Note to Little Miss Attila. Not everyone who voted for Obama voted for him for the simple stereotypical reason you keep in your head. If you want to know why I actually voted for Obama, read "How McCain Lost Me." The bottom line was:
1. [McCain] did not understand economics, the most important issue.I'm not happy with the job Obama is doing, but it could be a lot worse, and what McCain would have done is something we will never get to see. I won't accuse you of succumbing to a cult of personality if you are imagining some wonderful McCain presidency that would have been, but you can't compare that what never happened to what is happening now.
2. He lost the ability to make the experience argument [when he picked Sarah Palin for VP].
3. He never defined himself as a principled conservative.
4. Erratic and incoherent, he lacked sufficient mental capacity.
In the end, we were stuck choosing between 2 far from perfect men, and I voted for Obama without being caught up in any sort of giddy emotionalism.
পোস্টগুলি
৩৬৩টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 363 এর 201 – থেকে 363Let me guess:
You also think Oprah is the country's moral authority.
"I voted for Obama without being caught up in any sort of giddy emotionalism."
Well, you got caught in something, because any fool could see that Obama was not qualified to be president.
I wish someone would come up with an site for choosing candidate pairings - like an optician asking you to narrow down your prescription:
O/B vs. McCain/Palin
M/P
M/P vs. Hillary/Lieberman
etc.
This would help us all determine who's truly viable in the Tea Party age.
EnigmatiCore,
"Crack, just because something is "politics, pure and simple" does not make it wise nor smart. In fact, politics is often the antithesis of both."
You're a fool.
What, if anything can he do to woo you back in 2012
There is always going to be that percentage of the electorate that will bitch and complain and rage against Obama right up until they walk in the voting booth, and then cast their vote for him, and then afterwards come up with some pretext to rationalize and justify doing what they "didn't want to do."
It looks as if that is what the good professor did in 2008. At that point in her political life, she simply had not been mugged enough. There was still enough residual lib that she fell into default mode. I doubt that it will be the same for her and most others come 2012.
Interesting insight there, Crack. You certainly demonstrated the impressive extent of your wit with that one.
AA: "McCain's best argument over Obama was experience. Without that argument, he had to go on other arguments. On the other arguments, he came up short, for me."
Really? But experience is a morally neutral concept. Robert Byrd had more experience than John McCain. He was serving in Congress while John Mac was still hitting it with strippers in Pensacola.
Althouse, McArdle, and Noonan are the holy trinity of opinion as far as I'm concerned. I voted for Obama as well and also do regret it. Neither the three of you nor I are responsible for Obama's failure. Obama is, as he acknowledged the other day in reference to his administration's non-handling of the oil spill, and the media enabled him.
We shall see whom the Republicans put up in 2012, but so far it looks as if they have learned nothing. They deserve a lot of credit for uniting in opposition to Obama's spending agenda, but they cancel out that credit by aligning themselves with bigoted yahoos in opposition to any civil rights for homosexuals and for failure to come up with reasonable solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. Republicans now fail even to support immigration solutions previously proposed by Bush and supported by McCain because they are pandering to racists.
Please, oh most holy trinity, find us a candidate against Obama who is a "liberal" in the 19th century sense of the term. Such a candidate would be a strong supported of individual liberty, for example by calling out Obama for his fatwa against American citizens in foreign countries, and by opposing the Romney-Obama individual insurance mandate.
TCE said: "Man, this is definitely the NewAge:
People are applauding others for being scammed, not admitting the truth, and showing cowardice in the face of the truth.
Simply amazing."
If you read my short post again, but carefully this time, you'll find nothing that's applauding her actual position here. I won't even mention my comment upthread either.
I know you're on a mission here, but slow down and take a deep breath. Or vice versa.
Whatever gets you to chill the fuck out.
You know, all this "Blake nailed it" nonsense certainly doesn't square with Ann's "Obama is a cultist" post.
How easily y'all are fooled/distracted.
EnigmatiCore: My point exemplified, just a few posts after I typed it.
Libertarians tend to like the Paul family because they're the only "libertarians" out there that have won office. Put Instapundit or Boaz up in a real election and see if they can win. When push comes to shove, it's VERY hard to explain libertarianism without being portrayed as a heartless anarchist. For people who claim they love nuance, the Left has no use for long-winded arguments about the proper role of the state.
EnigmatiCore,
"Interesting insight there, Crack. You certainly demonstrated the impressive extent of your wit with that one."
Oh - I'm sorry - you must have me confused with the black guy spouting pretty-sounding bullshit in the White House.
I'm the one who delivers plain-spoken truths.
You're excused.
Given your obvious powers for analysis, and given your failure at critically analyzing your four criteria (as several posters have demonstrated), I conclude that you actually voted for Obama for reasons other than you state. What’s left is that you voted for Obama for emotional reasons. Your arguments are a construct to convince yourself that it was a rational decision.
At this point, I only hope we survive your moment of "clarity", because I don't think that's a certainty.
I'm a fool. Y'all are easily fooled.
This whole endeavor is a foolish game, I am telling you. Trying to get all of us to see the light is a fool's errand.
The Crack Emcee is just the man.
/Obligatory
"What’s left is that you voted for Obama for emotional reasons."
Or, possibly (and in my opinion, more likely) she voted against McCain for emotional reasons.
I know that he rubs me the wrong way, often.
AA said: McCain's best argument over Obama was experience. Without that argument..."
How so? There is no comparison between the Obama and McCain when it comes to experience. I have to gree with TCE in that you are not coming across as honest here.
wv: decobel - unit of measurement for Christmas bell volume.
Ann Althouse said...
BTW, Blake nailed it.
No, actually AllenS nails it in the second comment. Curious that you think Blake nails it considering Blake called you a liar.
AllenS covers this issue with point #3--if it's not apparent, think about it for a while. Blake calls you a liar and you and Meade both respond "Blake nails it."
There is always going to be that percentage of the electorate that will bitch and complain and rage against Obama right up until they walk in the voting booth, and then cast their vote for him, and then afterwords come up with some pretext to rationalize and justify doing what they "didn't want to do."
True, and I think Obama's core of "I'm voting for him no matter what in 2012" supporters is probably at least in the range of 35 percent. That's still a landslide loss if nobody else votes for him, but there will be a certain percentage who -- as with the David Dinkins-Rudy Giuliani rematch in 1993 -- will gripe and complain and then vote for the incumbent, because either the Republican nominee is too stupid and/or evil to be trusted or (going back to both the '93 NYC mayoral race and the Carter supporters reasons to vote for Jimmy over Reagan in 1980), the mayoralty/presidency is just too big for one person alone to handle any more, and the nation and the world's problems are systemic and intractable, and can only be managed and contained, not solved.
"Why take a chance on an untested (and, of course stupid and/or evil) candidate, instead of sticking with one with four years of executive experience?" the argument will go in 2012, and I think enough people will go with that belief to make the race close (Obama may not win, but combining that and the big media's renewed love affair with the president that will start no later than 14 months from now), it will make the 2012 election closer than the current poll numbers would indicate, even if the economy and the other national and world issues are no better in the fall of '12 than they are today).
"Slow down and take a deep breath. Or vice versa.
Whatever gets you to chill the fuck out."
Spoken like a true liberal. You hated your dad, too, after you crashed the family car, didn't you?
Sorry but no, I will not "chill out".
You're wrong. You've been wrong. And you will always be wrong. And the entire country is paying a severe price for you being wrong. And - continuing to be wrong - you neither care, nor will you accept responsibility, though you're the one to blame.
Accept that fact, and then we can talk.
I had to take another look at what blake nails.
blake said...
You jest, but Althouse is right about this: Democrats have been running as conservative for decades.
So, blake, Meade and Althouse all agree that Obama is more of a conservative than McCain? Is that what the three of them mean? WTF?
"Or, possibly (and in my opinion, more likely) she voted against McCain for emotional reasons."
I think it's more likely it was a pro-Obama vote. The emotional appeal is obvious to me. Hell, I wanted to vote for him, but there is no way I could. This country was on an economic precipice and we just couldn't afford him, as is proving to be true.
From the beginning, I don't think there was any way she was not voting for him. But she required a rational facade to justify it to herself.
My opinion.
"You jest, but Althouse is right about this: Democrats have been running as conservative for decades."
Yee, but nobody in their right mind believed them! My, God!
"From the beginning, I don't think there was any way she was not voting for him. But she required a rational facade to justify it to herself."
I was just thinking to myself what a wild and wooly thing the human mind can be if you don't put brakes on it. The moments of lucidity, followed by lies, distractions, rationalizations, etc. - anything but saying "I was wrong".
It's scary, really. As a people, we are so damned immature. Ann is 59 years old - and can be wicked smart. It's really amazing.
Welcome to my world, folks.
TCE said: "Spoken like a true liberal. You hated your dad, too, after you crashed the family car, didn't you?"
WTF are you talking about? If I were into drugs, I'd want some of what you're smoking dude.
Up to this point where you begin talking out of your ass, I was pretty much with you. But now you just went full blown retard.
