obama's tax hikes will come nowhere near covering his spending proposals even if the Iraq war were over the day he took office.
So either Obama (i) is lying (i.e. he has no intention right now of honoring thecampaign promises he is making right now), (ii) his economic advisers are idiots, which they are not, or (iii) Obama is not listening to them when they tell him the U.S. can't afford his spending proposals even with his tax hikes because Obama wants to do what's politically popular.
My vote is No. (iii), which means Obama is just like W. because he's perfectly okay with huge deficits while he's president and will stick the problem to others down the road.
Oh oh.
Look for Lewis to find himself flat on his back looking up the Obama bus about to roll over him.
How's my 401K doing? It's down. UP a bit today though. :)
It's been down before. If it's still there when I retire, it'll be doin' better than Social Security, I am sure.
I've seen the crash of 87, many ups and downs, the "energy crisis" in California... life goes on.
We grew up in an age that was turning its back on material things, we expected to live simply, to take care of ourselves, and, we believed it was entirely possible that we would see a nuclear war between the US and Russia in our lifetime. We expected we would have to survive.
I don't know how to explain to you that this changes my perspective on this current debacle (and yes, I do blame it on the Democrats, mostly, have you not read McCain's warning? Do you not see the times Republicans brought the issue up and had any attempts at reform shot down or stalled?).
This too shall pass.
For a short time I also thought the threat of nuclear war had passed. It seemed that the world had become all that we sang about in the 70s (the answer my friend is blowing' in the wind... where have all the flowers gone?).
But the evil that was Nazi Germany has reappeared. A new face, a new location, but just as purely evil. No question about it.
And that evil has to be confronted. And squashed again. We are the ones who have to do it. Like it or not. This issue still trumps the economy.
And, I have said this before, I say it again - as President, You must defend this country and its people against ALL comers.
That means you must be prepared to seek out, hunt down, capture, prosecute, imprison and even KILL those who would harm your people. Those who would BOMB our buildings, our police stations, or our Twin Towers.
You do not go to barbeques at their house, sit on Boards with them, launch your career at their house, and pretend not to know them.
THAT is the problem, Jac. That's what you're trying to deal with, but do not know how.
It's very simple. Obama will not protect you because he does not recognize the threat nor realize what it is he must protect.
end. rant 2.
Hey, Simon. I took one of your arguments apart over here.
Didn't even use any Latin.
And, I have said this before, I say it again - as President, You must defend this country and its people against ALL comers.
The defence of the nation is the president's job 1.
How much are you willing to bet on that, John?
Put it this way, Simon: if in 2010, we're arguing about health care or global warming, I'll be surprised and grateful.
Any candidate I support under the current structure would be a compromise of at least one of my core beliefs. And a leap of faith.
I also have faith in the power of intelligent argument. In 1993-4, HillaryCare failed despite Clinton having majorities of Democrats in both houses. Why? Because it was a bad plan, founded on some bad ideas.
For example, take global warming. How would Obama push through a carbon tax type of plan at a time when the US auto industry is cratering, and there are all these pensioners dependent on the industry's survival? Michigan is a Dem state. The UAW is a Dem interest group.
Or consider taxes. Yeah, he wants to raise them, but he's already backing off that. The kind of tax hike he wants happens in an Administration's first year or never. And keep something else in mind. Because of outrageous retirement benefits, cities and even states will be facing bankruptcy in the next four years. They'll need to raise taxes, and for the most unpopular reason imaginable: To get those who have had to work til they're 75 to finance their own retirement to pay for a defined benefit retirement by a bunch of public-sector workers who retired at 55. In that environment, how does Obama push through a federal tax hike?
And so on. I realize that if Obama wins, liberalism reigns for awhile. These things run in cycles, and nothing is irreverible. The GOP should've run a better campaign. Even more to the point, they shouldn't have f-d up their reign in Congress. Now they have to sit down. So it goes.
As far as validating the media: You're right. That was holding me back for quite awhile. I had to put that out of my mind. But like I said a few days ago here: The media has vouched for Obama, presented him as the clearly superior candidate. He's their guy. If he fails, it will be a long time before they'll be listened to again. Seriously. The alternative media is gobbling up the advertising dollars, more every year. It's not just that the Internet is cool. It's the bias and the disinformation and the political correctness that's turned off a generation. A lot of reporters are already out of business. This is their last hurrah.
This is their last hurrah.
Good points, John. But one question: You don't think they can successfully sell that they were right and that their guy is still all that? Remember, they have just pulled off a whopper. Quite easily.
@John Stodder:
I find your ideas comforting, but unpersuasive. :)
Joan, there is a feel of swimming in an Egyptian river to it, isn't there.
