1. It would be a victory for an underdog....If Obama wins, some Obama supporters will gloat and taunt. I won't, but it will happen. Bill will have to deal with that. I can believe he won't gloat and taunt if McCain wins, but, obviously, some will.
2. It would be a defeat for the establishment....
3. It would be [anti-Bush]....
4. It would be a victory for freedom....
5. A McCain victory would be good for liberalism....
If McCain wins, think of this column as a modest contribution to cheering up distraught liberals. If Obama prevails, I’m confident there are some compassionate liberals out there who will do the same for hapless conservatives as they hobble out to the wilderness.
Kristol makes me think about how I felt on election night in 2004, as I sat watching the returns, fully believing that I would see John Kerry's victory. I had already adjusted to seeing my man lose:
Yes, I care a lot about the outcome of the election, and I'm sitting here waiting for the news to come in, sampling the dribbled out exit polls, and fretting. But at the same time, I feel complete assurance that as soon as the outcome is known, I'll fully accept it. Either man will make a decent enough President. I think Bush deserves to continue in office, but if it is to be Kerry, Kerry can handle the job too.... Despite all this political blogging, I'm not really all that political.... It will be nice to break loose from the grip of politics that has held us for so long. As I blogged long ago, I've had preferences in presidential elections going all the way back to 1960, and only one man I've supported has been President. (In case you've forgotten or are not a long-time reader, that man was Bill Clinton.) I'm accustomed to spending election night seeing my man lose.You young people who think it will be just terrible if you don't get your way this time, let me tell you: I was over 40 before I saw my candidate for President win.
... Basically, I am a grand supporter of losers. My support is the kiss of death. Oh, no! Have I gone all pessimistic? No, no. It is equanimity that flows through me. Time for a nice glass of win, a plate of pasta with Bolognese sauce, and a calm absorption of reality.Ha ha. That was so weird.
UPDATE: "A nice glass of win" -- ah, so hope does live on! Time for a nice glass of wine and toast to hope! A glass to be refilled later, perhaps, in a quenching of sorrow!
ANOTHER UPDATE: 10:53 p.m. Maybe I am going to get that nice glass of win after all....
The worst thing about an Obama loss -- something Kristol doesn't mention -- is the Bradley effect. After all these polls, if Obama doesn't win, people are going to think that racial prejudice played a role. Because of this, it's very hard to say that because McCain supporters will handle a loss well, Obama supporters should too. It will hard not to feel disillusioned if the polls have misled us.
Posts
323 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 323 of 323Doyle - typical liberal - wants to torture those with whom he disagrees
You're the torture buffs. I just have a sick sense of humor.
White guilt is of course a key component of their winning coalition. If you do not think that is the fact you have not been reading this blog lately. It is not self pity to state the facts that it is impossible to criticize Senator Obama without being called a racist. Just ask those famous racists Geraldine Ferraro and William Jefferson Clinton.
It is you I pity. You will be sadly disappointed by your choice of such an empty vessel.
I fully expect Democrats, generally, to be as poor as winners as they are as losers. That is to say, very poor indeed. I see no trace of maturity that would instruct otherwise.
Pogo,
I share your sense of doom. But there is one silver lining to Obama's win: the world will now see Barack act, not merely campaign. He will be revealed as wretchedly human, like all presidents, no matter how he tries to hide it. If he were to lose, his cult would grow, in what I think would be a very dangerous way.
I just have a sick sense of humor.
Not as sick as Bob Krumm, who is predicting a PV win for Obama and an EV win for McCain! You want riots, that will bring riots.
No. This election isn't now about racism. Is it? I'm shocked.
This is too fun not to link to.
Darcy said:
"Excuse me, Father...but is that your endorsement of Obama? I'm very curious."
Nope. I thought I was clear, sorry I wasn't, about not voting for any major party candidates in 20 years, and I meant this year as well.
I don't endorse anyway, but I vote. But I will not lend my name to a candidate who endorses something I consider intrinsically evil--so that goes for completely pro-abortion Obama and partly pro-abortion McCain. Other prolifers choose to vote for McCain as less-bad, that's fine, but I won't do that.
Way I look at it: there is virtually no chance my vote will tip the outcome; but my vote will be my vote--and I'll know how I cast it. I don't want to have cast my precious vote for either of these turkeys. If the third-party candidate I will vote for somehow, through the intercession of Our Lady of Lepanto, wins...that I can live with!
In what ways is McCain pro-abortion?
Not that I believed the political flier I got in the mail from the state democratic party saying he wants to force women to carry their rapist's child, but I thought he was rather firmly pro-life.
(Haven't seen anything from the Obama campaign or Democrats that was very "truthful" about anything.)
Well, he is in favor of embryonic stem cell research.
So, your favorite ball team wins the Super Bowl, the World Series, or the Stanley Cup, and you celebrate by vandalizing the neighborhood. Your favorite messiah loses the election, you protest by vandalizing the neighborhood. Is anyone predicting that Obama fans are going to go on a binge if he wins?