Oh, Blake nailed it, all right: "Having said that, I feel pretty confident in saying there was no way you weren't going to vote for the first black Presidential nominee."
tim maguire said...
"Curious that you think Blake nails it considering Blake called you a liar."
Either I missed that or you owe blake an apology.
A short, but good resume of having done well at a lower level of responsibility is more promising than a long resume of achieving little or nothing at a higher level.
And Obama had no resume of achievement at all, doors were opened for him and his path was pointed out; there is no record of him achieving anything on his own.
GMay, you're a liberal - you were never with me. You'll turn your back on anyone who says "tell the truth - unvarnished" - screaming "chill out", like it's the passion an argument is delivered with that changes reality. It ain't. It's a common argument against fathers when kids/wives, etc. fuck up.
You're wrong.
BZZZT! Sorry, Ann; you should have known how incompetent Obama was going to be; enough of us tried to tell you, and everybody else, that he was (still is!) an arrogant, self-absorbed incompetent and inexperienced jerk. You didn't like McCain - and neither did I. But you voted for the GREATER evil, because you didn't like the lesser?
Althouse - it's almost impossible to take the emotion out of your voting choice when the choices generally suck.
EnigmaticCore--
Well, it only supports half your point: The Libs like Paul.
The racist charge needs a lot more proof than that. I've heard there was some racist stuff in his newsletter, but I don't know.
Last time I checked on LMA, she was defending Jeff Goldstein for acting like Deb Frisch and threatening people's kneecaps and employment.
She's very, very much a cliquey 'my team or you suck' type. Althouse may be cliquey for all I know, but at least she isn't a partisan.
And while I adore Palin, I do agree that the tactic of experience arguments was lost by picking her for VP. And just imagine how much better off things would be if he had not picked her. She would still be something... I know some think she wouldn't be, but that's not true. She's played a bad hand well, but Mccain dealt her that bad hand.
Even if she had far more executive experience that Biden and Obama, she didn't have a great deal of it.
AllenS, yeah, no, nobody's arguing Obama is more conservative (than anyone, ever, in the history of politics).
Yee, but nobody in their right mind believed them! My, God!
Tell it to the Stupak pro-lifers.
My friend Crack...Please keep up your high standards of teaching that exposes leaders and followers of magic cults. You are a one of a kind talent at that. I also wish you would keep in mind that judging people who have not had your unique and enlightening life experience of struggling with these issues of what is a delusion and "What is Truth" is not necessary. This is more like a paintball fight among friends here. Our real enemies are not using paintball guns, but are instead using "Charming Smiles" and promises that can never be delivered upon to seduce minds that have not learned to love the truth from scriptural teaching from a Christian Church.
blake, are you saying that Obama ran as a conservative?
TCE breathlessly continues: "GMay, you're a liberal - you were never with me. You'll turn your back on anyone who says "tell the truth - unvarnished" - screaming "chill out", like it's the passion an argument is delivered with that changes reality. It ain't. It's a common argument against fathers when kids/wives, etc. fuck up.
You're wrong."
I'm a liberal? Who the fuck knew? What would I do without psychic geniuses like you who obviously can't read worth a shit to tell me I've had it wrong about myself for over 20 fucking years.
So, what exactly are you basing your bullshit about me on?
I gotta go grab some chow, but I'll be back to check out your latest spittle flecked rants about me that have no basis in reality. Should be fun.
Ann Althouse said:
"My point about studying the speech is that it's historically significant. The first black major-party candidate faces defeat because of something having to do with race and he has to work his way through the problem plausible. How does he do it without losing some of his supporters? He aligned with Wright for a reason, and now Wright is inconvenient, but he can't just throw Wright under the bus. He must use rhetoric. What does he do? How well does he do it? Etc. etc. It's an important object of study. Sorry but that is indisputable. You need to tell the difference between observation and agreement."
What an example of hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and/or self-delusion!
Obama's speech was about race relations. Your point in the original post was that it should be taken seriously as a meditation on race relations, not political tactics. To say now that you were actually thinking about political tactics not race relations is beyond ridiculous.
As for Obama's wisdom about race relations, his speech's most memorable line was that Obama could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could his own (supposedly racist) grandmother. Six weeks later he disowned Rev. Wright because of his racism. So much for principle and understanding.
the most interesting aspect of this long, heated, at times obnoxious, and disagreeable rant at the Professor is the extent to which so many of you think that you can see through her writings to her inner truth... where you claim that you see her being disingenuous about her voting motives and her emotionalism.
why is it so hard for you all to get that individuals can look at collection of facts & events and experiences and draw vastly different conclusions, and yet both be completely honest about what they have concluded and why ?
Does it make you feel better about yourselves to decide that she is lying, that she is less moral ... because she doesn't agree with you ? Why do you need her to agree with you ? Some of you seem to feel distraught that she is 'lying,' but its you who choose to believe she's lying as opposed to just admitting that people are different ... or maybe its that she's not as much like you as you want her to be.
Maybe some of you need to re-read the post yesterday on Maureen Dowd's editorial.
Tg,
"I also wish you would keep in mind that judging people who have not had your unique and enlightening life experience of struggling with these issues of what is a delusion and "What is Truth" is not necessary. This is more like a paintball fight among friends here."
I get that, Tg - really - otherwise I wouldn't be here. But, you have to admit, one should be able to tell the truth amongst friends. As I said, Ann loses nothing by abandoning the rationalizations - she already admitted she knows what's up in the post I linked to - but reciprocating that friendship, with honesty, is too much. Like the French (who Ann admires) she's caught up in image - which can't be let go of. (The French will always admit - in a French poll - they're fucked up, they just won't admit it to anyone else, or let anyone else get away with pointing it out or suggesting they correct it.) Every step of the way, this thread is filled with what I write about every day. But no one wants to deal with it that way (which is also what I write about: like when Oprah interviewed Rielle Hunter and few were willing to point out that Rielle was using the advice Oprah's been spouting for her entire career - "follow your own truth" - to justify her ugly behavior and the damage she'd caused. It blows my mind. Are we that stupid?) Ann is lying, to us and herself, and insisting she cop to it is bad manners or some shit - when her excuses are a total betrayal of the friendship we show her.
Until we recognize this behavior for what it is, and stop it, I doubt our country will improve much anytime soon.
I suppose the other great irony here is that so many of the professor's post are about deconstructing other writers in this way; and now her loyal wing nuts have turned on her using the methods of critique that they have seen her using ...
... kinda funny actually.
Nonsense. I didn't call Althouse a liar. First of all, if I were going to call her a liar, I'd call her a liar.
She didn't vote for McCain because he was a squish. Obama, on the other hand, seemed (to her) like a strong, principled liberal.
It's not hard to figure out, really. It's not that she was looking for the most liberal or conservative. She was looking for a strong leader.
And, in the rarified, protected atmosphere he campaigned under, Obama looked--well, I can't really see it myself, but I can see others seeing it.
And, let's face it: The truth was sort of unbelievable? That he really was an unapologetic, unreconstructed Marxist.
She expected more pragmatism, better vetting, that the adults were being adults and not really throwing this completely unqualified do-nothing in front of us.
It's not an unreasonable expectation.
But it was wrong. She should probably own up to that.
By the way, I did admit I was wrong about Barack.
Well, then you don't have the excuse that you were misled by Obama's glamour, and will have to live with having picked him simply by mistaken reasoning.
danielle,
I posted a link, several times, where Ann clearly states she knew this was a political cult. I'm not guessing, misunderstanding, or anything - those are her words.
We've now heard several rationalizations for her that make no sense - and not one that addresses that clear statement.
"Ann is lying, to us and herself, and insisting she cop to it is bad manners or some shit - when her excuses are a total betrayal of the friendship we show her."
in other words ...
Ann, I know you better than you know you.
... but really, what is actually being said ...
Ann, I need for you to be this person I imagine you to be. (This person I've never actually met, but whose blog I've been reading loyally.) So stop being who you really are, and be the person I'm telling you to be. I choose to reject this new information you are giving me about who you are because it doesnt fit in with the picture I have about you.
Blake,
"I can't really see it myself, but I can see others seeing it."
Welcome to world of cultism.
Danielle, I don't know if many long-time readers think that Althouse is consciously lying. Having read her for a while, it seems apparent, to me at least, that she wouldn't intentionally lie about her motives. She has too much integrity and guts to do that.
But I do think that some emotion, some white guilt, some being caught up in the cool movement, played a part in her decision.
And that's fine. I don't fault her for this. And even her failure to see this can be attributed to an emotion -- pride.
She's human. (And it's somewhat "meta" that one of Althouse's favorite topics is trying to figure out how much of each of our decisions are due to prejudice or emotion, and how reliant they are on reasoning).
The one justification that she gives that holds water: We don't know how much of this crap McCain would have gone along with, saddling Republicans with the coming collapse of the economy instead of the hard-left wing of the Democrat party.
But even this seems to be manufactured after-the-fact; and we won't know whether this makes sense until we know just how much damage will be done by turning both houses and the presidency over to socialists with Ds after their names. And until we know that we'll be able to displace them from power, once they've signed up 20 million more voters from the ranks of the formerly illegal aliens.