There's a definite deja vu feeling to it as well. I remember quite a few Republicans telling themselves, back in 2000, that, sure, Bush *said* he wanted to increase the role of government in American life, but surely he'd really be a small-government conservative when he got elected. If nothing else, his Reagan-era advisers would keep him on the right track.
Oops.
Now we're told that, sure, Obama *says* he'll start replaying Jimmy Carter's Greatest Hits of the 70s once he enters the Oval Office, but surely he can't really mean it... surely he'll be more of a Clinton than a Carter. He has all these advisers to tell him that the policies he's proposed are bad ones, after all. Etc, etc.
Finally, I can't believe that anyone wants to put Joe Biden a heartbeat away from the presidency. That's just insane.
It's been a continual struggle for me to accept that anyone, anywhere, anyhow could conclude that the choices on offer top/bottom + combo of either ticket are decent ones, much less the best. But there, and here, we are: We wished for and therefore we got.
How's my 401K doing? It's down. UP a bit today though. :)
Mine looks like is down 7% percent from a month ago, but it's up 28% from a year ago.
That's because I'm invested primarily in the company's private stock and the company has done very well.
If the company sinks I sink. (to keep up with our sea-fearing mates here ;)
Phils Win. Phils win!
Goodnight all.
On the Nanny State: I simply do not believe you can build one in 2009. The European Nanny State is a relic of the 1950s. We're smarter now. Liberals are smarter now, even.
It is in Obama's interest to pursue economic growth policies. He's going to have a nasty recession in his first year. Dreamers like E.J. Dionne might think this will lead to a New New Deal, but Obama's Wall Street advisors will tell him anything more than a cosmetic touchy-feely measure will spook the markets.
Keep in mind too, the netroots and the left-wing commenters on this and other sites? Nobody will hire them. The Dems can't stand them. They know they're a bunch of losers. Grownups will run Obama's administration, not "michael." Not the coiners of terms like "rethuglicans" or "Chimpy McBush." They are losers now, and they will be losers in 2009.
If Obama governs like you say he's going to govern, then I'm not worried. In 2010, the Dems will be ousted from Congressional leadership, and in 2012, if the GOP finds a candidate, Obama will get tossed out like Carter was. Either Obama will reinvent liberalism, or ignore it, or he'll be buried. You can't repeal laws of gravity. Milton Friedman is immortal.
"On the Nanny State: I simply do not believe you can build one in 2009. The European Nanny State is a relic of the 1950s. We're smarter now. Liberals are smarter now, even."
I think John Stodder might have a terminal case of Hope. Sad when it happens to someone you know.
I'm thinking as I read this, how much support for Obama, and the notion that Ayres is "ok by us" is coming from baby boomers who weren't part of the protest scene, but thought it was cool, and now, as they age, wish they were like Ayres, living their youth vicariously here. seeing him as a romantic figure, and not groking the reality of the fact that PEOPLE DIED. You have only to read Murtagh's piece* to get below the romantic cover.
That's why, in the end, though it was fun while it lasted, many will choose, not Obama, but McCain. Because common sense rules the day. I HOPE people CHANGE their minds. :)
* Fire in the Night
The Weathermen tried to kill my family.
You don't think they (the media) can successfully sell that they were right and that their guy is still all that? Remember, they have just pulled off a whopper. Quite easily.
No, because there are too many objective measures to counter any happy talk. The Dow Jones, S&P, European and Asian markets, the inflation and unemployment numbers, the deficit, the debt...
Oh, sure, for a year or two they'll blame Bush for everything. That was how Clinton weaseled out of his middle-class tax cut promise. But if Dr. Obama can't cure the fever, there's really nothing the media can say to persuade us otherwise.
Plus, there are some strong egos in the media. Consider Bob Woodward for example. He's not going to write a book called "Year One of The One" if Obama is flailing. There are contrarian reporters already -- Jake Tepper at ABC, what's-his-name at CNN who's reporting on ACORN. Plus the trend toward bloggers forcing news out will only get stronger. Yeah, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and the KO kid are going to buy blue smoke by the case. Anderson Cooper will keep on crying, but this time tears of joy. And Larry King will be Larry King. But there will also be Lou Dobbs, spoiling the party. He's no Obama guy. And Fox News' ratings will go up.
Plus: The only reason the media's whopper worked like it did? John McCain. A month ago, he was ahead. What's put him behind was not the media, it was his own actions and his own inability to communicate.
Plus: Look at the fundamentals of this election. RCP average now has Obama ahead by 7 points. 7 points! It's a Democratic year, the economy is crashing, McCain sucks and Obama's only ahead by 7 points? If the media was as powerful as some think, he'd be ahead by 27 points. It would be LBJ/Goldwater.