It would make sense, as much as celebrating your team's victory. Even more so, since Obama's election would mean that the nasty, evil Nazi Republicans deserve to be punished, and that Obama's minions have a mandate to administer that punishment. They can begin by looting and redistributing the wealth immediately, thus saving administrative costs.
If Obama wins, conservatives and Republicans will try to figure out how to regroup. If McCain wins, we'll have four more years of hatred, identity politics, screams for impeachment, and hissy fits usually reserved for three-year-olds.
Is anyone predicting that Obama fans are going to go on a binge if he wins?
Yes, actually, DBQ and I have both done so.
Thank you very much for your response, Father.
Synova:
McCain supports abortion in case of rape and incest. McCain supports baby-destroying stem-cell research. And he supports making everyone pay for it.
No, this was not Reagan's position, despite those who say so, now, in order to make McCain look better.
And, yes, I do fault W. Bush for these positions.
"Really!? That would be quite a scoop. Have any links to that you could share?"
Scoop? You've got to be kidding, Garage. Do you ignore everything to the right of KOS?
Cleveland: Night of the Living Dead Voters
ACORN: Vote 10 times for Obama!
Not that garage gives a shit. He'll deny it or spin it or say something snide, something bullshit. But we cannot trust the vote. It's like Kennedy winning in 1960 due to a corrupt Chicago machine, now gone national.
Goddamned banana republic.
Why are liberals so pathetic and so prone to ridiculous melodrama?
Ha Ha...have you read your string of comments in this post, my dear Palladian? Your shrieking is not melodramatic at all.
Conservatives, though disappointed, will greet an Obama victory with civility because conservatives are part of the strictly western tradition of loyal civil opposition.
Liberals, on the other hand, should McCain win will riot.
Conservatives, though disappointed, will greet an Obama victory with civility because conservatives are part of the strictly western tradition of loyal civil opposition.
Well let's hope liberals are more civil than the mob bussed in by the RNC to appear as angry voters that stormed the Miami-Dade election offices in 2000. Or the mob that camped out in front of Gore's home in D.C. hurling epitaphs 24/7. Anyone remember "Get out of Cheney's house!". Good times.
I agree with those saying conservatives will breathe a sigh of relief if McCain wins, rather than gloat. They merely tolerate McCain, but they despise Obama.
Conservatives will also be ready to run McCain out of town within the first six months of his administration.
The best possible result will be if McCain wins the popular vote and Obama wins in the electoral college.
Father Fox, I agree with your analysis of McCain's position but I disagree with your voting strategy It seems that given your devotion to the pro-life cause you would welcome alliances with those whose position is somewhat impure but still on the proper side of the status quo.
If a bill were on the President's desk that could successfully ban 99% of all abortions, surely you'd press for its signature even while recognizing that the work is not finished.
HOLY SHIT!
I'm doing multi-disciplinary elections unit study with my son today and tomorrow as part of homeschooling. To add a music component, I went to our music server, thinking to find a few examples of patriotic songs, including the Star Spangled Banner, and I DISCOVERED WE HAVE--COUNT 'EM--56 VERSIONS!!! (I think there may be a few, more traditional on vinyl somewhere, which part of our library we haven't transferred over yet.) Good grief. A bit excessive, don't you think?
Right now, we're listening to Bela Fleck. Next up: Bill Gaither, followed by Branford Marsalis, the Cedarmont Kids, Cincinnati Pops and so on (Lou Reed's there--cool! Yeah, now I remember adding that one, at the same time I added the one by a hip-hop violinist), ending with some comedy thing by Ray Stevens, which I don't remember a thing about.
LOL.
Well, we've got a couple hours. We'll just let that playlist roll.
/OT
That's 56 versions of the SSB alone. I was afraid to search on another title, at least for today.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
"[I]t would be a wonderful thing if people would accept the win or loss gracefully and hope and pray for the best and cooperate to accomplish the work of government."
LOL.
But seriously - no. Not going to happen. Accomplishing what he sees as the work of government is precisely what we need to use every available tool - few though they may be - to delay or derail. And frankly, we should give serious thought to treating a President Obama and anyone who works for his administration with all the warmth and affection with which the left received Sarah Palin.
Trooper York said...
"The best possible result will be if McCain wins the popular vote and Obama wins in the electoral college."
Even I would accept that as a good result, because it holds out the promise of underwriting the security of the electoral college for a generation. Liberals have no love for the Constitution, to be sure, but any port in a storm, and only a fool tears down the jetties at a recent berthing!
MCG said:
"If a bill were on the President's desk that could successfully ban 99% of all abortions, surely you'd press for its signature even while recognizing that the work is not finished."
Well, the short answer is probably yes, but it really depends on the situation. To arrive at a scenario in which such a bill could get to the president's desk, we would have a very different situation--and thus, a situation in which 100% good bill is doable. I.e., such a bill as you describe is hardly going to "sneak through."
But you are, pardon the expression, comparing apples to oranges. We are not talking, now, about a legislative situation; we are talking about voting for a candidate.
Put it another way: the more McCain-style "prolifers" we prolifers elect, the more remote will be passing anything like what you say.
Weak advocates of the prolife cause don't want prolife legislation -- except marginal, feel-good-but-do-little bills such as Bush gave us -- to come for a vote, let alone will they enter into the long slogs it takes actually to pass legislation.