I don't think I buy this about "The first black major-party candidate ....." I think that ship had already sailed because I believe Colin Powell would have been elected if he had chosen to run. Alma said no, and he apparently did not want it that bad anyway, but if he had gone for it, he would have won.
So Obama became the first to actually run and win, but I do not think there was any reason to swoon over that.
207th!
Prof. Althouse, I thought I voted for Obama for rather similar reasons. But I think now that I have been more circumspect than you in my self-analysis. Yes, McCain was all that you said, but Obama was much less than we thought and hoped.
We voters take in all sorts of data-- numbers, arguments, feelings, etc.-- in our assessment of POTUS candidates. I've hired folks that I had to fire later, and in those cases, I've tried to analyze where my evaluations went wrong. There were always errors on my part.
You, I, McArdle, Noonan, and all the other thinking folks on the right made a mistake. You did not do it right. Your reasons are insufficient. Let's do better next time.
Crack--
No argument that there wasn't a Cult of Obama. In fact, my expectation has been that he'll end up being the most reviled President since Johnson (Andrew), or maybe Buchanan.
Because nobody gets angrier than someone who suddenly realizes he's been duped. And he gets angry at the former object of his adoration, all the more so because at some level, he recognizes his own culpability.
However, I reject the notion that 53% of the population was infected by the cult. A great many people voted against McCain and the Republicans.
Yeah, there were fanatics. But I'm guessing most weren't. Obama better hope most weren't.
Blake, "racist charge needs a lot more proof than that".
Yes, but life's circumstances will prevent me from being the one to provide that proof. However, I can say with the utmost confidence that the newsletters ghostwritten for Rep. Paul decades ago, and the latest controversy with Rand, were unknown to me when I formed my opinion of that family and their inner circle. When those matters did get publicity, it was far from surprising to me.
Take that as you will. Either I know of what I am speaking, or I do not.
Danielle: Does it make you feel better about yourselves to decide that she is lying, that she is less moral
We didn't say she was lying or less moral. We're saying that her reasons are not rational. And that we suspect she is fooling herself
because she doesn't agree with you?
No. There have been a host of issues she's presented on her blog that we've disagreed over. That doesn't mean we like her any less.
For example, I think you either a) didn't understand what you read, b) are projecting your own standards of liberal intolerance onto us c) are using hyperbole and distortions to score partisan points.
I suppose the other great irony here is that so many of the professor's post are about deconstructing other writers in this way; and now her loyal wing nuts have turned on her... kinda funny actually
Funny. You think we've "turned" on her.
There was a time Danielle, when conservatives and liberals would go at each other and the laugh over drinks afterwards.
And then people like you made it all personal, like the 49er fan who wont come to your house because you're from Dallas.
The only irony is you lecturing us on how to have a civil disagreement.
danielle,
"in other words ...
Ann, I know you better than you know you.
... but really, what is actually being said ...
Ann, I need for you to be this person I imagine you to be. (This person I've never actually met, but whose blog I've been reading loyally.) So stop being who you really are, and be the person I'm telling you to be. I choose to reject this new information you are giving me about who you are because it doesnt fit in with the picture I have about you."
Wrong. I have never been shy about saying Ann is a NewAger and a liberal and, like a NewAger and a liberal, she's using the tried-and-true tactics of those two groups - distractions, rationalizations, avoidance, etc. - to avoid telling the truth. Most of us, here, see it. We're buying these new rationalizations as much as we buy the "I'm a conservative" shit she tries on us, to hilarious results.
You forget - I bath in these behaviors - and am rarely wrong about them. Most importantly, if I am wrong, I'll admit it without shame.
Why is that so hard for others? Especially the supposed "smart" folks?
"But, you have to admit, one should be able to tell the truth amongst friends."
I often consider my deepest of friends to be those who consider me a fool.
They also take it to heart when I tell them to blow it out their ass.
Because we are friends, you see.
Bob Ellison wins the thread.
Crack -- regarding that post where Althouse writes about the Cult of Obama: I don't know how Althouse could point out the cultish aspects of his following, and then simultaneously fall prey to that cult.
That doesn't make much sense to me.
No, I don't think that she ever thought Obama would be the Messiah, like little-D-danielle or other liberal commenters here. I think that Althouse, a liberal, agreed with some of the policies publicly espoused by Obama, and this, combined with some of the deepest white guilt I've ever seen, and the "cool" factor (remember how she gushed over that god-awful will.i.am video?), and the fact that he too (briefly) taught law (albeit as a guest lecturer) caused her to vote for Obama.
She might not recall things this way, and maybe she's right -- it is her brain, after all. But one of the great things about this blog is how much of her inner self Althouse reveals in her writings. She's a bit of an exhibitionist, in fact. And I saw more emotion behind her decision than I saw logic.
EnigmatiCore,
"Racist charge needs a lot more proof than that"
There. I'm not sure Rand has done/said anything wrong, but Ron had problems in his past.
"I also don't think there's any better example of the underlying reasons behind 'the glass ceiling' as rejecting McCain because of Palin's lack of experience and voting for Obama instead. "
the underlying reasons for the glass ceiling?
Bite. Me.
I still don't get how your #2 takes away your experience. We all know VP is a bullshit position. It's the historic training ground for the Presidency.
So you are saying that the chance that McCain would have died in the first 6 mos of office neutralized all his experience and took precedence over Obama's real life lack of experience from Day One?
No guessing with that one. No hypotheticals No probabilities needed. That's simply nuts - a silly rationalization.
I voted for Hillary in the primaries. She was the only one that had the balls to tell the truth about what would be required in healthcare. Obama sat there and lied his ass off - and got snotty about his lie to boot. Either that or he didn't know he was lying which shows a lack of understanding of basic economics so grave that it's almost worse.
Any joy I have taken in being right about Obama is miniscule compared to the feeling of despair and alienation because the stakes are so high. I should say "were" because I gave up. It's over. It's been under threat for years starting with corporate personhood and continuing with defense industry, but it's now over and it's our own fault. IMO, the race/gender game-playing is just a jackal situation feeding on a carcass rather than the cause of the rot itself.
Question for Ann: What candidate did you support during primary season?
Ann Althouse said,
"McCain's best argument over Obama was experience. Without that argument, he had to go on other arguments. On the other arguments, he came up short, for me."
So you saw no danger to the republic? You are a constitutional scholar and failed to note that neither was a Natural Born Citizen?
Crack- I take back everything I ever said about you.
But not the things I typed.
More seriously, there is a ton for people like me to like in the old Reaganesque limited government spiel, coupled with a big helping of "stay the frick out of my life". I am not dogmatic about it as I think that the hands-off approach does not always work, but my inclination is to prefer that approach.
That the Pauls seem to be the primary voices in that direction is, to put it slightly, extremely disturbing to me.
"neither was a Natural Born Citizen?"
Pastafarian,
"I don't know how Althouse could point out the cultish aspects of his following, and then simultaneously fall prey to that cult."
She wrote the post after the election - admitting she had, finally, seen what was at work.
Then - after saying she was going to stay aware of it - she abandoned it so fast it made my head spin. (She hasn't looked back to see how it operated, or mentioned it once, since then.)
This is an issue of Pride - just like the NewAge (not atheist) French she so admires.
She voted for Obama in the primary, too. I think that was right after that will.i.am video.
But I'm sure that there was some reason to vote against Hillary.
I'm quite proud to state that I've voted against Obama twice: Once in the primary (crossing over and voting for Hillary) and once in the general election.
And if they allow actual voting to occur in 2012, I hope to vote against him a third time. And after he wins in 2012 (thanks in no small part to ACORN registering more Democrats in Cleveland than there are eligible voters), I'll vote against him in 2016. And 2020. By 2024, they probably won't bother with the formality of voting, or he'll just win 99.9% of the vote each time.
Remains that Governor Palin has more experience and displayed more effectiveness than Bark Obama ...
All which the mushy middle continues to ignore.
As they ignore the existential threat of Islam.
Of, course mushy middle types will say I need my meds.
This:
the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) On April 26, the organization changed its long-held stance on female genital cutting (FGC), a ritual that is practiced mostly in Muslim, Arabic and African counties, such as Ethiopia and Somalia — but also in certain largely Christian nations like Kenya — and is illegal in much of the West. The group now wants to explore allowing American doctors to perform a ceremonial pinprick, or small nick, on young girls if it would keep their families from pursuing circumcision. "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm," the academy's committee on bioethics says in a policy statement.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0pXarANez
McCain's best argument over Obama was experience. Without that argument, he had to go on other arguments. On the other arguments, he came up short, for me.
I suppose McCain could have picked Pawlenty? That much more experience? Or an old war horse like Joe Lieberman? I do not think it would have made a difference.
The problem was Obama was what people wanted him to be. And now we are paying the price for that. And while McCain has his faults, he would have done a better job than Obama has done (if only for the principal of divided government).
Crack, I think that Althouse was talking about those other people who voted for Obama. She had her perfectly rational and logical reasons. It was the other 60 million (people like little-D-danielle) who fell prey to the cult.
EnigmatiCore said...
"neither was a Natural Born Citizen?"
