Here's the video:
Rush says he can tell that Obama...
... has been festering, this has been effervescing inside him, that he's unappreciated, that he did something nobody else has done, and they wanted it for a hundred years, and by golly he got it. He didn't get everything he wanted, he got 99%, and they don't appreciate me,...I must say... I watched that video clip earlier today, and I liked the Obama I saw there. You could say he's beaten down, but there's fire there. It's the fire of pragmatism. I see a sensible and strong man. I never believed in Obama the Messiah, and I fretted about the signs that he was a left-wing ideologue. But when it came down to a decision between Obama and McCain, in the midst of a terrible economic crisis, I put my trust in Obama. I said:
So he's essentially telling them, look, I gotta back off on some of this stuff if we're to get anything done. And that infuriated 'em even more because the question was, "Where you gonna go to the mat, what are your core values?" And he withered. He caved. And that made them even angrier. I know it's hard to comprehend. But these people on the left, they are truly enraged. It is a lifestyle. They are never happy. I looked at the comments on the Daily Kos website, they are hilarious. But they're real. And it went on for ten pages. I mean they are just fit to be tied because Obama is not what they thought he was....
I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama.I thought that Obama would have some independence from the Democrats in Congress and that he'd use his common sense and pragmatism to work out some solutions. The more he departs from left-wing ideology and struggles to get to good solutions, the more I like him.
When I watch that video, I don't see a melt-down at all. I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for.
Posts
212 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 212 of 212I was having a sandwich and glanced at the TV to see across the bottom that an NBC idiot was asking the Idiot in Chief how he would respond to Democrats who believe he had capitulated to the Republicans.
My suggested answer: "They won."
It couldn't have caused any more angst than his actual response.
Most Americans Say They're Worse Off Since Obama Took Office, Poll Shows
Excerpt: "The survey, conducted Dec. 4-7, finds that 51 percent of respondents think their situation has deteriorated [...]"
They, too (sadly), got "the Obama [Professor Althouse] voted for."
Ann said: "I see Obama coming into his own at last. I see the Obama I voted for."
Ralph Nader said: "He's a con man."
Funny thing is, they're both right.
Fen wrote:
But only if he displayed the proper amount of sympathy for Saint Elizabeth. Otherwise, he deserves to needlessly suffer and you'll be there to piss on his grave.
[Fun game, this distortion and misreprentation of what people said. And I haven't even gotten to the hyperbole yet.]
Ann suggested that we should have less sympathy for her because she was succesful and had three sons and only lost ONE. And her husband had a big cock. That's pretty callous. Losing any son is hard, even for a rich person.
And then you suggested that she cynically used the death of her son and her getting cancer to get her husband elected, therefore you have less sympathy for her. And I would say such a characterization is complety unsypmathetic and callous. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's not a distortion on my part to say you or Ann were being uncivil towards Elizabeth. Isn't that the whole point of why you had less sympathy for her? Because she commited some crimes in your eyes. Apparently she used the death of her son and cancer in an unseemly manner in your eyes to garner false sympathy for her husband. And I would argue that the death of her son and her cancer don't have to be cynically used to generate sympathy, they do so because they are genuine hardships that people relate to. Apparently to Ann we shouldn't have as much sympathy for her becaus she ONLY lost one son and was succesful. You can be succesful and lose a son and it's devastating. Just ask John Travolta. Just because he's a movie star doesn't mean that he's not going to be hit just as hard as a non movie star when his son dies. And it shouldn't mean we have less sympathy for him because he was in Saturday Night Fever.
Fen wrote:
Yes, you falsely accuse people of being uncivil (without evidence) and then use that lie to justify treating them with contempt.
Thats fine. I can play that game too.
You think that suggesting that Edwards cynically used her sons death and her cancer to generate false sympathy for her husband is not being uncivil? What exactly are you trying to imply there? Sounds pretty uncivil to me.
Ken wrote:
It's really sad, Ann. I thought you learned something over the last two years.
Carter, Edwards, Obama. Not a very good track record.
exhelodrvr1 --
I'm waiting for the "America wasn't ready for a black President, after all" line of comments to start.
So, since no one else is doing it and obviously don't think that way, you thought you'd try to give it a kick start? Who's the racist here?