No, the only way you and I are even going to see a 70% good bill--let alone the 99% good bill you describe--is by taking every opportunity to nominate and elect 100% solid prolifers.
I might note that it was the addition of Palin that really lifted McCain. Palin is 100% on prolife. She is the one who generated enthusiasm, and I think if McCain comes close, she is a big reason why. Winners need enthusiastic supporters, and there was almost no enthusiasm for McCain, until Palin was named; then the dam broke.
She is the one who generated enthusiasm, and I think if McCain comes close, she is a big reason why.
LOL. You wish, Father.
Fr. Fox said...
"I might note that it was the addition of Palin that really lifted McCain ... Winners need enthusiastic supporters, and there was almost no enthusiasm for McCain, until Palin was named; then the dam broke."
That's exactly right, and although you'll hear a few idiots claiming otherwise, the reality is that but for Palin, this would have been over a long time ago. There was simply no one else that McCain would have picked that would have gotten him within striking distance. The GOP entered this year with last rites already having been read over it; in a grim election season, we picked the one candidate who could potentially rise to the occasion, and he picked the one person who could rally the party behind the ticket, and had he not blown it in his reaction to the financial "crisis," might even have salvaged the year.
To be sure, it's not entirely McCain's fault. The media's campaign of personal destruction against Palin hurt, too, and a few high-profile Fifth Columnists didn't help. Those intellectually-dishonest intellectuals who disingenuously rationalized their jumping ship over Palin will not be welcomed back into the fold; I understand that they couldn't bring themselves to vote against the first black President, and I think they're right to be so ashamed of that truth as to have to make up a reason, but there is no place in the GOP for racism and its practitioners. Adelman, Brooks, Noonan and those other quisling motherfuckers can find some gutter in New York to crawl into.
Absolutely, Simon.
Adelman, Brooks, Noonan and those other quisling motherfuckers can find some gutter in New York to crawl into.
Boy is this satisfying :-)
I remember getting lectured by Simon about how the right is always looking for converts and the left is always looking for heretics.
What happened to the big tent?
Totally agreeing with Simon and Father Fox on Sarah Palin. And Pogo, of course.
That's why I said it Simon. If Obama wins an electoral college victory it will shut up all the liberal gas bags and scumbag pundits like Alter and Fineman and Matthews. Also if would leave a severely weakened Obama who would be somewhat constrained by his lack of a mandate. He is only motivated by self interest so he will be extra careful in the hope of re-election.
I hope McCain at least pulls off Arizona. I'm not that ruthless.
What happened to the big tent?"
It's that thing in your pants you've had contemplating a Deocratic victory.
But it's alot smaller than you think, Doyle, and it ain't gonna last long.
Doyle, one doesn't go looking for heretics -- but one does, on occasion, run over them.
My son does a mean air guitar to Hendrix's version of the national anthem. However, his best vocal rendition has been the one resembling to Leontyne Price's.
Good times!
I mean, a serious question, Doyle, and now that the election's all-but over and it doesn't matter any more, perhaps you and the other Palin skeptics could tell us who you think McCain should have nominated, someone who would have been a better pick than Palin? I looked at the field, and I've got to tell you, there was no one else. If it was Romney, the financial crisis would have been an even bigger gift to the dems. If it was Huckabee, half the party would have walked. If Giuliani, the other half. If Lieberman, the entire party would have walked; McCain would have been defeated on the convention floor and the party might well have completely abandoned him. Who else could unify and invigorate the party better? If McCain had announced Pawlenty, the media would have completely ignored the GOP and spent the whole of Friday and most of the following week like a stalker who's gotten hold of a sweater belonging to the object of their affection, burying their faces in Obama's convention speech and inhaling deeply. There just wasn't anyone else. And once you concede that, the force drains out of the anti-Palin argument.
Check out the Mavin Gaye version from the NBA All-Star game. He set the SSB to the track of Sexual Healing and it is the coolest rendition of the national athem ever.
Just finished Stravinsky's version, btw, and now we're listening to Lou Reed's SSB/America combo.
(Next up: Marvin Gaye's rendition, and then the version used in "Poltergeist.")
Some days I LOVE HOMESCHOOLING.
By the way, I'm using some of the comments in this thread to illustrate the concept of "partisanship."
Really.
Trooper: LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
TOTALLY a cross-post. I swear!
(And it's just starting now.)
If it was Romney, the financial crisis would have been an even bigger gift to the dems.
I think it was Romney. If not at the top of the ticket then at least the veep. I never thought he was the joke that a lot of liberals did. He won in Massachussets. He's the closest thing you've got to a Schwarzenegger.
And I think the financial crisis makes Romney a better choice in retrospect. Sure, he's rich, and he puts out the "Wall Street" vibe, but that also would have given people confidence that he at least understands what's going on in a way that McCain and especially Palin[!] pretty clearly don't.
And I'm not some late-to-the-party Palin basher. I said on my blog that she was a crazy pick the day after her fabulously-reviewed convention speech.
reader_iam said...