Yes Neither was a Natural Born Citizen. McCain was born in Colon, Panama at a time when they gave birthright citizenship, thus he was a dual citizen at birth, like Obama, who was born a dual citizen of Britain (father Kenyan).
McCain is no hero. He is a traitor.
EnigmatiCore said...
"Crack- I take back everything I ever said about you.
But not the things I typed."
Smile.
Danielle said: "so many of you think that you can see through her writings to her inner truth... where you claim that you see her being disingenuous about her voting motives and her emotionalism."
Most of us have looked at how she answers the four questions she herself put out and have found the arguments less than compelling. There's nothing wrong with that. And as to being disingenuous, I don't think she is. I think she believes she reached this conclusion rationally but I think she's fooling hersef, not trying to fool us.
Like Pastafarian, I've been reading her blog for a long time. I never once doubted who she was ultimately going to vote for and stated that long before she reached her "conclusion". Maybe it was just a coincidence that I was right, but I don't believe it was.
Mick,
"McCain is no hero. He is a traitor."
Whoa - the man's service to the country deserves much better than that - especially today.
Knock it off.
Althouse,
You're right in saying that we'll never know precisely what a McCain presidency would look like.
However, no matter what McCain might have done, he wouldn't have bounced around the globe bowing and scraping to hostile powers while flipping the bird to our allies. He wouldn't have set reducing the size of our own nuclear arsenal as a major foreign policy goal.
He wouldn't have offered Russia a "reset" button while they were selling arms to our enemies. He wouldn't have taken such a soft line on Iran or North Korea. He wouldn't have dithered on Afghanistan and he wouldn't have projected an image of American indecisiveness and weakness to the rest of the world.
Knowing that Obama is exceedingly unlikely to thump them too badly, Al-Qaeda is much freer to act now.
So while we don't know exactly what a McCain presidency would have looked like, we can say with a high degree of authority that it wouldn't have looked like the mess we're in now, where we're alienating our allies and emboldening hostile powers.
@Pasta Yes, I voted against Obama twice as well. Hillary/McCain. Small comfort.
I've done the "positive thing" and tried to see the silver lining - but mostly I just cover my eyes and peek out through my fingers when I can stand it.
"He is a traitor."
Please, tell me more. I would like to know all about what you think, how you think, and what politics you think are best for our country.
"But I do think that some emotion, some white guilt, some being caught up in the cool movement, played a part in her decision.
And that's fine. I don't fault her for this. And even her failure to see this can be attributed to an emotion -- pride."
Its still ridiculous to claim that you can see beyond what she has said, to her deeper emotional reasoning. Bu if there is anything you could look to, why are you looking past the fact that she has only voted republican a hand full of times in her entire life ?
"Last time I checked on LMA, she was defending Jeff Goldstein for acting like Deb Frisch and threatening people's kneecaps and employment.
She's very, very much a cliquey 'my team or you suck' type. Althouse may be cliquey for all I know, but at least she isn't a partisan."
No. I criticized a drinking buddy, Patterico, because he called another blogger (Stacy McCain) racist who was not, in fact, racist. Notwithstanding the fact that I like Stacy McCain LESS than I do Patterico.
I also forbade my commenters from naming Patterico's place of employment in my comment section during those long threads, despite the fact that Patterico lost it multiple times in my comment section.
So not only are you unacquainted with my blog--you're not even representing accurately, or remembering very clearly, the one set of posts you are spouting off about.
@ Ann Althouse:
I apologize for the tenor of my post at 2:29. Don't know what came over me. Having a bad day, I guess.
the most interesting aspect of this long, heated, at times obnoxious, and disagreeable rant at the Professor is the extent to which so many of you think that you can see through her writings to her inner truth...
Boy, that phrase tripped the "automatic off" switch.
I'm searching for a movie scene(s) to encapsulate our country's infatuation with BO. I end up with this from High Fidelity
She doesn't listen to anyone. she says terrible, stupid things. And apparently has no sense of humor at all. And talks shit all night long.....
maybe she's been like this all along
yup, that nails it.
Crack wrote:
"Whoa - the man's service to the country deserves much better than that - especially today.
Knock it off."
Fuckin'-A right, Crack. Thanks.
(Also, I was going through your archives on your blog the other day and I came across that "Dock Ellis and the LSD No-No" link. Hilarious. Thanks for that!)
The Crack Emcee said...
"Mick,
"McCain is no hero. He is a traitor."
Whoa - the man's service to the country deserves much better than that - especially today.
Knock it off."
Absolutely not. This day is to mourn the dead, not to let a traitor to the republic get away with his self absorbed desire to be POTUS when he knew he didn't qualify as a Natural Born Citizen. His lust for power was used to "cleanse" Obama's lack of eligibility.
whoa, approaching 300. The Professor tops Palin
EnigmatiCore said,
"Please, tell me more. I would like to know all about what you think, how you think, and what politics you think are best for our country."
I'll bite (even though I knowthat you will probably not let loose of false preconceptions)...What do you want to know? I certainly know more about the issue of Obama's lack of eligibilty as a Natural Born Citizen than AnnAlthouse or the supposed "genius", Volokh.
Mick,
You're an idiot.
Youngblood,
You're welcome. Donnell is an old friend who wrote a memoir that described me as the most honest man he knew - the only guy who couldn't be "turned". He also praises my music on a regular basis.
Damn, I'd like to get back to that,...
Younblood said,
"Fuckin'-A right, Crack. Thanks."
What, are you hiding behind your daddy? Answer this. WHERE does it say that ANYONE, regardless of parentage, if born in the US is a Natural Born Citizen, eligible to be POTUS? (hint-- the answer is nowhere.)
I liked that post about Doc Ellis also, especially since he was once an agent for my brother.
Yep, I'm cynical. Is there a solution? I have no idea anymore. I do know the "revolving door" will continue. Departments will periodically "re-organize"...it looks like a solution to this or that, but isn't....the deck is just shuffled.
There is a way to do this, but it will take a giant restructuring of government as a whole (which I think could actually happen once more people wake up to the idea that we can't afford the government we have now).
Here's how it would work: Term limits for all in not just the elected portion of government, but the unelected bureaucracies as well. And I would couple that with a requirement of x-number of years of service in the private sector before being either elected or employed. The biggest problem we have right now is that few people in government have any experience actually producing or running anything, and the current setup allows people to spend entire careers like this.
This is one area where the Framers were correct: The idea should be for people who have actual talents to lend those talents to true public service for a short period of time and then return to the productive class when that service is done. Unfortunately, the way that things are set up now, the only "service" that takes place in the public sector is self-service.
The Crack Emcee said...
"Mick,
You're an idiot."
Ah the bastion of those who are willfully blind. The insult. You should know by now that doesn't bother me in my quest to educate the willfully blind (it's kind of like teaching a pig to sing).
Althouse said...
Okay, I found the post where I talk about kids studying the speech in the future. Responding to a Rasmussen poll in which only 51% of Americans found it excellent or good, I said: "Even people who are deeply disturbed by Obama's connection to Wright and think he should have simply and clearly denounced the man should still think it was an 'excellent.' 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' is a excellent speech: We study it 300+ years after it was delivered, but we're not buying the message. I think Americans will study Barack Obama's speech 100 years from now, maybe even 300 years from now, whether he becomes President or not. At the very least it was a good speech, yet 49% would not even concede that." I'm commenting on the historical significance of the speech there, not getting snowed by it.
All right, I'll concede that my recollection was somewhat inaccurate: You did not specify you agreed with the content of Obama's speech, which I suppose would be a requirement of Obama cultism, so I will withdraw my statement that this is an example of you succumbing to such cultism.
However, I maintain that this is an example of you succumbing to the way over-the-top Obama hype. Do you still believe that this speech was so "excellent" and historically significant, that it will be studied centuries from now?
Mick,
Yea, a guy who had his arms broken in a Vietnamese concentration camp - and refused release without his fellow captives - plus served as a U.S. Senator for 30 years, doesn't deserve a shot - just a shot - at being president, but deserves to be called a traitor.
Oh-Kay.
"What do you want to know?"
I would like to know what policies you think would be best for our nation. I want to hear the logic behind it.
I would like to know what sort of quest you are on, and if you are wearing chainmail underwear.
And, most importantly, if you are Irish or not.
The Crack Emcee said...
"Mick,
Yea, a guy who had his arms broken in a Vietnamese concentration camp - and refused release without his fellow captives - plus served as a U.S. Senator for 30 years, doesn't deserve a shot - just a shot - at being president, but deserves to be called a traitor.
Oh-Kay."
Of course he doesn't deserve a shot, since it would violate the security requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4,5.
To be a Natural Born Citizen you must be an indigenous citizen, i.e born with no foreign allegiance.
In Resolution 511, the Senate said he was a Natural Born Citizen because both his parents were citizens, and he was born (supposedly) on US contolled territory. Well they all knew that was a farce (especially when they cite the Naturalization Act of 1790, when it was rescinded by the NA 1795, which took out the words Natural Born). Regardless, his BC says he was born OFF he base anyway, in Colon, Panama. If it takes 2 US Citizens on US Soil for McCain, why not for Obama? He played the game to take the eye off Obama. He negated his hero status.