By the way, note how Ann only two posts before this one, talks about the spin from the left over the Tax vote and how Obama has actuall won (and how this is just spin) yet Obama having been trounced is now an example of his pragramtism. Don't the two points contradict each other?
jr565: And then you suggested that she cynically used the death of her son and her getting cancer to get her husband elected, therefore you have less sympathy for her. And I would say such a characterization is complety unsypmathetic and callous. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's not a distortion on my part to say you or Ann were being uncivil towards Elizabeth
Except I never said that. Thats the problem with all your paraphrasing - if you provided the actual quote you're referencing, people would see how silly your accusations are.
Here's just one example:
12/8/10 10:31 AM
jr565: So I guess because she had a good life the death of her son was not really something any one should have sympathy over.
Fen: If Elizabeth had callously used Wade's death as a prop to advance John's career, then yes, I would have less sympathy for her. You're starting to catch on.
You raised a hypothetical, I answered it with another hypothetical. You mistakenly took that to mean I was implying she actually *did* cynically use the death of her son
You owe me an apology. And $24.50 for the remedial schooling I just gave you.
Ok Fen Let me quote some pertinent commentary from some guy named Fen:
Ann: Elizabeth Edwards participated in the use of her disease to manipulate public opinion in her husband's quest for power. For that, she is accountable.
Fen: I'm not trying to assassinate her either. But if people continue to pretend she didn't use her disease to manipulate public opinion in her husband's quest for power, I'll continue to correct them.
That IF is not a hypothetical. You are, in your mind continuing to correct people, so therefore you are putting forth the argument hat she used her disease to manipulate public opinion. Do you see how you can read between the lines to get to what you are actual SAYING and not making hypoheticals about?
If Elizabeth had callously used Wade's death as a prop to advance John's career, then yes, I would have less sympathy for her.
You're starting to catch on.
And subsequently would continue to correct those who suggest that she didn't use her sons death as a prop to advance Edwards career.
the starting to catch on, implies that YES she used her son Wade’s death as a a prop to advance her sons career)
Fen: IF Sarah Palin played the Cancer card to protect her campaign, ie. used her illness to manipulate public opinion in her quest for power.. then yes. Ann would hold her accountable for it.
Althouse DID hold Elizabeth accountable for using Elizabeth used her cancer as a means to manipulate public opinion in her quest for power . Do you see how that moves your hypothetical from a hypothetical to an actual suggestion on your part that in fact Elizabeth did exactly what your hypothetical implies she did, which would cause you to lose sympathy for her? Don’t be coy, be upfront about your jerkishness.
Fen:If you're going abuse our respect for the dead as cover to rewrite history, to reform her image, then expect some pushback.
Now that contains the word IF, but is that a hypothetical? Considering you are pushing back at those mythmakers suggesting you should have some civility at her death, it stands to reason that you are suggesting that your hypothetical is correct and THEREFORE they should expect some pushback from you?
Fen continued:
All I said was that IF Elizabeth had used Wade's death to further John's career, I would have less sympathy for her. IF IF IF IF IF
Bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit. You DO have less sympathy precisely for the reason you lay out in your hypothetical which you are implying is the reason you are withholding sympathy for her.Don't be coy and suggest you are merely making hypotheticals.I’ll not that despite your qualifiers of IF, it’s on record that you think those who are being respectful of Elizabeth Edwards death are in fact rewriting history.
Fen:If you don't want the mythbuster, don't bring the myth.
There is an IF in there, but it’s not a qualifier. You are saying YOU are the myth buster and you are busting the myth brought by Edwards defenders. Look, you are perfectly entitled to your opinon, and likewise we are perfectly entitled to call you a jerk for expressing it. But don’t pretend to suggest that all your “mythbusting” is mere hypothetical mythbusting and that you are not really implying anything. Please.
Fen: Why? Because someone of us aren't showing what you deem is the proper level of sympathy? For a woman who already used that sympathy once to manipulate PR for her husband?
Ahah, No IF there. You are saying what you mean. And your qualifiers were similarly you saying what you mean. You simply want to be a douchebag and not be called on it.
Some of you (meaning Fen) are not showing proper sympathy for a woman WHO (not hypothetical) already used sympathy once to manipulate PR for her husband.
Fen: Provide evidence. Or shut the fuck up.
I just did.
Does that mean you are dancing on the grave of Edwards? No, but you are being particularly callous (in my opinion) about her death. And So was Ann. Saying we should give sympathy to more deserving people who's husbands aren't as well endowed or whoaren't as rich, is just callous (in my opion.) She can say whatever she wants, we're just saying it's callous and kind of heartless. And those who say when she dies they'll be there to show shaedenfreud and,in particular hope that Meade cheats onher first, is merely them using the same callousness to judge her.
Both are wrong.
Post a Comment