"My son does a mean air guitar to Hendrix's version of the national anthem."
What an appropriate image that piece calls to mind, as we enter the twilight: "And the rockets' red glare; and bombs bursting in air; gave proof, through the night, that our flag was still there." What precious moments will break the darkness over the next few years to reassure us that even in the darkest moments of the Obama administration, the star spangled banner yet wave - thought it may no longer do so over the home of the free.
After all, the star spangled banner was set to the tune of a drinking song, and sexual healing is my all time favorite drinking song.
I'm loving the fact that the Miri Ben-Ari version is followed directly by the Mormon Tabernacle choir's.
Trooper, you should check out the former.
After all, the star spangled banner was set to the tune of a drinking song,
As you all have probably gathered, I'm not much of "shelter-er" with regard to realities.
Competing and otherwise.
Doyle, if Romney had been the veep - worse yet, the nominee - the dems would have had a field day when the financial crisis was invented, casting him as a fat cat CEO in league with the AIG board and so forth; they would have portrayed him as the guy that laid you off so his stock prices would go up half a point. None of it would be true, but they would have absolutely slaughtered him, and as we have seen this season, the American people are evidently more gullible than I had given them credit for - how else to explain why the "Obama is a Muslim" nonsense is still circulating? How else to explain why the "McCain is running for Bush's third term nonsense is still circling? When passions ride high enough, it seems that some people will literally believe anything.
None of it would be true
It wouldn't be true that Romney's the guy that fires you to make his stock go up a quarter point (a la Lumberg)?
Give me a break. I don't think private equity is evil, but the essence of it is that public management is too soft about expenses and that a sufficiently ruthless owner can get better returns out of a given business.
Greed, for lack of a better word, works. Greed is good. Greed cuts through and captures the very essence of the evolutionary spirit.
evolutionary
Is that a deliberate word choice, or is there just a skipped letter?
I'm not being snarky or a typo-nanny (LOL! As if! Of all people!); I'm actually curious. Because it's interesting to think of the statement in both ways.
Yeah, I get the Gekko reference. But I don't remember the original full quote and I'm too lazy to look it up (or already on multi-tasking overload).
Is that a deliberate word choice, or is there just a skipped letter?
It's deliberate, but it's actually a quote from "Wall Street."
My point about Romney is that he is Gordon Gekko but that such is not as big a problem politically as Simon was making out.
By the way, I'm wrong about our list ending with Ray Stevens (I didn't scroll and was in shock when I did my initial post on our SSB collection). It actually ends with the Zion Harmonizers ... but we've got a while to go yet before we get there, since we've just gotten to The Rippingtons.
More cross-posting. Thanks for the response.
OK, Sandi Patty definitely gets my vote, hands down, for most turgid and overwrought version. (She clearly was exposed to too much Andrew Lloyd Webber, among others, at an early age.) It's possible something will pop up to beat it, but I highly, highly doubt it.
Do not despair. Once the election is over and Obama is sworn in and tips his hand as to his real feelings, we will see that we have elected a good looking version of Cynthia McKinney.
Then the opposition can coalesce and be effective in resisting.
Wolverines!
Once the election is over and Obama is sworn in and tips his hand as to his real feelings, we will see that we have elected a good looking version of Cynthia McKinney.
Again, only oversensitive liberals could suspect that the race issue looms large for Walter.
As for the "liberal," they fall into the trap laid for them by leftists by accepting the postulate, not realizing that those postulates are read in such a way that they contain the seeds of their own inevitable damnation.
A good example of these poisoned postulates is the notion of "racism" as it is employed today -a notion so vast and so vague that no Democrat, no matter how sincere and scrupulous, can avoid being accused of it."
J.F Revel
Shorter Pogo: There is no such thing as racism.
Some statistician should figure out the odds of the same person comparing Obama to David Dinkins and Cynthia McKinney in the same thread without consciously taking race into account.
Even if 1/10th of all nationally-recognized politicians were black (and that's too high), it would be a 100:1 shot.
... but Palladian and Pogo assure me that I'm being paranoid, and they're right so often!
Doyle it is not the race issue but the extreme liberalism that Obama shares with Ms. McKinney that is the problem. A sense of entitlement and grievance and an estrangement from America that he has managed to cover up with the help of the media. A liberal of the stripe of Henry Waxman or Dennis Kucinich or David Bonior could never get the nomination over a more mainstream Hillary Clinton who while liberal is no where near the extremist that both McKinney and Obama have proven to be over the years. The way the fact that he is black filters in is that it shields him from criticism and scrutiny that would ended his candidacy in it's infancy.
But by all means enjoy tomorrow Doyle. Revel in you victory. Prepare your show trials and withdrawals of troops from all over the world. The imposition of excessive and confiscatory taxes on anyone making more than the poverty line. I do not think you are going to enjoy this as much as you think you will.
I am sorry that it is so racist to protest. It is probably best to remain silent while the lists are compiled.
A sense of entitlement and grievance...
Oh this is going to get good. Let me pop some popcorn before I finish this one.
Shorter doyle: RACIST!