But Ann,
With Palin McCain DID choose experience. Palin had executive experience on several levels and that is far more than Biden and Obama did - and her experience was successful as well. That pretty much precludes you argument in your 1:28 comment totally.
Mick, since you have convinced me as well as you can about the whole Natural Born Citizen thingermadoodle, including the proper way to Capitalize It mid-sentence, I was really hoping you could tell me more about your political philosophy.
The stage is all yours, and bytes are cheap.
vw: eumensed. That one might come in handy soon enough.
Slow Joe,
She (Palin) did not have a lot of experience? She was the only one of the 4 who had any - and all her experience was successful. Would that you had expected Obama to show some experience in executive positions. Instead we are stuck with a tone-deaf racist Chicago thug and his team play-acting a presidency at the cost of the whole country.
I would take Palin in a heartbeat over that.
EnigmatiCore said...
"Mick, since you have convinced me as well as you can about the whole Natural Born Citizen thingermadoodle, including the proper way to Capitalize It mid-sentence, I was really hoping you could tell me more about your political philosophy."
I am not here for your entertainment. I find it kind of funny how so many of your ilk object to a capitalization with such disgust. You don't really want to know, since you are willfully blind.
The Venus (1814)
Dred Scott (1854)
Minor v. Happersett (1873)
Wong Kim ark (1898)
Perkins v. Elg (1934)
All are SCOTUS cases about citizenship that define a Natural Born Citizen exactly as Vattel, i.e. "Born in a country of parents who are it's citizens". Natural Law Indigenous Citizens.
Maybe you should study up if you want to have an intelligent conversation.
EnigmatiCore said,
"And, most importantly, if you are Irish or not."
Why?
Mick winds up, trolls... and successfully derails the thread!
"I am not here for your entertainment."
Guess it is just one of those happy coincidences, then.
"I find it kind of funny how so many of your ilk object to a capitalization with such disgust."
Me and my ilk do not object at all. In fact, it leads to the happy coincidence mentioned above.
My elk like it too.
"All are SCOTUS cases about citizenship that define a Natural Born Citizen exactly as Vattel"
Yeah, I get that. But can we just shorten it to NBS for two reasons? First, it takes less typing. B, it reminds me less of a Woody Harrelson pic.
Besides, enough about NBSes. How about your other views? I want to find out what else you can convince us all regarding.
vw: swand- if I wave a magic swand, maybe it will cure my willful blindness!
You lost me at the economic comment. You were against McCain because he felt that with the economic problems the place for the presidential candidates was to be part of what they would have to implement. You claim that was where he lost you. I contend that his reasoning makes a whole lot more sense than yours or Obama's does. After all both candidates knew that one or the other would have to implement what was decided. It seems to me that they should at the minimum be there to influence that policy and to find out the logic behind it so that they could do a good job with it. Apparently you didn't believe that their understanding of the policy and the reasoning behind it mattered. I find that beyond strange.
As to picking Palin, she made a whole lot more sense than Biden, the plagiarist and perpetual foot in the mouth speaker. In fact she made more sense than Obama when it comes to that. She definitely had more executive knowledge than Obama did and also a far better handle on the problems than Obama did - as he has spent 2 years proving to us. I think that throws your second point right in the gutter.
Since the president has to work with both parties, then a principled conservative would be a plus but someone who could prove to be able to work with the opposition would be a plus. Another fail in your reasoning there since Obama has proven that he can only work with someone who admires him almost as much as he admires himself.
If you want erratic and incoherent, listen to Obama off his teleprompter and now look at his policies. They define erratic and incoherent. Still another fail in your reasoning.
What I see is the problem I see with so many academics and "intellectuals," that you pay a lot more attention to what someone says rather than what someone does. You seem to expect that their saying it makes it happen. If you look at the candidates there, you had Obama, chairman of a Senate committee that was to deal with European nations who in the whole time he was chairman never held a meeting. You had a man who refused to provide full background, still won't provide full background, and you intellectuals assume that because he has a degree from Harvard and Columbia he is intelligent. Bush one-upped him by having degrees from Harvard and Yale and yet the same intellectuals thought he was dumb. You had no proof of intelligence at all and yet we were told over and over how smart he was. Big fail!! HUGE!!
I can't believe you really followed that logic and reached the decision you did based on it because it makes no sense at all. You are usually much better than that. Evidently you were not able to read this candidate at all and you should have been. All the pieces were out there and were pointed out repeatedly. You just failed to pay attention to anything but what he said from his teleprompter. I would hope that in the future you do a lot better job of reading candidates than you did this one.
Excuse me, NBCs. I always get confused about acronyms, especially when they can otherwise be confused with television networks.
"Its still ridiculous to claim that you can see beyond what she has said, to her deeper emotional reasoning."
Oh, come off it danielle. guess you've never heard of literary criticism? The entire discipline is based on the notion that writers reveal more about themselves in their writing than they intend. Or, if that's too foofy for you (doubt it), just ponder the phrase "critical analysis" -- which, when applied to your comments, reveals there's a lot less than meets the eye. up your game.
Althouse:
"McCain's best argument over Obama was experience. Without that argument, he had to go on other arguments. On the other arguments, he came up short, for me."
.This one I will simply never understand. Palin (a) had more executive experience than Obama, and (b) was running for Veep. That her involvement somehow torpedoes McCain's experience argument only makes sense to liberals.
EnigmatiCore said...
"Excuse me, NBCs. I always get confused about acronyms, especially when they can otherwise be confused with television networks."
As usual, you prefer the Alinskyan ridicule tool to actually curing your willfull blindness. WHERE (nothing less than SCOTUS, or actual US Statute) does it say that ANYONE, regardless of parentage, if born in the US is a NBC eligible to be POTUS (how about those acronyms?)
That's a fact; Sarah Palin may be a Tina Fey look-alike and sound-alike, but she was the only self-starter of the four and the only with any record at all as an elected executive - and a very successful record, at that.
"Palin (a) had more executive experience than Obama, and (b) was running for Veep. That her involvement somehow torpedoes McCain's experience argument only makes sense to liberals."
Any port in a storm,...any port in a storm.
Or flailing.
Take your pick - I'm a conservative, so I don't get it either. Actually I do:
It makes no sense what-so-ever.
Come on. I get the others, but what do the acronyms WHERE and ANYONE stand for??
"First, do you believe that you made a mistake in voting for Obama?"
No. Not as the choice between McCain and Obama, which was the only choice I had.
"If not, then the follow-on question is to ask what you find to agree with in the first 16 months of his presidency."
He has continued to fight the wars and to maintain many of the anti-terrorism policies of the Bush Era, which has quieted much of the controversy. Both parties now own these grave matters, and that is helpful.
He has made reasonable and fairly moderate Supreme Court nominations.
"And, side question, which post by blake "nailed it"? IMHO both the 11:52 and the 11:56 post are accurate."
11:52 AM is the one that made me say "Blake nailed it" out loud. 11:56 is excellent too.
traditionalguy said...
"@ Mick...Before you brand John McCain a traitor, please read what his grandfather and his father did in their Navy careers in WWII and the cold war. To call those men's grandson and son a traitor for being born while his family was on an active duty post in the American territory of the Panama Canal zone makes you look like a fool."
I really find it amazing that so many lawyers are ignorant of the Constitution. Eligibility for POTUS via the Natural Born Citizen clause is not a "right", it is a security requirement, and he has endagered or national security.
He wasn't born in American territory first of all (Colon, Panama), second of all even if he was, the Naturalization Act of 1795 made it plain that those born of US Servicemen parents overseas are citizens, not Natural Born Citizens, eligible to be POTUS. His candidacy, and the farce of Resolution 511 allowed Obama to run. He and all the rest of the Senators (including Ron Paul, the supposed constitutionalist) know that Obama was not eligible. McCain is the main reason that a Usurper was allowed to run. He is a traitor to the Republic.
Ann althouse said,
"He has made reasonable and fairly moderate Supreme Court nominations. "
HAHAHAHA, you're kidding right?
"As usual, you prefer the Alinskyan ridicule tool to actually curing your willfull blindness."
I believed in Ridicule long before I ever heard of Alinsky! You take that back!
vw: indeepe. Hahaha.
Youngblood said...
"Mick winds up, trolls... and successfully derails the thread!"
That's the opinion of the willfully blind. The point is that "Law Profs" should know what a Natural Born citizen is, i.e. born in the US of US Citizen parents.
EnigmaticCore said,
"I believed in Ridicule long before I ever heard of Alinsky! You take that back!"
So where does it say that anyone born in our territory, including those born of illegal aliens is eligible to be POTUS?
"He has made reasonable and fairly moderate Supreme Court nominations. "
If I may be so bold, over the course of the years of reading this blog, I think this point, which you are making to suggest that you are comfortable with voting Obama over McCain, hits me as closest to the real reason you voted the way you did.
You would prefer to have Kennedy be the deciding, fifth vote in any majority than some unnamed person that McCain had nominated, if this person was to the right of Kennedy, which was a distinct possibility given the need McCain would have had to maintain his base.