I'm just as mad at the media as I was before. I was so mad, in fact, that I was ready to vote for McCain just to flip them the bird: "How dare you pricks try to manipulate me?" But that's giving them too much power. I need to trust my own judgment. Am I confident in Obama? Hell, no. But it comes down to two candidates, and between them, I have to shrug and say, "that one."
John Stodder wrote: I have to shrug and say, 'that one.'
At least it's clear who you're channeling.
At least it's clear who you are channeling
Actually, I was thinking of this:
http://tinyurl.com/3rp3ya
Sorry, my last note had a bad link. Use this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9rapJrbNRA
While we're at it, how about this so-not-iconic (unlike "That Girl") artifact from the way-back-then chute? And Philly was the backdrop, by golly: Damn, how often has that ever happened?
Thanks John for sharing, as always, your thoughtful comments.
John Stodder, I am stunned.
The tactics used by the Obama camp in the caucuses, implementing Saul Alinsky's "rules," the saber rattling to the DOJ about a political video, the attempts to shut down Freddoso's and Kurtz's interviews, setting up elected officials in a "truth squad" to intimidate people with threat of criminal prosecution, the cease and desist letters about the NRA ads, the ubiquitous charges of 'racism!!' for every criticism.... And want to take bets on the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine?"
Do you really think socialist community organizer Obama, while redistributing our wealth with a Democrat Congress is going to worry about his war legacy? He won't mind snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because Obama and his supporters cannot see victory in Iraq.
Have you checked out the IBD series?
www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx
20 pieces on Obama -- Parts 15 and 16 concerning how Obama applies Alinsky's "Rules" are interesting.
Part 10 is his economic blueprint.
And of course, there is ACORN:
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=
This is a man who has been trained to "not scare the middle class" As radical reformers, Alinksy's disciples are supposed to "look like them, talk like them, act like them." (That's US.)
They are [to] "work for radical change from the inside — 'like a spy behind enemy lines.'"
It's the record, not paranoia.
Obama's record of acquaintances of choice isn't about bad judgment -- it's reveals his ideology and values.
people equating Rev. Wright with Ayers are way off base.
It's their 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon that have gotten out of their grasp.
So far I've heard that Obama lives on the same street as ayers and along with a zillion other people(including republicans) served on a school fundraiser board with him.
....ok.
Is Ayers all of a sudden the god father to Obama's children now? I'm missing that connection.
God forbid there happens to be a registered sex offender that moved into Obama's neighborhood, it would be proof that they were BFF!
Ayers and Obama served on the same board of the Annenberg Challenge. It's likely that Ayers picked Obama for the position he held. Obama had his first political meeting in Ayer's living room.
The Annenberg Challenge, which Obama chaired, was an abject failure because it was rooted in the nutty leftism of Ayers. It is Obama's only major policy effort.
jal,
If Obama really thinks he's going to apply Saul Alinsky principles in the WH, he's in for a huge disappointment. To paraphrase Harry Truman about Dwight Eisenhower, Obama will say "nationalize this!" and "redistribute that!" And nothing will happen.
My final evaluation was that none of this means anything to Obama. They were steps on a ladder. It diminishes him that he was ever involved in these fools' errands. But many Democratic activists start out as left-wing agitators, until they become part of the system. He will still push for liberalism, but without any new ideas and certain no new tactics than we've seen before and survived.
Tough? This country survived the "don't get mad, get even" approach of JFK. LBJ was half a thug. Nixon, do I even need to discuss? The Bush family isn't exactly a bunch of sissies. And we've survived all of it.
It doesn't speak well of him, in particular his attacks on the First Amendment. We need to be really watchful of that, as we must always be under every president. I'm not embracing him. In the zero sum game of electoral politics, I'm voting for one of the two remaining viable candidates. My eyes are wide open. With all his flaws, I think the country is in better hands with Obama than McCain at this moment in history, for the reasons I've outlined.
I just don't think McCain can lead this country through the coming deleveraging and the credit squeeze. I think Obama can broker a more sustainable deal, and will perform his public duties in a more reassuring way. He really doesn't have the funds or the wherewithal to remake the country per the dead-end ideas of Saul Alinsky. I'm not sure how committed he is to them anymore -- I think not at all, frankly.
From what some of you are saying, I think perhaps you anticipate Obama morphing into Hugo Chavez, someone who will alter the balance of power in Washington in some dangerously unconstitutional way. Maybe he dreams of this, maybe not. But he's got zero chance of making it happen. He's winning the election as a Democrat, not a real socialist. The country will turn on him if they've been tricked. I don't see the love for him that a portion of Venezuelan society has for Chavez. The country is expecting him to govern kind of like Clinton, and I think he'll be hemmed in by global financial realities such that that's all he'll be able to do. It'll be like James Carville observed during Clinton's first year: the real power is in the bond market, not the White House. Chavez wouldn't be Chavez without oil. Obama won't be able to play Santa Claus like Chavez can.