"The first step in using racism for the construction of the great taboo is to reduce a multiple reality to one phenomenon -that is, to reduce diverse forms of behavior which, though reprehensible, are of varying gravity, harmfulness, and above all origins, to a single, fundamental concept: That of "racism."
The second step is to assimilate this monolithic denominator, which has been obtained by the artificial fusion of myriad forms of discriminatory and scornful behavior, with the ideological, doctrinaire, pseudoscientific racism of Third Reich theorists.
Finally, in a third stage, any measure and at selecting human beings and at distinguishing them from one another, even for purely practical, scholastic, hygienic, or disciplinary reasons, is termed "discriminatory"."
Revel
Have a big glass of win.
You and your fellow travelers have earned it.
You and your fellow travelers have earned it.
Yes we have. If you need cheering up tomorrow night maybe you should watch "Mississippi Burning."
Simon,
It is a bit early to say who could have been a better vice presidential nominee. I mean if McCain wins, there was no better nominee. Maybe if he loses by just losing IA, NM, and CO from Bush 2004 states that argument would still hold. But if he loses OH, IN, MO, PA, VA, NC, FL it is hard to believe that Tom Ridge could have done worse. I know he (along with a significant majority of Americans) is not sufficiently anti-abortion for the liking of the base in the Republican party but he was a very competent executive from a state with a complex economy. He also served in the house and in homeland security.
If McCain/Palin are within spitting distance in PA, I think McCain/Ridge would be doing even better. In places like OH, Ridge would cause you to lose support among the anti-abortionists but he would resonate with the blue collar guys. On national security it really isn't even fair to compare Ridge to Palin but suffice it to say the things that Brooks et. al said about Palin could not have been said about Ridge.
If Kerry had been winning by Obama-like margins and then lost, you'd have something to be encouraged by, but he didn't so you don't.
That, of course, is the key point: Nobody get encouraged by anything.
Chip is right as far as the Dems being poor winners. Remember 2006? The same vile spew after they one as before.
No, they won't handle it well. It'll be interesting to see what happens with ACORN if McCain wins.
Racist = not leftist
Sexist = not leftist (enough)
That's what we've learned isn't it? Isn't that the lesson underneath the attacks?
Palin's not really a woman.
Michael Steele's not really black.
The left has claimed "authenticity". You're either a leftist or part of the white European patriarchal establishment, whether one of the privileged members or self-loathing non-members.
It's a poor substitute for thought but perhaps those like Doyle aren't actually up to thinking.
Palin's not really a woman.
Michael Steele's not really black.
I for one haven't made either of these (extremely difficult) arguments.
"I for one haven't made either of these (extremely difficult) arguments."
You will, Doyle, you will.
I'm not voting for either one, but when Obama wins, I'm looking forward to the sudden onslaught of...
***drumroll please***
ADS -Accorn Derangement Syndrome!!!
It is instructive to see that in doyle’s world it is racist to compare two politicians who are so consistently on the same page as to their views of America or as doyle would say Amerika.
You see it would be racist to compare a french fry to a baked potato. You need to compare a baked potato to a piece of bread or you are a food racist. While it is true that both can come off as half-baked the taste and the flavor is much more congruent if you compare vegetables that come out of the same bin.
I'd like to commend Walter for avoiding any references to fried chicken or watermelon in those food analogies.
"fried chicken or watermelon "
In which the leftist gets a free pass to say something that's actually racist, because he is among the true believers.
I am glad I avoided all the racist food groups.
I will also henceforth avoid mentioning rasins, prunes, olives, eggplants and pumpernikel bread since to joke about such items is of course racist.
We all must learn how to live in this new world.
When Obama wins, I will be as proud as can be of my country and finally think that we have turned a corner on racism.
I'll rest and then get ready to fight the right to undo the damage of 8 years of Republican extremism.
No way he loses. We are getting out the vote and the right wing is demoralized and becoming weirder by the day.
Obama's grandmother passes away. A day before the election. Hmmmmm.
/wingnut
Jim, two problems.
First, when you say that Brooks et al couldn't have said of Ridge what they said of Palin, I think you have matters backwards. As Althouse pithily observed twelve years ago, the search for a hook comes after one's need to hang something on it. The criticism of Palin is a hook. Their need to say bad things about Palin predated the selection of Palin. Brooks had been looking for an excuse to vote for Obama for months - I watch the News Hour every Friday and it was, quite obviously, love. George Will, equally obviously, had been looking for an excuse to vote against McCain. In both cases, and as with most of these quisling bastards, it has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. She's just the scapegoat, the disingenuously-offered excuse. Do not believe it. Thus, while you're correct that they wouldn't have said of Ridge what they said about Palin, they would have found something else to criticize.
Second, you mention Ridge but fail to acknowledge that McCain picking Ridge would have been like Obama picking Bob Casey or some other pro-life liberal. It would have driven a deep wedge into the party - even more so, actually, than Casey: the Dems are hungry for power and ready to sacrifice any principle on that alter, and most of them love their candidate. Obama supporters would have rationalized it, just as they have rationalized everything he has done that disappoints them, from public funding to Heller. By contrast, the GOP, already unhappy with McCain, would have thrown up their hands and walked. It wouldn't have mattered that Ridge boosted turnout among moderates by half a percentage point if the selection had reduced turnout among conservatives by thirty per cent.