The same concern did not exist with Obama since, barring an unforeseen event, he'd be replacing liberals with liberals.
Althouse wrote:
"Both parties now own these grave matters, and that is helpful."
Surely you're not that naive!
You know that the second we get a Republican executive in office, the Democrats will start opposing those wars again, right?
"Natural Born citizen"
Wait, that makes it a NBc? That might work, since it gives a differentiation point from NBC.
"So where does it say that anyone born in our territory, including those born of illegal aliens is eligible to be POTUS?"
Google Walking Directions (beta).
We Hide Evidence Really Evil-like.
Another Nutcase You Only Need Endure.
FWIW, YMMV, TYIBHTT, TYWAS.
EnigmatiCore said,
"Another Nutcase You Only Need Endure."
So where does it say anyone born in the US is eligible to be POTUS?
I guess nowhere. That must be bad news... for Obama.
You better start telling people!
EnigmatiCore said...
I guess nowhere. That must be bad news... for Obama.
You better start telling people!
So you think the Usurpation of the Presidency and the ignorance of supposedly knowledgeable law profs, and the media is a joke?
I already told you where to find the definition, but I would suspect that in your state of willfull ignorance, you prefer not to know.
So you choose his opponent who is a principled leftist.
Something Obama's entire campaign was designed to hide.
On all other grounds, Obama was the superior candidate in the race in either party. He was obviously smart. He was inspiring. Voting for him was a way to put the cap on the civil rights revolution in this country. And he was a Democrat in a year when electing a Republican would have been, in effect, ratifying Bush's dismal second term and the GOP Congress' dismal decade.
All he had to do was convince independents that he wasn't a committed leftist. That, despite overall liberal leanings common to most Democrats, he was rational, understood incentives, understood the need for consensus, and that his leftist dallyings were just curiosity and careerism, necessary for a black Democrat from Chicago to get anywhere.
And so, knowing that, his campaign was dazzlingly moderate and inclusive. And many of us were fooled.
I won't say I was wrong in voting for Obama, because from all the information I had at my disposal, he seemed like the better choice. But I will say I was fooled. A small but important difference. I think Ann should admit that as well. She wasn't wrong, she was fooled.
No. Not as the choice between McCain and Obama, which was the only choice I had.
You are once more ignoring the choice of abstaining from voting for President.
"If not, then the follow-on question is to ask what you find to agree with in the first 16 months of his presidency."
He has continued to fight the wars and to maintain many of the anti-terrorism policies of the Bush Era, which has quieted much of the controversy. Both parties now own these grave matters, and that is helpful.
No. Bill Clinton was also a hawk; his stated policy as POTUS was regime change in Iraq. And plenty of mainstream liberals proclaimed that Saddam had WMD. This was all lost when it appeared that the War in Iraq would give them an opening to denounce George W. Bush.
The moment a Republican is in the White House, the "ownership" will evaporate.
He has made reasonable and fairly moderate Supreme Court nominations.
This, I agree with.
But the argument that McCain would have nominated hard-right people to please "his base" is absurd, since 1) McCain had no base whatsoever--he's a centrist--and 2) Sarah Palin, the probable 2012 candidate, wouldn't have needed Johnny Mac to observe a pro-abortion "litmus test" in order to prove her pro-life bona fides. McCain would have had complete freedom in his SCOTUS nominations.
I am not here for your entertainment.
oh, but you ARE!
Wow.
319 comments (320 in just a sec). I'm not going to pretend to have read through this whole thread. I just wanted to participate, lol.
"So you think the Usurpation of the Presidency and the ignorance of supposedly knowledgeable law profs, and the media is a joke?"
Do you know why the Natural Born citizen crossed the road?
And yet the Professor's 5:09pm comment mentions nothing about economics, yet that was her first point in the OP.
John stodder,
Where do you get that Obama was obviously smart? Sure didn't seem that way to me.
Anyone else would not have allowed that speech about clinging to guns and religion to get out, especially the day after he spoke to those same people who were clinging. That is not smart. What he was was covered. His real self was hidden in the MSM. Those of us who read the blogs heard about the connections and the background and the lack of anything about where he lived in NYC while at Columbia or even anyone who remembers seeing him there. That did not speak well of being open and above board to me. The minute Obama got away from the teleprompter, that should have put paid to his intelligence. He made a valley girl sound brilliant.
"the underlying reasons for the glass ceiling?
Bite. Me."
I think Ann got what I was trying to say (even as she disagreed with my assessment).
The glass ceiling exists because there are people who genuinely cannot see that women can do as good of a job--thus a capable woman must go above and beyond to prove themselves.
Obama got in as President with, arguably, equal or less experience than Palin. Palin is critiqued for not having experience, and for having so little experience she tore down McCain's experience.
That's the glass ceiling in action, justifying a man while dismissing the woman, giving her less credit for equal or greater work.
I'm not saying that's good. I'm saying this is a fine example of what's behind it, and why it's still very difficult to overcome.
Because people don't even see they're doing it--even if they're otherwise vocal feminists.
Bite. Me.
Of course, this is the tactic that some use to get past the glass ceiling, but I don't think that's ultimately a progressive answer to the problem as a whole .
@John Stodder:
Admitting that you were fooled, and especially for the reasons you listed is a very big deal, in my opinion.
You were so very thoughtful in your comments here before the election. I respected what I believe to be your careful analysis and choice between two pretty lousy candidates.
I respect you even more now.
Where do you get that Obama was obviously smart? Sure didn't seem that way to me.
Anyone else would not have allowed that speech about clinging to guns and religion to get out, especially the day after he spoke to those same people who were clinging.
Dick,
Smart in the sense that he is fluid and knowledgeable about many of the issues pertinent to high federal office, and showed ability to argue using reason. Smart in the sense also that was validated by his education and reputation. The media does not embrace a candidate, ever, if he or she is not able to be smart in a room with them. That's one of the chief ways the media falls in love with a candidate. This has been an important tactic for would-be candidates since at least FDR. Behind closed doors, show the members of the high-level news media that you are clever. When a Democratic candidate is losing, you often hear the Al Hunts of the world say, "Oh, if only America could spend an hour at a cocktail party with him as I have. Then they'd know what a fine mind this candidate has, and what a mistake they're making voting for someone else."
I admit, the media's all-out cheerleading for Obama struck me as a kind of qualification. I don't trust the media's reporting all the time, but I trust their private discernment. Or, I should say, I used to. Now I think we might have a generation of yahoos in the media, sadly.
LOL, Paddy O.
I knew what you meant. :)
Darcy, thank you. Earning your respect is especially magnificent when accompanied by your very alluring headshot. If we were at a party together, I would be speechless now, and would be forced to go fetch you a drink so I could collect myself. ;-)
Thanks, Darcy!
Atilla Girl defends herself:
"Attila Girl said...
I'll update the post, and I apologize for my phrasing. I do not, however, see any valid reason why, having decided not to vote for McCain, you would choose to vote for Obama.
You could have shown up at the polls, voted for your congressperson, Senator, etc., and left the Presidential spot blank."
1. Atilla Girl believes that a protest vote or no decision, thus no vote at all somehow is a higher moral path than looking at the two credible candidates and casting a vote for the person you believe is the lesser evil.
In real life, people are stuck with decisions that have to be made, but no option is perfect. Many are choice that boils down to two options...both unpalatable...And I know all of us have seen in real life people REFUSING TO DECIDE the least painful one, or trying to cook up a wild 3rd choice they know is impossible, but which they think gives them some moral high ground.
Atilla Girl is simply being avoidant in saying that people didn't have to choose...that more morally superior options existed.
2. Many Republicans believed then, and still believe now that John McCain would have been a bigger disaster for the country and their Party than Obama in office and owning the things the treacherous McCain would have tried ramming down Republicans throats.
Closing GITMO, green jobs & carbon taxes, his 500 billion bailout for mansion owners on top of his Wall Street bailout, expanded wars and a new one with Iran, The McCain Amnesty for illegals, Rev 2.
Plus McCains dangerous temper and incoherence.
3. Now Obama owns it. 4 years of McCain would have finished off the Republicans.
4. McCain-Obama is not the only real bad final product the two Parties had us choose from. 2004 Kerry-BushII was a pretty poor choice as well - Dubya was already considered a bumbling, inept, possibly failed President - and he was saved only because Dems ran one of the few truly unelectable candidates they could have fielded.
5. Philosophically, even though the money people and Ruling Elites control this country and your vote really doesn't count for much - ideally, it should. If you believe that, believe the system should be restored to where votes really matter - you don't just refuse to vote or cast it for Mickey Mouse.
One of the more interesting discussions here. Maybe a bit dogmatic at times, but interesting. Possibly because we haven't had our resident liberal trolls trying to change the topic to bashing Bush (43).
While correlation may not equal causation, sometimes it may suggest it. The Palin nomination gave the McCain campaign a bump, which Obama didn't get for nominating his VP. Which is why I think that for much of the population, #4 is really the big one.
If you will remember back to September and early October, we had the financial meltdown, McCain suspended his campaign, jumped in, and tried to broker a compromise. Which blew up. And that was really the end of his campaign.