But if you're really worried, I seriously suggest you put all your efforts into electing as many Republicans to congress, especially the Senate, as you can. Because no matter what this little voice in the intertubes says, Obama's going to win, so plan accordingly.
John Stodder, on the media's inability to alter the public's perception of reality: No, because there are too many objective measures to counter any happy talk. The Dow Jones, S&P, European and Asian markets, the inflation and unemployment numbers, the deficit, the debt...
But you're forgetting how well the media has played down the economy over the past couple of years. Instapundit hasn't been running a "Dude, where's my recession?" recurring feature because the economy sucked -- until the recent collapse, things were fine. More than fine -- better than they were, on those objective measures like unemployment, etc, during the Clinton administration. Yet the majority of people will tell you we've been in a recession since the beginning of this year, when the reality is we haven't even had one quarter of "negative growth" (I detest that phrase), much less two successive ones.
It would be nice if what you believe were actually true, John, but it's not.
One of the greatest dangers of an Obama administration is having the MSM completely in the tank. We won't be able to trust a word they publish.
Wow - Double dip. Usually it is AA saying something vapid to stir up the posters but now we get it once removed through AA's ref to son's silliness.
You know what John Stodder, you're right about the economics- Obama won't be able to implement socialism in 2 years.
But what about judicial appointments?
Frankly I was disturbed by his rejection of John Roberts in the Senate as expressed at Saddleback:
OBAMA: John Roberts, I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person, you know, in conversation individually. He’s clearly smart, very thoughtful. I will tell you that how I’ve seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reason that I voted against him, and I’ll give you one very specific instance and this is not a stump speech...
.
.
.
OBAMA: And I think that he has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it’s mine or George Bush’s, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended.
How could anybody dismiss Roberts?
Joan,
I don't quite buy the notion that the MSM has talked down an otherwise healthy economy. The spike in foreclosures, the drop in home prices, and the drop in the stock market all started and were palpable beginning last year. What I would hear on the MSM was an argument about a recession, even on the more left-leaning networks. "Some people say we're not in a recession because..." But it wasn't hard to find stories of hardship, and these stories resonated with the news consumers who felt this pressure in their own lives.
We are now an investor nation, which is one of the reasons we are a more conservative nation. The investors got socked in the past 12 months, and then it accelerated in the past few weeks. People who were hoping to retire in 5-10 years have had to recalculate.
You're right; chances are folks like that weren't out of work. But they felt poorer. And NOW they're facing an actual recession, in which some of them will lose their jobs, having already lost a lot of their savings.
The media didn't conjure that.
Whereas Clinton benefited from the reverberations of the Reagan recovery, which flowed into the stock market during his tenure. Unemployment numbers weren't great, but people who were working felt wealthier.
None of this has anything to do with socialism, however. Pissed off investors won't allow Obama to proffer socialism as the answer, and I doubt the media will either.
Judges are a valid concern. However, how many judges do you think McCain was going to get approved. And if Obama tried to appoint someone way over the left to a higher-level court, well, that's why everyone should vote down-ballot for Reeps.
This is when Reeps will be very glad they didn't trigger the nuclear option to unblock Bush judges the Dems were filibustering. Heh. At least that will be fun, hearing the shrieks from Democratic leaders when their own words are thrown back at them. Thank you John McCain and the Gang of 14!
John Stodder wrote:
and if Obama tried to appoint someone way over the left to a higher-level court, well, that's why everyone should vote down-ballot for Reeps.
Like I said before, comforting, but not persuasive.
Like I said before, comforting, but not persuasive.
It's not meant to be persuasive. I'm not campaigning for Obama. I just thought, since I'd made up my mind, that I should say who I was voting for. I can't work up much enthusiasm for Obama per se, but I can get a little more excited about a divided government headed by him.
The fact is, he's likely to be in charge of big Democratic majorities. I can't escape that probability.
Some have said Obama's a doctrinaire left-winger. Others, including much of the elite media, says he's a pragmatic moderate, and that his supposed liberalism is a fiction. I'm voting for the moderate, as are most of us swing voters. If it turns out he lied about his true inclinations, then I will join all of you in making his presidency as impossible as the left made Bush's. But if it turns out he is a moderate, well, I think frankly this is what we need right now.
The irony of all this: If we had known what the US situation was going to be, six months ago, perhaps the nominees would have been Hillary and Romney, two candidates I then despised, but who both seem, in retrospect, to be fit the profile of what the country needs.
a non sequiteur fallacy
The French mistake, as we call it.
Post a Comment