I don't think that people outside the GOP base realized, during this whole election cycle, just how willing to shoot themselves in the foot the base was. If Rudy had been the nominee, I really think you'd have seen significant dropoff in turnout. McCain started in a somewhat better position, but he only really salvaged it by picking Palin. Those who criticize McCain for picking Palin seem incapable of realizing the blinkin' obvious: that whatever else McCain might want to accomplish with his veep pick, he had to unify and energize the party. That was not a sufficient condition, but it was absolutely and beyond peradventure of doubt a necessary one. Palin was the only person who could do what she's done, and it's spectacularly unfair to blame the victim for the media gang rape she's been subjected to.
AlphaLiberal said...
"When Obama wins, I will be as proud as can be of my country and finally think that we have turned a corner on racism."
Again, the dishonest characterization of race as a relevant factor in this election. The sub silentio claim that Obama's critics are racist. Well, fuck you. It's your candidate who's engaged in crude race baiting, from the appalling Philadelphia speech to the "not like those other guys" schtick and everything else. You people are slime. Just utter slime.
Oh, that's unfortunate timing, regarding Obama's grandmother's death. A shame, really.
"...finally think that we have turned a corner on racism"
Turned the corner?
Jesus H. Christ. We'll only turn the goddamned corner??
It would mean we can stick an freaking fork in racism, because it's gone. If this doesn't mean that racism is cured then to hell with you and all liberals, cause there ain't nothing ever what can make you happy. So yes, a good "go to hell" from me too.
Well, at least Alpha, Simon and Pogo all have something in common.
Screw all three of you reductionists, howzabout that?
Reader, I think - or hope - you're simply overreading "you people." I had in mind the people who make the ugly and utterly false accusation that Obama's critics are racists. Those people - people like Alpha and Doyle - are who I was calling for what they are, not all Democrats and all Obama voters.
"Screw all three of you reductionists"
Reader, where'd that come from???
Oh, I see. I said 'all liberals'. Whoops. My fault; meant "leftists". The term liberal has been rather sullied if not completely damaged by leftists, so I'm always surprised someone still claims to be one who isn't way way left.
My apologies to all non-leftist liberals.
All three of you.
;P
Very sad about Obama's grandmother. At least he did get to go and visit with her before the end.
I just hope (in vain I'm sure) that people will have the decency to not make this a campaign issue.
This reminds me of a question on a writing forum... "Do you think we'll ever get past sexism to a place where people are truly equal, even really far in the future, because I don't want to just throw a couple fluffy females in my story to be engineers or pilots..."
Wanted to crawl through the inner-tubes and slap the idiot upside the head. He couldn't imagine a non-fluffy female mechanic or star ship pilot? And he wants to start a discussion about the possible impossibility of getting over sexist attitudes?
The failure to examine one's own attitudes once the prerequisite "proper" belief system is in place isn't an isolated sort of thing at all. If I'd given in to temptation and explained that this person's own assumptions revealed so clearly in the question that he asked, that women really weren't suited for the jobs he wanted to put them in, was a *sexist* attitude and *sexist* assumptions, it would have been talking to a wall. Because he was *against* sexism! Hadn't he said so?
And that's racism, too.
"Turn the corner..." Yeah. Sure. Just like someone who likely considers himself a feminist can't imagine sexism ever going away enough to get past his own inability to imagine women doing responsible jobs... we might only turn the corner on racism, only the corner...
I think, Alpha, (and Doyle, too), that the rest of us don't care to wait up for you.
Dear Father Fox,
The question of rape and incest (I trust you accept the primacy of the mother's life? How about best-interest-of-the-child, as in cases of gross congenital disorders like Tay-Sachs disease?) may at least be fitly debated. Obama contemns such debate entirely. Children to him are a punishment, remember?
I understand that with modern medical and genetic knowledge it is more viable to risk the classic sequelae of incest than believed hitherto. And of course the usufruct of rape is itself blameless according to one point of view. I can respect and even contemplate seriously these ideas.
If I were a fireman, rescuing you and your family from a burning house, I hope you would be able to agree on tabling the discussion (and no doubt converting me to your way of thinking) until you and your pregnant wife were no longer breathing cyanotic smoke.
You also need to understand the significance of Palin. This is a serious stake in the ground. If McCain should be gone, in four years or eight or in eight months Heaven forbid, YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT! You actually get a maximalist pro-life President. Surely you are aware that this is otherwise extremely unlikely to happen in the next twenty years? This is the brass ring and you have to grab for it. This may very well be Providence!
It also shows, as I meant to say, that McCain is educable. There is NO OTHER CHOICE for VP whose views measure up to hers. 100% prolife (and what about those other exceptions like life of the mother? Should we really say 99.44% or so?) is a very rare bird among politicos. Do you understand this? He has opened himself up to you.
Since you also seem to despise President Bush, the man who held the line on embryonic stem cells, it is hard to know if you are serious in making the perfect, the enemy of the good, or if you are just a troll satirizing the maximalist demands.
You are saving lives by voting McCain-Palin. You are killing lives by voting Obama-Biden, or voting against McCain-Palin, or not voting. You are wasting the effort of everyone who has ever spoken up for life.
The highest nobility of spirit is not to avoid having blood on your hands. Surgeons do it all the time.
You will not be thanked in heaven for facilitating abortions, not in spirit but IN FACT, by objectively contributing to Palin & McCain's defeat.
Bill Kristol is ... glibly, arrogantly wrong about everything.
Glancing at some columns over the years, I was surprised how poor Kristol's track record was. Perhaps the NYT hired him out of some AA for pundits's sons.
white guilt... without being called a racist. Just ask those famous racists Geraldine Ferraro and William Jefferson Clinton.
The problem for racists Ferraro and Clinton is that Obama did not fit the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton self-promoting preacher model, but had a background and abilities almost identical to Clinton's (and superior to Ferraro's.)
As for a tide of white guilt sweeping Obama into office, recall that Obama is but the third African American to become a Senator, and is receiving the support of only 44% of white people. The rest of white America is happily voting for an old white dude. Is it racism? Consider that 95% of them are voting against their own economic interest.
Oops: third Senator since Reconstruction.
Whichever way this election goes, there will be a considerably greater proportion of African American voters voting for the "black" candidate than Caucasian Americans voting for the "white" candidate.
If it were not so, BHO would not have a chance.
I think an argument could be made that "racism" will effect the election whoever wins. That is unless you define "racism" as only a white thing.
So, the typical white woman died today, or yesterday. Typical.
Of course these racists are all Democrats and independents and moderates because conservatives and Republicans would never vote for such a liberal candidate. They wouldn't vote for Teddy Kennedy and Obama is much more liberal than even that senator ever was.
Regardless of whether McCain or Obama wins tomorrow, Doyle will still be a pathetic, useless waste of human flesh.
You have not proven the Doyle has human flesh. He seems much more robotic.
Consider that 95% of them are voting against their own economic interest.
Four guys are standing around deciding whether to mug a fifth guy. Remarkably, two of them decide not to.
Weird, that. They voted against their economic interests.
Syn--
Writers write what they know, if they're good, particularly as far as people.
Your writer had probably never seen a female in an engineering role, except on TV, where they often are more convincing at being fluffy than being engineery.
Oh, gloating-wise: I will gloat, but not at Obama supporters. I'm not convinced McCain would be better for the country.
I will gloat at the press, though. Oh, yes.
I do so want to see McCain win just for that reason. When the Russian press is pointing at yours and saying "See! Everyone does it!" it's time to pack it in.
For the record, my "reductionists" comment of a few hours earlier referred to race and the complex issues and history surrounding that topic and not so much political affiliation (rather otherwise). And I stand by that observation, though I regret the "screw you" bit written in the heat of the moment, which, of course, is no excuse.
Four guys are standing around deciding whether to mug a fifth guy. Remarkably, two of them decide not to.
Weird, that. They voted against their economic interests.
Heh. Well put. In fact, I'd like to hear some conservative politicians put it just that way.
Simon waxes delusional:
The sub silentio claim that Obama's critics are racist. Well, fuck you.
I said no such thing. I wrote a wholly positive post and I said I'll be really proud of my country if he wins.
After all, it was just a few months ago Clinton backers were telling us America wasn't ready to vote for a black man.
You turn that around into me insulting you??!? That's crazy. Quit thinking you know what people really think. It's not about you AT ALL.
And then all the insults flowing from this willful misintepretation.
Really, this is twisted behavior.
though I regret the "screw you" bit written in the heat of the moment, which, of course, is no excuse.
blah, blah, blah.
Typical right wing BS. Iuf you can't handle an argument head-on you just insult.
Or, like the dishonest Simon, rightwingers will dishonestly misrepresent what someone has in classic weak-ass strawman arguing technique.
Boring. And it's exactly this type of behavior that has the right wing diminishing into irrelevance.
(Just heard someone on Frontline saying "someone told Obama America wasn't ready to elect a black man.")
Oh, Alpha. You really don't follow this blog, do you?
reader_iam: every rightwinger's wetdream.
Ya betcha!
Among the rightwing insults hurled my way I forgot which thread this was!
Atrios made a great point. We have a lot to thank Bill Kristol for, because he pushed Sarah Palin upon John McCain.
Thanks, Bill!
Alpha said...
"[Simon criticized the sub silentio claim that Obama's critics are racist.] I said no such thing. I wrote a wholly positive post and I said I'll be really proud of my country if he wins."
What you wrote was that if "Obama wins, I will ... finally think that we have turned a corner on racism." Necessary implication: if Obama fails, there will be reason to think that the country hasn't "turned a corner on racism"; upshot: McCain supporters are racists.
More rank dishonesty from Simon:
I had in mind the people who make the ugly and utterly false accusation that Obama's critics are racists. Those people - people like Alpha
I said no such thing, you piece of shit liar.
Tell you what, alpha: if I'm wrong, or have misread your comment, it'll be super easy for you to come out and say, without equivocation or hesitation, that Obama's failure will owe nothing to his race if it happens, and McCain's supporters are not racist. Go ahead.
If you don't mind, I won't hold my breath.
reader_iam: no one's wetdream.
sniff, sniff.
Awww, geeee.
Simon keeps digging...
What you wrote was that if "Obama wins, I will ... finally think that we have turned a corner on racism." Necessary implication: if Obama fails, there will be reason to think that the country hasn't "turned a corner on racism"; upshot: McCain supporters are racists.
Complete horseshit.
My "implication" was that I'll be as proud as I've ever been of my country.
You have twisted my words to mean things I never intended and demonstrated a deep inner dishonesty. It's not even a reasonable conclusion.
I just saw someone on my TV saying America wouldn't ever elect a black man President. It has nothing to do with you or John McCain, you egotistical twerp.
Stick your latin up your ass.
Simon, "your approval is neither desired nor required."
You demonstrate a real loose grip on logic and facts. You seem to think debate means falsely and dishonestly putting words in peoples' mouths.
Typical. Like Sarah Palin coming out today and saying Democrats love terrorists.
Anyone else watch the the half-time bit on Monday Night Football?
Alpha, you wrote what you wrote. You can delete your comments if you like, but see that button just above "publish" that says "send a copy of this to email?" or similar? That handy doodad means that we all know what you said. You said that if Obama wins, you "will ... finally think that we have turned a corner on racism." The assumptions that are necessary to that statement are also included, which are as I described above.
Not me, reader. I was too busy dreaming...about you.
Simon plays his little game:
The assumptions that are necessary to that statement are also included, which are as I described above.
You're making this up. My statement had nothing to do with John McCain or you.
Yes or no: Was there a time in American history when a black candidate, regardless of their opponent could not have been elected President?
Reasonable people would agree there was such a time.
If a black man can be elected President then doesn't it mean that something changed? That we turned a corner?
That's all my comment meant. That you took this and twisted it to say I meant a charge of racism against McCain and his supporters is dishonest or dumb. And, I don't think you're dumb.
If I wanted to call John McCain and/or his supporters racist, I would just do it.
You could apologize for your dishonesty.
For example, when Joe the Plumber compared Barack Obama to Sammy Davis Jr, I thought he was being blatantly racist. And that's not the first time I've said it.
The nation needs Obama. He will do a fantastic job as President of the United States. Let's face it, Bushism has really messed our country up... not only economically but psychologically as well.
Marie, are you actually this vapid in real life, or only when Axelrod is paying you? We "need[] Obama" about as much as we "need" a Backstreet Boys reunion tour. If you feel psychologically messed up by the Bush administration, seek professional help, don't take it out on the rest of us.
Alpha, you know what you said, and so does everyone else. There was a time that a black man couldn't be elected President. It ended a long time ago. For you to imply - as you did - that the primary impediment to Obama's election was race is absurd. You complain, mistakenly, about dihonesty and then add that "If I wanted to call John McCain and/or his supporters racist, I would just do it." That rings hollow; as I made clear above, if you didn't think that McCain and his supporters are racist, if you really accept that Obama's failure will owe nothing to his race if it happens, say so. Until then, I'm done arguing with you about this. Good night.
To the point of this thread, here is an example of the sort of circumstances that would lead to some well-deserved anger if the election goes to McCain:
Link
Thanks for the laugh simon. I will be laughing with pure joy when you become even angrier after Obama wins. Your projection is beautifully exemplifying my point... your psychologist I'm sure would agree. Have a wonderful time adjusting to your political loss.
For you to imply - as you did - that the primary impediment to Obama's election was race is absurd.
Look, you're in the business of projecting what you want someone to have said over what was actually said.
I never said that. I never implied that. I never meant that.
I've been going door to door for days. Today I was doing so thinking this might actually come to pass and, sincerely and honestly, thinking it's great that our country can elect a black man.
Now in this back and forth I've provided different and new ways to get this through your thick skull. You, OTOH, have basically restated the same point, which I have shown is bunch of bullocks.
I never said, should he lose, it's about racism. I actually returned here, just now, to post from a blog showing how it could be due to Republican thievery -- not race.
Like I say, Simon, you're dishonest. And you can't marshal a case for your point beyond "I know what you really meant."
marie, well put. This is a lot about projection. He seems awfully defensive on this point, doesn't he?
Yes I agree that simon is defensive because the party he supports is about to lose not only the presidential election but also many other critical seats in the country. He sees his political world changing and can only lash personal insults to strangers who happen to fundamentally disagree with his political philosophy. It's a classic case of "I think I am smarter than you therefore I am" syndrome; typical extreme conservatism.
I also agree with you alpha about the possibility of this election being stolen by republicans. If Obama loses, which I pray he doesn't, it will only be because it was another fixed election on the part of key republican insiders.
Racism sadly still exists in this world and our country so I believe it could be a motivating factor for some conservatives to work towards fixing the election on election day; again I pray it does not happen.
Obama will win the popular vote. The question is... Will republicans work towards squashing the truth (as seen in simon's style of debating), or will they honorably respect our democratic process in this 2008 election? I pray for the honor to be displayed by all.
Post a Comment