Meanwhile Obama just kept quiet and looked studious, serious, and intelligent. And from that, I think that the Anns (and Peggys, etc.) of this world took that to mean that he understood the economics better than McCain did.
Of course, as we found out, he didn't. Indeed, he didn't have a clue. It was all about looking serious, thoughtful, and intelligent. In short, an act.
Oh, and BTW, Obama's Marxism doesn't go back just 30 years. It goes back to the cradle. Remember, he is a II, and his father was an avowed, well known, Marxist, which is apparently one of the reasons that he lost his position in his government.
That doesn't mean that Marxists cannot change, but in his case, I don't see any indication that he ever thought enough about economics and politics to make that transition. And, by his actions since taking office, he hasn't. I do think though that he is going to have to learn enough economics to disavow his socialist past if he is going to be reelected in 2 1/2 hears.
So, why did McCain's campaign crash when it did? My suggestion is that the MSM piled on. We know that they were in the tank for Obama, and actively squelched anything negative about their candidate, such as the "Spread the Wealth Around" quote, or the quote about bitterly clinging to guns and religion. The former, in particular, should have been a wake up call for fence straddlers. But it wasn't, and I suspect that was because so much of the MSM was rooting for him to win.
I think that you could also see this dynamic in how they treated the two VP candidates. They all announced that Biden had won the VP debates, without looking at how fanciful and devoid of reality his answers had been. He got a pass from day 1 by the MSM, despite being, even back then, well known as a complete bumbler, with little tie with reality. He got a pass, because Obama was getting a pass.
But the ability of the MSM to control the debate decreases election by election, as their biases become ever more obvious. And we look back and see what they didn't report, and what that has meant for this country.
I don't blame Ann, or Peggy, or Megan, one bit. They bought into the narrative being pushed so strongly by the MSM. And what we are talking about here are all the reasons that they should have seen through the smoke and mirrors. I think they all tried.
When all is said and done I think the 330+ commenta shows just how much we value Althouse's opinion. Oh, and how we still cannot figure out why she voted for that clown.
Another defense of voting for Obama is that the liabilities of McCain were well known. He had "more wars, erratic vindictive leadership, complete economic ignorance, poison for the country and Party" written all over him.
Whereas Obama was unknown, a toss of the dice. He could be good, mediocre, nice but in over his head, outright bad socialist and imcompetent. We know - even his worshippers - that The One - ISN'T.
But sometimes we luck out with an unknown - Reagan, Clinton wasn't too bad..etc.
Sometimes you end up with a Bush, Carter, or an Obama. But then you have to look at how bad the alternative was - Caretaker Ford, John Claude Kerry, McCain/Palin.
What a sweet thing to say, JS. Thank you!
Palin vs. Biden is simple to explain.
Palin was a successor. Biden, an insurance policy.
As should be obvious at this point, Palin has grown out of office while Biden has shrunk.
One of the stealth reasons for Palinophobia that is seldom noted is that professional women do not trust other professional women.
Another is that babes don't like other babes. When it comes to deep babeitude, there can be only one!
Oh. I take back that crack about slipping this one in on low-traff MemDay. It's been a brilliant stroke.
".... we still cannot figure out why she voted for that clown."
For the same reason many other bright babes did.
During the campaign, the guy had game and exuded Alpha.
McCain exuded Beta in the campaign and became a blocked Beta during the end game.
Palin was an alpha babe but at the time was too new to have big game and spent a lot of time struggling to emerge from behind the beta barricade that McCain and his handlers were always throwing up around her.
Babes that become alphas through study and work (those not born to babeitude) tend not to like natural-born Alpha babes like Palin that can run more than one Alpha babe game: profession, home, family, athletic ability, and babeitude.
If you're a beta male like McCain and you attach an Alpha babe to your wagon, you will tend to lose a lot of casually committed Alpha babes.
And if the guy running against the beta male has a smooth game ......
Well, Rossiy DC has made a blog empire explaining how this pulls alpha babes.
Hi, Mr. Van der Leun!
I kind of disagree with your "babe" theory. I know there is some truth to it, but I think it's mostly insecure "babes" who don't appreciate other attractive women. But yeah, I think Sarah inspires a lot of envy amongst women.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens with her. I'm not particularly hoping for her to run for President, but she fascinates me, and I dare say her haters continue to be fascinated as well. They have a problem admitting it, and it's hilarious to watch play out. =)
You say we'll never know what McCain would have done, and that's undeniable. But your 1,2,3,4 list of why McCain lost you seems laughable now.
(And yes, this Viet Nam Veteran is bitter about watching my Nation, my world being destroyed by folks who could not see the forest for the trees.)
Well, I hadn't read the second comment about the Alpha babes. Interesting. And I just realized that - yes! McCain WAS Beta during the campaign. Which is funny, because I kind of feel like we elected the Beta. I particularly feel it when I see the frequent pics of his ass in the air bowing to everyone on the planet.
"my world being destroyed"
We survived Carter as a leader. We'll survive Obama.
Paddy O.: I apologize. I thought you were casting aspersions on Althouse's intellect, and using the chicks-aren't-analytical trope to justify the glass ceiling.
Cedarford:
1. Atilla Girl believes that a protest vote or no decision, thus no vote at all somehow is a higher moral path than looking at the two credible candidates and casting a vote for the person you believe is the lesser evil.
In real life, people are stuck with decisions that have to be made, but no option is perfect. Many are choice that boils down to two options...both unpalatable...And I know all of us have seen in real life people REFUSING TO DECIDE the least painful one, or trying to cook up a wild 3rd choice they know is impossible, but which they think gives them some moral high ground.
I'm saying that even on the surface, Althouse justified not voting for McCain. She did not really come up with an explanation as to why she voted FOR Obama.
Atilla Girl is simply being avoidant in saying that people didn't have to choose...that more morally superior options existed.
It isn't morality, it's math. Not-voting for McCain is one vote against him. Affirmatively voting FOR OBAMA is two votes: the one you didn't cast for McCain, and the one you did cast for Obama.
2. Many Republicans believed then, and still believe now that John McCain would have been a bigger disaster for the country and their Party than Obama in office and owning the things the treacherous McCain would have tried ramming down Republicans throats.
Closing GITMO, green jobs & carbon taxes, his 500 billion bailout for mansion owners on top of his Wall Street bailout, expanded wars and a new one with Iran, The McCain Amnesty for illegals, Rev 2.
Plus McCains dangerous temper and incoherence.
Well, which is it we are interested in, here?--the country, or the Republican Party? These are not the same thing at all.
3. Now Obama owns it. 4 years of McCain would have finished off the Republicans.
So . . . Professor Althouse did this for the GOP to which McCain isn't particularly loyal? I just don't see that.
4. McCain-Obama is not the only real bad final product the two Parties had us choose from. 2004 Kerry-BushII was a pretty poor choice as well - Dubya was already considered a bumbling, inept, possibly failed President - and he was saved only because Dems ran one of the few truly unelectable candidates they could have fielded.
Yes.
5. Philosophically, even though the money people and Ruling Elites control this country and your vote really doesn't count for much - ideally, it should. If you believe that, believe the system should be restored to where votes really matter - you don't just refuse to vote or cast it for Mickey Mouse.
We shouldn't throw our votes at Mickey Mouse, but rather at incompetent leaders? And bloggers should write about their votes for incompetent leaders?
Google strikes again: Whittier Girl + Me.
--Little Miss Attila/Joy McCann
Whittier -
1. There are times when you have to "man up" and make a decision by a deadline. Those that don't from fear who claim their nondecision was more rational and morally superior to refusing to make the call don't deserve much respect, IMO.
2. Nothing McCain or his possible replacement Palin (given McCains age and health issues) have done in the last 1 1/2 years has triggered the "Al Gore" sentiment - of "my, things would be so much better if only Al Gore was in office" - for McCain.
That is telling to me. I remember as a kid that Reagan had a tough 1st year in office, but no one was moaning for Good 'Ol Jimmy. I note Dems had no Dukakis nogistalia once that Mass loser lost. Nor was anyone outside the hard Left whining about how Great John Frenchy Kerry would have been in 2007, 2008 instead of the failed Dubya.
Because people intuit after seeing McCain/Palin, Dukakis, Carter, Kerry - that they would have been worse than the people they elected.
3. I wrote that Obama was better for the Republicans than "President McCain" speaking as a Republican, not plumbing Althouse's mind for nascent Republican affiliations...
McCain would have sold out his Party as he always did on his personal expediency, wrapped it all in a figleaf of "bipartisanship" and done 80% of the things the right and teapartiers hate about Obama. And wanted 3 new wars on top of that. (Over Iran, N Korea, Georgia)
4. Since the election, Mccain and Palin have done a series of actions that the public thinks further discredit them as viable Presidential candidates.
Electing McCain would have been a disaster. Even right wing pundits know that..so no one except the very stupid Sean Hannity believes Mr POW would have been great and that VP Sarah Palin would have advised him and augered in a land of honey and bliss. No one thinks that McCain would have paid her the slightest attention, before she got frustrated and quit another job.
I'm fascinated by all the analysis of what Ann says about her vote, her reasoning, and her defense of a reasonable decision.
I didn't agree with her decision, but I don't think she was "fooled." She made the best decision using the information she found valuable.
I did not vote for Bambi based on the information I hold valuable: that Bambi was a neophyte and an idiot. McCain, unfortunately, was a mess as an intellect, but he picked Palin, and I went from an abstainer to a voter.
YMMV, of course.
Yeah, the least of my regrets in voting for Obama is in missing the chance for a McCain/Palin administration.
If Obama wasn't such a liar, he might've been a good president. The guy he pretended to be, that guy had potential.
You could have said the same thing about W, by the way. You could say the last four presidents each got elected with the help of non-trivial deceptions about what they'd really do and what they really believed. But Obama's is the most egregious. Hoping 2012's candidate will be different.
O.K., I'm back - and fuck all y'all! (Kidding)
I don't get all this "McCain would've been a disaster" talk. I think he would've done the same thing most presidents do: win the election and then figure out what's what, doing what's necessary from there. (You don't see Obama closing Gitmo, do you?) As has already been pointed out, we know he wouldn't have alienated our allies and encouraged our enemies so, right there, he would've been better than doofus. As a matter of fact, the only problem I could possibly see for the McCain/Palin ticket would've been the same problem we always have - the Democrats. Obstructionists all, they would've been trying to throw a wrench in everything, as they always do, and mucking up the works.
I also think McCain would've gotten sick of the whole wave-the-Mexican flag-in-our-faces shit, eventually - especially with Palin by his side. Like with Obama, all of you seem to rely too much on the words and not enough on the people. I knew Obama was a scam artist from Day One - his words meant nothing to me. Meanwhile, Reagan was an "idiot", now regarded as one of the best presidents we've ever had. Bush was an "idiot" who freed millions, put Al Qaeda on the run, and did more for Africa than all the other presidents put together (according to Bob Geldoff - who didn't like him.) People are even already missing him.
All in all, what I still see in all this discussion is a self-delusion, an avoidance, designed to keep you from saying "We were wrong." McCain was the better candidate - by a long shot - than Barry. He handled the accusations of "racist" with class - and, if you look at his concession speech, he was a much better man than anyone gave him credit for. The media did him in. They and a public too willing to believe them as they withheld information and spun as we've never seen them spin before. Hell, they've destroyed themselves for Obami - as did the country.
So, I think the conventional wisdom, as always, is wrong: John McCain would've been fine. I also think Palin, should she decide to run, will be even better. I hope she does:
I'd like a reason to root for a woman again.
I don't get all this "McCain would've been a disaster" talk
They're saying he would have been Obama-lite and wouldn't have outraged the center the way Obama has. The frog in the pot would have been more comfortable.
Its the same logic some GOPers used when the Dems gained majorities in both Houses of Congress: "Ooooh the Democrats control the government, now they're in trouble!"
Hmmm.
1. [McCain] did not understand economics, the most important issue.
And BO did? Or does?
2. He lost the ability to make the experience argument [when he picked Sarah Palin for VP].
And BO had experience? Seriously?
3. He never defined himself as a principled conservative.
Oh, I get it. BO is a principled conservative.
Seriously?
4. Erratic and incoherent, he lacked sufficient mental capacity.
And BO's certainly proven to be a mental giant, right? Mental, maybe.
Not one of these makes the tiniest bit of sense. LMA's point seems far more likely, the cult of personality certainly explains why you'd vote for someone with zero understanding of economics, zero executive experience (and little in government, state or federal), not one whit of conservatism in his entire ideological makeup, and a man who thinks there are 57 states, that our Constitution was written "20 centuries ago," and who thinks that "corps" is pronounced, "corpse." But yeah, "press corpse" is pretty accurate these days of the old media.
A LOT of people voted for BO, a lot of people were fooled by him. That you were is obvious, that's fine. Anyone who sees the light is A-ok in my book, but to try to say that he is any of the above things, that he's more conservative than McCain (as you imply)?! But, yeah, clearly a thoughtful, unemotional choice . . . now that I see the precision of your logic.
I'm also having trouble with the storyline that McCain would have been almost as bad as Obama, and that he would somehow have hurt the GOP by being loosely affiliated with it, and yet not-good in the way that he supposedly would have been not-good.
And to compare McCain's potential presidency with that of Jimmy Carter is simply laughable.
The fact is, McCain would not have quadrupled spending, pissed off our allies, emboldened our enemies, and passed an impractical and expensive healthcare entitlement.
I don't care how much good Obama, Reid and Pelosi have done for the Republican party: the national debt is much, much worse, the markets are skittish, taxes are going up, and hiring is going down. Real unemployment is at 18%--worse in some states.
It's going to take us years to recover from the spot we're in now, and we have two more years of this to go.
And I'm saying I don't it's true:
They bought the mediated filter - hook, line, and sinker.
Obama's campaign, and presidency, proves they don't see anything but what the media tells them - they can't think for themselves. I've already made the point that they missed the similarities between Oprah and Rielle Hunter. My entire blog is a collection of fallacies the public buys every day - stuff any five year old should be able to see through, all endorsed by the media - they simply can't think for themselves. (The extreme is Homeopathy - pure water - that many think may have medicinal qualities: it's the most idiotic idea alive today, and it's a multibillion dollar industry - they simply can't think for themselves.) We've become, for lack of a better term, a nation of idiots. There's even a movie called "Idiocracy" (or something like that) but, prideful idiots that they are, neither it, or The Simpson's, or South Park, etc., are taken as a comment on them - they're just TV shows, right? Even though they all comment on current events in the real (our) world. Even the most educated among us strike me as fools these days. They just don't think, trying so hard to be clever, or nice, or anything but plain smart; almost incapable of possessing what we used to call "horse sense". Again: Bambi's scampaign is the proof. Anyone - anyone - should've been able to look at those around him and, sensing danger, known better. But they didn't - they couldn't - because they can't think for themselves.
It's too important for them to be part of the collective (cultism) to be accepted, to be seen as O.K. Needless to say, I don't suffer that need. I think it may be because I'm a foster child, not raised in a family situation where getting along - and accepting contradictions - was the rule. I was raised to be honest, and to look out for myself. I'll fight the group, because, I know from experience the group is where stupidity and cruelty are ("The madness of crowds", and/or The Mob) it's much better to be "a man" and stand alone, that way, if you go down, you go down for something worthy of the effort, and not because you were foolishly talked into something.
Through NewAge, we've lost that about ourselves, when it was the best part of the American character.
"Land of the free and the home of the brave."
Now, it's just a bunch of pussies, looking for acceptance, for as far as the eye can see. (Remember "The French do not agree!"? Like it mattered what the fucking French thought.) We're supposed to be better than that.
Obama is the leader of those who don't think we can possibly be more.
Atilla Girl,
That's where I ultimately had to admit I was wrong: Obama was worse than I imagined, and the American people didn't need or deserve this bad.
But again, I didn't vote for him. Heh.
the American people didn't need or deserve this bad
America elected him, America deserves him. Sure, it's a bitch that the Dems are turning all of America into Detroit, but you get the government you deserve.
Yes, it is bad. But it is good that America see and experience what pure, unadulterated, super-concentrated Democratism is like. Maybe now they will get over their irrational, almost bigoted, hateful attitude toward conservatives and begin to vote intelligently for once in their lives. Or, maybe they will continue to vote Democratic, as they have continued to do in the inner cities, even as they watch those cities sink into the abyss.
even as they watch those cities sink into the abyss.
That's what scares me, so many people either bought off or voting against their own or the country's real best interests.
If the Repubs retake Congress but can't get Obama to sign off on much of their agenda, will a conservative still have a chance in 2012?
@Ann
You like to run polls. I suggest this:
Did you ever buy Ann's "cruel neutrality?"
a. No it was a sham, she had already actually voted for Obama in the primaries for god's sake.
b. No it was self-deluding, like this post
c. Absolutely
d. It was post modern humor, like East German gymnastics judges posing as fair.
I remain unimpressed with your reasoning on your choice of presidential vote.
"This store brand of soda doesn't seem like the best quality to me. It doesn't have really snazzy labeling, it's cheaper so it might be less tasty, and the quality control might not be the best.
"So I guess I'll just drink this bottle of yellowish liquid I found sitting next to the sidewalk."
Please Professor, be honest with yourself. You had a crush on Barry O. Read your other posts:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-have-818-posts-tagged-obama.html
Half of your posts were about how cute Obama was kissing babies or taking his daughter to a bookstore and like. More interesting? More alluring is more like it.
Sorry Ann, but this commenter nails it:
No excuses. It was right in front of them, and they ignored it. Twenty years in Wright’s church, listening to “Damn America”, meant nothing. Associating with Ayers and Dohrn meant nothing. No executive experience meant nothing. 149 “Present” votes meant nothing. Brzezinski, Power, Rice, Malley, Kurtzer, Indyk as foreign policy advisors meant nothing. Pals like Rezko meant nothing.
They went for him, hook, line, and sinker.
Now they’re moaning. Too late. Thinking with one’s heart instead of the head has consequences.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন