It’s Not My Party And I’ll Stay Home If I Want To
I do have a platinum American Express card but I don’t have a Democratic Convention Premier Package. So I don’t think I’ll be going to the DNC 2008 big bash in Denver next week.
The former costs me $300 a year and is well worth it. The latter, which is being furiously peddled among corporate big dogs, tells you everything that’s rotten with the American political system. And that includes the Democratic Party.
Premier Package donors get a comped hotel room at a Denver hotel, two credentials for the convention hall, two tickets to a party honoring the House Democratic leadership, two tickets to a VIP presidential election briefing election, two tickets to a congressional “late night” event, but only one ticket to a private party honoring that nice lady who fights for us regular folks 24/7, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House. Premier Package cost: a mere $155,000.
Sure, even without a Premier membership, I could easily get to Denver on my own nickel or on that of various news organizations. But for the first time in more than two decades I’m going to opt to watch a major party convention on TV and just plain stay away. Here’s my top three reasons for boycotting:
With twenty gazillion reporters and bloggers already enlisted I don’t think I’d have much to add.
Second, whatever news will come out of this stage-managed affair will be focused on the Great National Baby Boomer Pseudo-Feminist Cry Baby Me First Even Though I Lost Catharsis to be staged by Hillary Clinton and her supporters. No thanks.
But mostly, I’m staying away precisely because this year’s Democratic nominee is by far the most attractive since I started convention-going in the Reagan-Mondale era and, frankly, I don’t want to be reminded of what kind of fellow-Democrat company he keeps. Obama might be my candidate, but the Democrats are certainly not my party.
The liberal think tanks, the unions, the usual suspect progressives, are all going to be in a lathered frenzy of panels, presentations, talks and seminars foaming in and around the convention center, and convincing themselves they are now somehow driving the party. They might as well be scheduled for Sunday night on Mars.
The real power behind the Democrats are the nearly sixty corporations who are coughing up the bulk of the $55 million Denver tab, scooping up in the transaction much more than Premier Packages and martinis and shrimp with Speaker Nancy.
The most powerful economic and political forces in America are blatantly buying even more political access and influence. And the Democrats are only too happy to sell it. Giving unlimited bucks to so-called “convention host committees” is the Grand Canyon of campaign finance loopholes, with many donations not even having to be reported until a few days before the November election.
There’s insufficient space to parse through the entire list of DNC ’08 corporate sponsor. But next week, while you’re watching some Dem or another rail from the podium about the sinister influence of lobbyists and special interests, you might want to keep this mini-list of convention sponsors and just a few of the issues they’ve been lobbying on handy. With thanks to the Rocky Mountain News and the Center for Responsive Politics here’s just a smudge:
*ATT&T, Qwest, Comcast, Motorola: revisions in the 1996 Telecom Act, wireless, digital TV and broadband regulation, tax policy, pension reform, and FISA. AT&T was arguably among the primary beneficiaries of the bill providing immunity against prosecution for domestic spying, approved only with Democratic support. Denver-based Qwest, which has given at least $6 million in convention funding, has been at the center of massive corporate criminal scandal with former CEO Joe Nacchio (who was previously an exec for AT&T) sentenced exactly a year ago to six years in prison 19 and a $52 million fine on multiple felony counts of insider trading. No word yet if he gets paroled for a day or two to attend the Pelosi reception.
*Medtronic, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, United Health Group: health care policy, Medicare, drug prices and drug importation policy, tax policy, pension reform, tort reform
*US Bank, Wells Fargo, State Farm, Allstate, Visa: consumer protection against credit card company abuse, bankruptcy policy, mortgage relief, tax policy, and financial institution bail outs.
Add to the list Lockheed Martin which wants more contracts for defense and for its border security installations, Coca-Cola which wants to water down regulation of junk food in schools, Xcel Energy and Ford who are very concerned about climate change (though in a different way than we are), Molson Coors that wants to loosen alcohol advertising regulation and wants to make sure that taxes remain regressive, and then there’s the Recording Industry Association of America—the forward-looking folks who brought you prosecution of kids using Napster.
One can argue that this is simply the way of the world and that the Republicans are even worse. The second part is true. Yet nowhere is it written that the Democrats are somehow forced or obligated to do business this way. Indeed, they choose this form of legalized bribery because they are, in fact, representatives and allies of their donors. It could be different if there were sufficient reason and will.
This week Barack Obama’s campaign crossed the record-smashing threshold of garnering donations from more than 2 million individuals. If each of those donors had been asked for a mere three bucks each additional to fund the convention, the Democrats could have astounded us all by banning corporate underwriting of the Denver show. But that would have meant the Dems would be accountable to a mass of small donors and not to a few dozen special interests. And that would hardly be the Democratic Party we know.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Marc,
Long time reader, first-time poster. Love the blog and your work.
The idea of HRC being allowed to bring her act to this stage is beyond repellent. Why can the DRC not play hardball with her, and why do they continually allow these stunts to take place? I’m sure her theater will be stomach-churning to Obama.
Odds on the VP candidates?
August 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Supposing Hillary isn’t selected as the running mate, I hope after Nov. 4th she’s crushed into nothingness by Obama and the DNC–win or lose. All that she has done this year is nothing short of despicable. Unfortunately, the most despicable thing she did was turn her supporters into rabid…well, Pumas; and we need their votes (maybe). The media is at fault, too. They thought it would be great to turn people who were going to say “oh well, we lost” into people who say “oh well, I’m going to vote against my best interests”–just like they did with the whole Michigan/Florida thing. No one in either state cared that they weren’t going to matter in the primary until the media and Hillary convinced them they should.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:27 am
For all his high dudgeon, Marc forgets to hold the real holder of power accountable: The American Voter.
If we even bother to ask why the Democrats and Republicans go to such great lengths to mouch money, the answer is obvious: because they need it to soothe the coddled, fickle, feeble- and small-minded swing voter into casting a ballot for them.
The proven way to win these essential votes is to buy TV commercials, and they don’t come free.
Why blame the political parties when it’s so obviously these fickle, uninformed voters who cause the problem?
Remember Dennis Kucinich? Perfectly respectable fellow with views even Marc failed to find fault with. And the guy was running for president. Of course, Marc said he had no intention to vote for him, since, well, he just wasn’t popular enough.
So instead of campaigning for Kucinich, and risk being called a political nerd, Marc spent his time penning increasingly fevered attacks on Hillary Clinton. The saddest part is that the tirades were always couched in the language of moral outrage.
Now, it seems, Marc can’t find the gumption to make it out to Denver because, for shame and shock — they raise money from companies!!! This kind of superficial cynicism is really naivete about democracy and one’s own status and responsibilities within the political system.
So there you have it. Dennis Kucinich will see fit to be in Denver, but not Marc Cooper, indeed.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:47 am
>>>I don’t want to be reminded of what kind of fellow-Democrat company he keeps. Obama might be my candidate, but the Democrats are certainly not my party.
Read this article:
Barack Obama has been proving himself the most party-focused presidential candidate in recent history–possibly ever. Paradoxically, although Obama’s success has been more dependent on personal charisma than any recent nominee’s has, he’s been leveraging that charisma to build a broader Democratic infrastructure less dependent on the presidential nominee.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Marc, you can go to the Democratic convention and stay at “Gitmo On The Platte.” It hold more than the biggest hotel in the area. However, it’s unlikely that William Ayers will make a surprise visit there, as he is held in honor by Obama.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I don’t know whether one of John McCain’s aides tipped him to the questions Rick Warren was asking Obama while they drove to the forum and I don’t care a whole lot. McCain was typically canned and shallow at the forum – or missed the point of questions – when he wasn’t digging back for real or imagined POW anecdotes. His response on the “Evil” Q was laughable from about 3 different perspectives. The truth is, it’s hard to imagine his aides – who worked as foot soldiers for Karl Rove – not considering it malpractice if they didn’t tune in to the forum and give their candidate a subtle, “plausibly deniable” boost before he was whisked into the green room shortly before he went on. But what irks me most is the inanity of their denial and defense:
“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, told The Times. (end clip)
“Former POWs don’t cheat!” Yeah. Right.
I’m wondering if this was the line McCain used on his first wife when he was “dating” Cindy.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
reg: don’t know whether one of John McCain’s aides tipped him to the questions…and I don’t care a whole lot.
…but I’ll bring up this lie just to plant the seed in other people’s heads so that Obama will have an excuse for not doing as well as McCain.
Well, I don’t know if Obama took some illegal drugs, as he has admiited in the past, to account for his showing, but I don’t care a lot, either. Just saying.
reg, it’s interesting that you bring up McCain’s character when it never mattered during the Clinton years. Oh, and did you know that McCain gambles, too, according to Huffington? Maybe he and Marc Cooper could be decadent buddies.
Oh, by the way, how dare you smear a Vietnam vet?!
Meanwhile, Obama’s slippiing. But, Democrats registering the homeless may pull him ahead. There’s nothing like non-productive people selling their votes to the highest bidder, which is always a Democrat.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Of course a moron like Woody would be impressed with McCain’s lame platitudes at Saddleback. That’s why he spouts that crap.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
McCain’s blustering response to the “evil” question alone rendered his performance laughable.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I thought at the very beginning of McCain’s appearance, when he reeled off the 3 wisest people he knew/would rely upon, that he seemed to know that question was coming. I can’t say about the rest. Btw, one of the 3 was John Lewis. Is there any evidence anywhere in McCain’s record that he has paid any attention to John Lewis’ insights on civil rights and poverty issues? McCain’s domestic policy platform–”I wanna cut everybody’s taxes, esp. those $4 million/yr middle class folks’–does not reflect much of any of John Lewis’ wisdom. Lewis has endorsed Obama.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
The suggestion in Marc’s last paragraph–that there be a fund with a very low max contribution to pay for a convention–is really a great idea and could be done. How better to create a reality as well as appearance of being free from the influence of special interests? The only way something like this could be done is if Obama were elected, and thus could suggest such a thing–or be pushed to suggest such a thing–from his bully pulpit. It would be a pretty good litmus test of his bona fides on the change front.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
reg: Of course a moron like Woody would be impressed with McCain’s lame platitudes at Saddleback. That’s why he spouts that crap.
Woody: Of course a psycho like reg would not be impressed with McCain’s platitudes at Saddleback. That’s because Obama got the crap beat out of him.
I really don’t want Obama answering the phone at 3:00 AM. They don’t have teleprompters in cases of national emergencies.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Btw, Woody, a large chunk of the homeless population are just simply poor and unemployed. As the article says, many have employed spouses, but it isn’t enough.
Rick Warren asked how rich one has to be in order to be required to pay higher taxes. How poor do you think a citizen is allowed to be before s/he is judged “unproductive” and thus loses the vote? When they can’t pay the poll tax?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Woody – go read some Reinhold Niebuhr and we can talk. Until thenk, you’re just showing your ignorant ass. Plus you’re scraping your barrel so close to the bottom, you’ve become boring more than annoying. Which screws up your game.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“Is there any evidence anywhere in McCain’s record that he has paid any attention to John Lewis’ insights on civil rights and poverty issues?”
I think he used John Lewis for a chapter in one of his books on courage or character or something. Legislatively, he probably paid little attention to his insights and Lewis said today that they’ve had no relationship.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
That’s because Obama got the crap beat out of him.
It wasn’t a debate.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Marc: your column is a real good, sober ‘coverage’ of the convention as it is. You don’t have to attend. These 3 sentences basically nail it:
“The most powerful economic and political forces in America are blatantly buying even more political access and influence. And the Democrats are only too happy to sell it. Giving unlimited bucks to so-called “convention host committees” is the Grand Canyon of campaign finance loopholes, with many donations not even having to be reported until a few days before the November election.”
Money doesn’t talk. It swears.
Also, the upside of not attending the convention and all it’s parties, means you won’t have to face the potential risk of getting trampled on by Mayor Kilpatrick springing for the last swedish meatball…
Lastly: very cool linked article, Chileno.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
great writing as usual
August 19th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Regarding Woody’s idiotic linking to the wingnut “Investors Business Daily” as a credible arbiter of…well, of anything… here’s the lead from another IBD editorial on Obama from last January:
“At the core of the Democratic front-runner’s faith — whether lapsed Muslim, new Christian or some mixture of the two — is African nativism, which raises political issues of its own.”
These are racists, pure and simple. Whatever Woody’s protestations, he’s mired in his regional “idiosyncracies.” Sherman was too kind to these fucks.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
reg, Reinhold Niebuhr ?? I had never heard of him, but I see that he’s from the state where you grew up. However, I don’t think that one has to be familiar with Reinhold Niebuhr to not be considered ignorant. What an obscure choice to make a stupid point.
Randy, it’s like bowling scores, with which you should be familiar. Each player bowls separately and scoress are kept separately, but one decidedly wins. Most people, well, the objective ones, say that McCain did better.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Not surprised and of course you wouldn’t understand why I referenced him in relation to McCain’s performance vs. Obama’s at Saddleback. It’s about the “evil” question, which McCain used to prove he doesn’t know Christianity from KungFu.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Just checked the vm… Nothing.
What’s the ante at this site for calling Obama’s VP pick?
My chip is on Sam Nunn.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
You know, he’s not my ideal Democrat, but the more I think about it the more old conservative Dem Nunn seems like a great choice. He’s terrific on a single issue – nonproliferation of nuclear and biological weapons – but it happens to be an absolutely critical issue of our time and Obama could give Nunn that portfolio as his laser-like focus. Also his long experience and reputation on the Armed Services committee could defuse potential problems such as Clinton had with Pentagon insubordination. And he might move Georgia from “in-play longshot” to “in play.” I’d love nothing more than to see Obama carry Georgia, whether he needs it or not. Nunn has zero sizzle, but lots of gravitas.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Well, I hate to go for the chalk, but I think Joe Biden. I think he and Obama will click, and their view of how Americans need to change our own government is complementary. Evan Bayh is such a nonentity to the nation as a whole I don’t see him happening. Nunn is even more of a Republican than Bayh. I find myself not writing Hillary off, though.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I thought Woody was kidding about not knowing who Reinhold Niebuhr is. I’m not going to say you’re going to hell if you don’t know Niebuhr, but he is hardly “obscure.” He is one of the people who set the intellectual standards for 20th century theological and civic leaders. Teilhard de Chardin is my man, but in examining tight ethical questions, you’re best off if you’ve considered, “what would Reinhold Niebuhr do?”
August 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Michael Crosby, there was no need to set theological standards for the 20th century. Standards don’t change, and they were provided to us a couple of thousand yers ago. Standards are absolute.
- – -
reg: “Investors Business Daily”…These are racists, pure and simple.
Oh, the old Obama trick..”If you criticize me, then you are racist.” But, on the other hand, maybe I’m just a typical white person.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Ditto reg. Foreign policy chops, good graces with pentagon crowd. All that. Though I’m betting that this is the conclusion Obama comes to even though I’m actually much more personally favorable to someone like Sen. Biden. Good bet, Crosby. If Biden isn’t the v.p. I’ll opt for a ‘double down’ and take him as Sec. of State (have mercy on America’s adversaries who’d have to listen to Sen. Biden).
In the end, my theory is that the organizer impulse in Obama will say pick a v.p. from the opposition’s turf. Compete hard in the south. Contest everything there. Maybe it puts Georgia in play, or not. No hugh points for sizzle, but sizzle isn’t something Obama lacks. Nunn could totally play the role of wise mentor to the youngish Obama. Virtually no risk.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
BB effectively denies the power of capital, and lays the convenient blame on “voters”
In other news, BB blames people who for lack of resources have to subsist on eating animal entrails for their lack of a fine palate.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
And only in a blog comments area dominated by libs would the only news of interest to the left be provided by Woodrow.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Niebuhr, who I think was a wise man, at least in the 30s, endorsed Truman’s cold war and the hiring of Nazis by the CIA as ethical.
I’ll stick with Woody on that one.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Ethics? Fuck the liberal hypocrites, esp. the authoritarian monster Rawls. Best to go to St. Augustine or Christ or Rousseau or Marx’s 1844 manuscripts – more recently Terry Eagleton and Slavoj Zizek.
Definitely not the liberal justifiers of murder.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Well, I can’t get my comment about Niebuhr past the filter. Thanks a lot, Marc.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I’ll try one part here:
reg, I said in another post that the Russians needed psychiatric sessions to deal with inferiority and paranoia, which you couldn’t believe. Here’s a comment about Russians in a letter by your Niebuhr to Sherwood Eddy.
Maybe we did agree on something.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
…and another one here.
Here is part of his evaluation of Russia’s totalitarian government.
It’s the same old story. Liberals think that their social goals are just, so they get confused and disenchanted when the big government that they implement turns out to be more corrupt than mankind itself. At least, Niebuhr finally got some of this right when he disassociated himself from Russian communism.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Another one here…
Okay, are there any conservative philosophers that you’ve studied?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
And, back to the first, that probably won’t work.
I did some quick research on Reinhold Niebuhr. He was quite involved in liberal projects, but he was not in my history books or my accounting books, I never wasted my time studying philosophy, and I don’t remember names that I can’t pronounce. He founded and endorsed programs that I oppose. It’s not reasonable to expect many people to have known about him or to remember him now.
Here’s a quick history of his liberal side.
Niebuhr was a member of the Socialist Party, good friends with Stafford Cripps who founded the left-wing Socialist League, made trips to communist Russia and praised their collective farming, supported organized labor, was editor for “The Nation,” helped to found Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), argued for the church’s role to be social reconstruction rather than repentence, and said that he was ashamed of our nation.
Also, Barack Obama said that Niebuhr is “one of my favorite philosophers.”
Now, we get to the crux of it. No wonder you guys hold Niebuhr in high esteem.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Well, the first part won’t post.
In summary, I’ve just read and recognize the socialist positions of Niebuhr…and, I also found that he is one of Obama’s favorite philosophers.
So, we get to the crux of the matter, don’t we?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I give up trying to post the first part of my comment. Anyway, I did read that Obama likes Niebuhr, so that says a lot.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I am a great admirer of Machiavelli and Hobbes, both of whom are considered conservative by some, though I think its more complex. Political philosophy, in the last instance, can’t be reduced to simple publicism for specific interests, but it cannot be ignored that Machiavelli was specifically calling for revolution in the famous chap 26 of the Prince. Gramsci and Althusser, among other Marxists, take Machiavelli quite seriously.
Hobbes is something else. He is probably the most intricate political theorist of all time, including the Greeks and Marx and anyone else you can think of. His theoretical edifice – of which I have profoudn differences with – is perhaps the most elegant totality ever conceived. He also was an early materialist.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“esp. the authoritarian monster Rawls.” Come clean, have you been dipping into the Moosehead again?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
jcummings – Andrew Bacevich wrote the intro to the new edition of Niebuhr’s 1952 The Irony of American History. Calls it “The most important book ever written on US foreign policy.” Probably an overstatement but since Bacevich has written some pretty important ones himself, it’s worth noting.
The entire thing used to be online, but I can’t find it – probably because it’s back in print.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:44 am
This posting is dead on. The whole system sometimes seems completely rotten, and the Democrats are about 10% better than the Republicans on this, and that’s not saying much. I like the idea of publicly financed conventions.
I know it’s bad here, but I wonder how it stands in comparison to other countries. Japan? Germany? Not that this should be the benchmark, but do corporations, for example, have the same level of access and do they contribute money to parties as they do here?
I have always found it interesting that judges have to recuse themselves from cases where there might be some conflict of interest, but that elected representatives don’t seem to feel the same obligation. I suppose their range of interests is potentially endless in that example, and then any money becomes suspect, even small donations from individuals.
It seems that public financing is the only way out of this mess. Oh, and can we shorten the allowed election season to something that Rip Van Winkle could actually sleep through?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Most people, well, the objective ones, say that McCain did better.
Proof?
August 20th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Dan O,
In addition, they should also require broadcasters to supply some free time for candidates. They got all that digital spectrum (i.e. public property) for nothing; it’s time they paid back.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:09 am
If you want an idea of the popularity of public financing of elections, take a look at the low percentage of people who check the box on their tax returns for that purpose–less than ten percent.
In today’s news:
McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama’s solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.
Well, that has to be the anti-Obama press putting that out.
Senator Barack Obama’s long lost brother has been tracked down for the first time living in a shanty town in Kenya, reports claimed. …Embarrassed by his penury, he said that he does not does not mention his famous half-brother in conversation. “If anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed,” he said.
Do you know the old song “He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother”? Well Barack Obama’s brother must be too heavy.
Finally, for you lefties who don’t like Toby Keith’s post-Sept. 11 song “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue, get this quote from Keith: “And I think (Obama’s) the best Democratic candidate we’ve had since Bill Clinton. And that’s coming from a Democrat.”
But don’t worry, you people who are fans of Democrats. To represent their roots and history of winning, the Democrats will have the following speakers at their convention: Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and Al Gore.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Randy in response to “Most people, well, the objective ones, say that McCain did better (at Saddleback).” Proof?
For one thing, the Democrats came out immediately to say that John McCain cheated. They clearly recognized that McCain did better, so they had to lie somehow to discredit his victory.
You can do your own web search for other opinions. Here’s one:
McCain Won Saddleback Showdown with Obama, Some Say – By Black Christian News
But, if you disagree with that view, just resort to the typical Obama response and say that the publication is racist.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Oh, and, Randy, look at how the polls flipped after Saddleback. McCain has jumped ahead…or, you could just claim that everyone supporting McCain is a racist.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Oh, and, Randy, look at how the polls flipped after Saddleback.
From your poll:
Saddleback took place on Saturday, so it had little if any impact on this one poll, since you cite only one. Sadly typical of your sloppy claims.
As for Obama’s brother, family relationships are complicated. I have a half brother 19 years older and far wealthier than me who I have seen three times in the past thirty years. I’ve never looked to him for help when times were bad.
or, you could just claim that everyone supporting McCain is a racist.
Playing the race card. Typical.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Yes, Obama supporters play the race card and, when that is pointed out by others, they play the race card again by saying someone else did it. It must be nice to be a black politician and above criticism.
Randy, not only are the polls moving in McCain’s favor, Obama should be having a comfortable lead at this point, like the Democratic Party as a whole. Clearly, something is wrong…but, it has nothing to do with his race, because Obama is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” {Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del)}.
At this point, I can only assume that I won’t be able to change any of your minds about Obama.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:20 am
At this point, I can only assume that I won’t be able to change any of your minds about Obama.
Given the quality of your argumentation and the fact that John McCain, who has consistently voted with Bush, the man who has made the mess that this country is in, what do you expect?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Yeah, who needs McCain, who didn’t help and won’t turn our nation into a socialist nanny-state catering to every demand for welfare? Yeah, McCain didn’t do that, so elect Obama. Let him make a new mess.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Yeah, don’t elect McCain, who didn’t help turn our nation into a socialist nanny-state for welfare beggars–like Obama will. We don’t need George Bush’s mess. Let Obama make his own.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Woody! You made into the comics!
http : //images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/08/12/tomo/story.jpg
August 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Thanks, Dan O. …and proud of it, too!
(Here’s a working link without the spaces.) http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/08/12/tomo/story.jpg
August 20th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Woody – you’re just too stupid…again. Did you see the “Source:FOX News” at the bottom of that “Black Christian News” article you linked to.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“At this point, I can only assume that I won’t be able to change any of your minds about _______.”
Fill in the blank.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Just joining back here…
Woody and to some degree cummings take the position that ethical and theological standards and principles are ancient and immutable. This is true. However, it is essential that from each epoch–each generatiion, in fact–religious and ethical leaders emerge.
Jesus was a great teacher. I wish more Christians paid attention to some of his recorded teachings, such as the sermon on the mount. But guidelines such as the “just war” principles have emerged since, as a result of give-and-take among theologians and political leaders thru the years. But it is important that our epoch have its own Niebuhrs and Chardins. We need suggestions from deep thinkers as to what Jesus would have thought and done about nuclear war; what he would teach about interrogation methods in a time of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; how he would have analyzed the obligations of slaves and masters during slavery; and the moral implications of colonialism and imperialism; and gangsterism and all varieties of modern life.
This process is going on now, and it is going on in all religions, among ethical humanists and elsewhere. I wish all religions had a concept like the Talmud, where scripture’s application is recognized as important as the foundational text itself.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
…and, the article was headed “By Black Christian News.” They may have borrowed from FOX for that article, which they credited, but the sentiments expressed would be those of the publication, which is “from a black Christian perspective,” per their banner.
They also published an article from The New York Times about Obama’s un-Christian position on abortion.
Do you think that the Black Christian News editor is too stupid to know the sources of the information that he provides? Do you think that all blacks are stupid or just the ones who disagree with you?
Further, someone like you who will not change his mind in the face of logic and reality may not be smart enough to judge others.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
reg: “Nunn has zero sizzle, but lots of gravitas.”
Which is reg’s way of saying that Obama has no gravitas and is nothing but sizzle.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
A lot of people I do like like a lot of people I don’t like. I absolve Bacevich a lot, including his own justification of the cold war.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Rawls fukukt edifice is predicated openly on hierarchy. There is nothing more authoritarian then systems that claim not to be.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
reg: “Woody – you’re just too stupid…again. Did you see the “Source:FOX News” at the bottom of that “Black Christian News” article you linked to.”
reg, you are the stupid one not to recognize that Fox was the source of the quotes. Then too, you don’t believe anything from anybody unless it comes from your choices of information and even then you don’t buy it unless it agrees with your POV. Typical of you though to want to “shoot the messenger” (Fox News) rather than pay attention to the information given. Typical, just typical.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Michael Crosby, the church’s role is spreading the gospel, leading sinners to repentence, and helping people to learn about and lead Christian lives–much of which is accomplished through its charitable actions. Here’s a sample Statement of Faith.
Some people, like Niebuhr and Obama, believe that the church’s foremost role is social reconstruction, whose sword of deliverance is the power of the government. If people led Christian lives and abided by the word of God, then social reconstruction would not be the problem that it is. To make things worse, the left, the ACLU, and government in general tries to block Christian based solutions.
By making the government the tool of social change and, at the same time, declaring a separation of church and state, you end up with mankind’s change rather than God’s. This is evidenced by government slowly overriding the charity that churches offered from their tithes and replacing it with giveaway programs funded by tax money taken at the point of a gun and for purposes no more pure than those of communist Russia.
So, Obama’s desire for change doesn’t come from his core church teachings but from a humanistic, government forced, and historically failed approach. Our country cannot risk having him dictate our future direction.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Roper – you’re shooting blanks here. Your comment makes no sense.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
You and Woody have this evil sadistic need to irritate the hell of reg…….well evil may be too strong a term, let’s say devilish.
I do agree one of Barack’s ‘challenges’ selecting a VP is finding someone that the voter believes could be president in an emergency while at the same time not cause them to ask themselves if the VP shouldn’t ‘be’ the president.
Sorry reg. This wasn’t said ‘just’ to irritate you……..just saying.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Roper – go fuck yourself – “which is my way of saying” don’t put your idiotic, shallow, knee-jerk opinions in my mouth. You’ve got enough trouble putting anything that makes sense in your own.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Jim – that doesn’t irritate me because it’s so lame. And in the wake of Bush/Cheney one would think the irony alarm would have gone off when you posted that.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
>there was no need to set theological >standards for the 20th century.
>Standards don’t change, and they
>were provided to us a couple of thousand >yers ago.
Then you believe, with St Paul, that the end of time is coming in his lifetime (oh, no wait, you couldn’t believe that since he died 1900 years ago and it still hasn’t happened.) Or perhaps you believe, with the OT, that gay people should be stoned to death for offending God, or with Jesus that everyone who didn’t follow him is condemned to Hell? When exactly did Christians first have the stunning realizaitons that (depending on the flavor you choose) transsubstantiation, Purgatory, the immaculate conception, salvation through faith, etc. were eternal truths of theology?
August 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Michael C. I agree with your point regarding Niebuhr and Chardin
Michael C: “how he (The Christ) would have analyzed the obligations of slaves and masters during slavery; and the moral implications of colonialism and imperialism; and gangsterism…” All were extant during the life of Jesus.
Niebuhr: 1892-1971
Chardin: 1881-1955 I would suggest that both are in our “epoch” and both are well worth reading. ESPECIALLY his (Niebuhr’s) “Christ and Culture” and “The Irony of American History,”
I might also mention that Niebuhr stated rather catagorically “The creeds and institutions of democracy have never been fully divorced from the special interests of the commercial classes who conceived and developed them.” (emphasis added) I will also mention that Niebuhr was stating that even moral people quickly revert to immoral behavior in the face of crowds of folk (Obama anyone?)
In “The Irony of American History” Niebuhr argue that communist and “liberal” ideologies are not of themselves bad, but that they support strong central governance which he believed are inimical to man. He also showed that the constitution as written (and as amended?) with it’s system of checks and balances was closer to the conservative ideal that any government strong and central enough to threaten individual liberty would of necessity be evil.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
reg: “McCain’s blustering response to the “evil” question alone rendered his performance laughable.”
Yeah reg, that’s why McCain got thunderous applause rather than derisive laughter. You could at least try reason before you spout off. Nah, that’d be too hard for you!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
>When exactly did Christians first have
>the stunning realizaitons that (depending
>on the flavor you choose)
>transsubstantiation, Purgatory, the >immaculate conception, salvation
>through faith, etc. were eternal >
truths of theology?
Clarification: I meant to point out that none of these doctrines, core beliefs of different types of Xianity, would have been recognizable to Jesus.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Jim R. the “devilish need” is a direct outgrowth of the last four years of reading reg’s filthy potty mouth, responding in kind at times and growing sick of his childish tantrums and boring idolitry of all things leftish regardless of any facts or thought interjected by others. reg has one mode of thought only, ~I’m right and everybody who is conservative, republican, or to he right of me is an &3$##&^, @(&^), #*&(*&^# idiot!
I just can’t help myself. I know I’m dealing with an intellectually challenged lefty, but it is way too much fun at this stage of the game.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Stu, on your list of “former beliefs,” don’t you recognize where man tinkers with God’s guidance and absolutes, much as Obama is doing now? (Did I hear someone say anti-Christ?)
We have been given the New Testament that offers grace. So, Christians don’t kill homosexuals–only Muslims of that “religion of peace” do that. The Bible said don’t try to predict the end times, but many do.
Of course, I don’t have to give you an opinion of whether or not people who don’t accept Christ will go to hell. It’s there for you to read. One problem, though. The Bible is God’s message to Christians, so you may not understand what He says.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Jim R. who said that I irritate reg? When has that happened? If it’s irritating to tell someone to get out of his house because it’s on fire, then maybe I do irritate him. I’m just trying to be informative and helpful.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
GMR – your “evil” comment demeans even your capacity for rational thought. Let’s use an applause meter at a fundamentalist church to determine whether or not Obama or McCain gives the more popular knee-jerk answer to…wait for it…a church full of fundamentalists. Sorry, but this test isn’t even close to anything I’d want to touch as serious discourse. If the two men had been holding forth at Union Theological Seminary, folks would have been reaching for their barf bags at McCain’s stupid bluster. You are perfectly within your rights to side with the folks who follow Rick Warren as the last word on this stuff. But even on this question, it was clear that Rick Warren himself isn’t so stupid that he wasn’t at least as in synch with Obama’s answer as he was McCain’s.
Once again you reveal the depths of your shallowness.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“reg has one mode of thought only”
Coming from a rightwing papmeister like you, that’s quite funny.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Stu, I think Jesus would recognize salvation through faith don’t you?
August 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Roper – I think when you started calling me a “fucking idiot” you forfeited your right to rage at my “potty mouth.”
At least there’s some consistency to my disdain for you. It’s the fucking idiocy, not your lapses into profanity, that make me want to puke.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Jim, the reg responds “Coming from a rightwing papmeister like you, that’s quite funny.
See what I mean, he can’t help himself… he can’t possibly leave the perjoritives alone and respond intelligently. He just can’t do it.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
reg, I responded in kind to your years of foul language. I was hoping that it would show you how hollow you sound. I was wrong. I also haven’t much continued the foul mouthed diatribes, you have. Grow up little man!
August 20th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
“I’m right and everybody who is conservative, republican, or to he right of me is an &3$##&^, @(&^), #*&(*&^# idiot!”
Not true at all ! I love this guy:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html
Do yourself a favor, Roper, and watch the whole thing. Bacevich is one of my heroes currently and he’s more conservative than wingnut hacks like you will ever be.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Roper – you do “self-righteous phony” very well.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jim, see what I mean?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
>Stu, I think Jesus would recognize salvation through faith don’t you?
Yeah, I take that part back, especially since it contradicts something else in my post. Let’s substitute predestination and the Trinity.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
” I know I’m dealing with an intellectually challenged lefty, but it is way too much fun at this stage of the game.”
Somehow you don’t come off as someone who’s having a whole lot of fun. The truth is you rarely respond to substantive criticism (see my comment at 1:30)…you just whine.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
cummings take the position that ethical and theological standards and principles are ancient and immutable.
Not exactly. I think, say universality and human equality are immutable goals, not standards, and they are goals in that they have never been met. In regards to understanding ideas, I’m a historical materialist but not of the vulgar type. I neither believe in the pomo historicism that dictates that one can only understand theory in the context of its epoch, nor a Straussian/liberal advocate of finding immutable truths in Plato, say, or Marx or even Thulycides that can be understood transhistorically. Both approaches here strike me as obscurantist. My own view is that while certain features of human history are universal (specifically the history of humanity being that of alienation and hence, struggle, culminating in modern class struggle) and that one cannot at all, as per above, divorce thinkers from their epoch, this is not at all to say that thoery can’t speak through the ages.
Most liberal and conservative political theory oppose precisely what I find immutable – that of universal human equality. Plato and Rawls join hands in fearing the mob. But they don’t disagree with the innate equality, as Hegel puts it, that is alienated. Some people like this alienation. I don’t.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
>finding immutable truths in Plato
My favorite dialogs, like the Theatetus and Euthrypho, show Socrates and his friends getting more confused the more they talk. There is immutable truth, or at least so far unmuted, truth here-the truth that our concepts of, say, knowledge, are mostly incoherent.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Aside from the fact that “Black Christian News” apparent sole source on the forum was FOX News, there’s absolutely no reference, even anonymous or generalized, in that article to support the “some say” angle of that headline (and, of course, “some say” is just about the weakest journalistic gimmick in the book.)
Woody digging this piece of weak shit up to allege some sweeping opinion is so utterly typical, it’s just sad really.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
reg, write the “Black Christian News” if you don’t like the way they footnote sources or report information. While their format may not be ideal, their ideals are clear and their information is accurate.
Anyone with a brain could see that McCain outperformed Obama in their interviews. If you can’t, then that’s what’s sad.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“reg, write the “Black Christian News” if you don’t like the way they footnote sources or report information. While their format may not be ideal, their ideals are clear and their information is accurate.”
If you can give me the name of the editor or publisher, I’ll be happy to contact them. What ? There’s no masthead ? Not a single name of a reporter or of editorial staff or of a publisher ? Wow! For such a professional, highly-regarded, clear and accurate news operation that acts as an important conduit for distilling “black Christian” news and opinion, that’s a bit odd.
You live in wingnut heaven Woody.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
GM, you know, I don’t think that Jesus would endorse salvation through faith, at least in the sense of “faith-alone.” If he did, I don’t think he could have come down on the Pharisees and them nearly so hard as he did. I don’t think lack of faith is what he perceived in them, but rather a lack of application of faith in their lives (recall the parable of the Good Samaritan…the upright Pharisee blew past the beggar, and the faithless son of Samaria came to the fellow’s aid). I think Jesus’s whole deal was to bring all this scriptural dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin to ground, and to deal with the chasms between what his people professed and how they acted. Of course what you find in scripture depends on where you look….
You have a point that slavery et al. existed in some forms in Jesus’s time, but I’m not aware of any particularly direct comment on it, at least in the New Testament. As any black Christian will tell you, there’s plenty in the OT.
Also, GM, your analysis of Niebuhr’s view of government is a good deal more accurate than Woody’s. I don’t think it is entirely fair to suggest that he was anti-government, though. And his analysis of the “mob” mind is not particularly applicable to the crowds at Obama rallies, I don’t think, except that I don’t think anyone is at their most reflective when waving a preprinted sign or joining a chant. Still, those public acts do have significance, when supported by private reflection and debate.
Finally, I agree that Niebuhr and Chardin are of our epoch. That is what I was trying to say. They provided insight into good and evil in their (relatively) contemporary forms, and their work should be consulted for that reason.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Michael, excellent response and I agree with the following “And his analysis of the “mob” mind is not particularly applicable to the crowds at Obama rallies.” That was thrown in as a dig at the resident obamabot reg. All the others in here may be supporters of Obama, but not like his reg-ness. I shouldn’t have tossed it into a serious discussion.
I would also highly recommend Victor Frankel’s “Man’s Search For Meaning” as an excellent look into the goodness and the evil in man. Frankel and Neibuhr have always been “heroes” of mine.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
reg, rather than me being in “wingnut heaven,” your problem is that some blacks don’t do things according to your standards. Maybe the editor of “Black Christian News” didn’t have the proper training, through no fault of his own, but he’s trying. I don’t care if half the words are misspelled as long as I can determine the meaning from the writers.
- – -
M.C., I better understand Niebuhr from reading G.M.’s and your comments. I don’t, however, consider him to be a major influence in today’s world.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“The truth is you rarely respond to substantive criticism.”
That’s because you rarely make any substantive criticism reg… you rant and rave for the most part and spew hatred towards any conservative or libertarian in the comments section. If you deny that with very few exceptions, then you are not being truthful.
As to your 1:30 comment, do you REALLY suppose the Obamamessiah didn’t know where he was speaking and that he doesn’t/can’t tailor his responses to his audience despite all the evidence that he does?? Really? OK, let’s put that question in the “scheduled” debates where supposedly the mix will be more balanced, how do you suppose he will answer then?
August 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Woody, Neibuhr is one of the most influential theologians in the past 100 years.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“I think, say universality and human equality are immutable goals, not standards, and they are goals in that they have never been met. In regards to understanding ideas, I’m a historical materialist but not of the vulgar type. I neither believe in the pomo historicism that dictates that one can only understand theory in the context of its epoch, nor a Straussian/liberal advocate of finding immutable truths in Plato, say, or Marx or even Thulycides that can be understood transhistorically. Both approaches here strike me as obscurantist. My own view is that while certain features of human history are universal (specifically the history of humanity being that of alienation and hence, struggle, culminating in modern class struggle) and that one cannot at all, as per above, divorce thinkers from their epoch, this is not at all to say that thoery can’t speak through the ages.”
Obamas answer to the questin “At what point does a baby get human rights.”
August 20th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Mccain’s answer “At conception”.
My pragmatic answer: “Three months after conception. This give the mother, used loosely, to exercise ‘choice’.
One of the results of the sexual liberalization or our society is the breakdown of morals, families, incureable sexual diseases, and profoundly unhappy and maladjusted adolescents encouraged by profoundly unhappy and maladjusted. adults at “Women’s Rights” clinics to abort babies……a profoundly unnatural thing for a female to do.
One more good reason we cannot trust the irresponsible liberal left with responsibility of any kind.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Just for the record both CBS/NYT and NBC/WSJ polls conducted from 8/15-19 and 8/15-18, respectively show the race at Obama 45%, McCain 42%.
Zogby tends to run some outliers and if I had a better grounding in statistics, I’d take a look at his methodology.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
A little more on Zogby from those who know far more than me on the subject http://tinyurl.com/5hywyu
August 20th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Randy, no matter how you try to make excuses or cut it, the point is that the trend is going in McCain’s favor.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
GMR – very dumb response. Of course Obama knew where he was speaking and he responded honestly and, as was his only choice under those circumstances, reflectively. He simply couldn’t throw simplistic red-meat answers to that audience. His gain – which was far greater than McCain’s in that context – was that he sat down with one of the most popular preachers among that brand of Christianity and clearly had the man’s respect, if not agreement across the spectrum. Obama was there to cut losses, not win majority support. A not perfect but comparable parallel would be if McCain could pull off the same quality of responses under questioning by, say, the head of the ACLU before an audience that was at it’s core leaning heavily Democratic. I can guarantee you that among most non-fundamentalist Christians a lot of McCain’s answers came off as remarkably shallow and canned. Most of his responses were clips from his stump speech. Obama actually engaged in a conversation with Warren. My bet is that even Warren saw some of that difference. As “obvious” as McCain’s alleged “straight-talk” performance is to wingnut hacks like you and Woody, Obama’s far greater depth was just as “obvious” to people who don’t buy knee-jerk platitudes or near-blasphemous bullshit about “defeating” Evil.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Woody, you showed one poll before the convention, one whose methodology is suspect, whereas others showed a small improvement by McCain immediately after a time when Obama was on vacation. That’s not a trend, Woody, that’s a blip. For it to be a trend, it would have to show consistent growth over a longer period, and this doesn’t.
Let’s see where things stand after the conventions and debates. Let’s not be premature.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
“I will also mention that Niebuhr was stating that even moral people quickly revert to immoral behavior in the face of crowds of folk (Obama anyone?)”
What the fuck is that about ????
August 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Fair enough, Randy. However, here’s a site that you’ve seen before that does have a trend line, for what you consider it’s worth. Check out the “Super Tracker” trend line since the end of June. <a href=”http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/Electoral Projections Done Right
August 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Hmmm. Let me try that link again. Electoral Projections Done Right
August 20th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Here’s the most salient Niebuhr quote in the context of the almost insanely hubristic adventurism proposed by Bush/McCain:
“If we should perish, the ruthlessness of the foe would be only the secondary cause of the disaster. The primary cause would be that the strength of a giant nation was directed by eyes too blind to see all the hazards of the struggle; and the blindness would be induced not by some accident of nature or history but by hatred and vainglory.”
And here’s an antidote that I’ll recommend a second time from a thoughtful conservative to the kind of bungled, incompetent thinking that John McCain wants to pepetuate (and that unfortunately too many Democrats are often complicit in):
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html
August 20th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
GMR – you are perfectly welcome to respond to your “fellow conservative” Andrew Bacevich’s concerns expressed in the above linked interview for the duration of this thread and ignore my rabidly left-wing profanity-laced rants because, after all, there’s no substance to them. Surely that’s a challenge you are up to.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Incidentally, Reinhold Niebhur didn’t write “Christ and Culture.” That one’s by his brother. Next to The Irony of American History, Immoral Man and Immoral Society is the most important book by any Niebuhr.
And, frankly, given the quality of your analysis of such as the Iraq war and tendency to expound a version of American exceptionalism in these threads, I doubt you have actually read The Irony of American History – or if you did, that you grasped much of Niebuhr’s thinking. Your attempt to quotemonger him into somehow upholding a “conservative ideal” of government adds to my suspicions.
August 20th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Ooops – that’s “Moral Man and Immoral Society.”
August 20th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
“My pragmatic answer: “Three months after conception. This give the mother, used loosely, to exercise ‘choice’.”
Ooooh. Hate it when they’re used loosely.
Please go for ‘take 2′ brother.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:04 am
Marc, glad to hear you’ll be writing from outside the circus. It’s bound to be a cesspool of irreverence. You bring up important points above. If only “issues” were to matter in elections anymore. If anyone IS looking for cheap crashspace in Denver, a bunch of folks are offering up their homes at http://www.airbedandbreakfast.com/events/dnc
August 21st, 2008 at 6:35 am
Reg, why should I comment on Bacevich? He is left wing anti-military, anti-bush and anti-most everything I believe in. If I were like you, and thank Almighty God I’m not, what I would do is lambast the source as antithical to any discussion because its so left wing as to be useless.
However, your semi literate and semi polite response deserves an answer. First, Bacevich, like many leftists doesn’t understand what imperialism is. Britian was imperial, Germany was imperial, Russia is imperial etc. The United States, were it truly imperial as Bacevich claims we would still be in full control of those countries we supposedly conqured i.e., germany, japan, perhaps even france since we (and others but this is about us) liberated france. We wouldn’t have lost Vietnam because we would have invaded and held north vietnam, cambodia etc.
His premise, like yours, is flawed. Arguing from a flawed premise is useless. But you know that since you do it all the time.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:45 am
Just for starters, anyone (and presumably that was the fool Roper) who would stoop into the gutter to make the assertion that Andrew Bacevich is “anti-military” is beneath contempt and beyond reason. Bacevich is a West Pointer, reached the rank of Colonel serving in Vietnam and recently lost his son, a Marine Lieutenant, in Iraq. Of course, from the kind of lowlife fucks who were hooting it up on their keyboards about what a splendid venture Iraq was just a couple of years ago – and called their critics every name in the book that ryhmes with “un-Amreican” – what can one expect.
Another missive from wingnut heaven…
August 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
GMR as “V”: “(Bacevich is) anti-most everything I believe in”
“We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.” Richard Hofstadter
August 21st, 2008 at 10:02 am
Roper, if you’ve actually got a copy of Niebuhr’s “Ironys”, I suggest you pull it off of your shelf and give it some long hard thought. If you don’t, it was just republished by Univ. of Chicago Press with a new introduction by Andrew Bacevich (who was largely responsible for getting it back into print.) I’ll reimburse you.
August 21st, 2008 at 10:49 am
Presumably Max Boot is another “leftwinger” who’s premise of American global power is “fundamentally flawed.”
”Given the historical baggage that ‘imperialism’ carries, there’s no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term,” Max Boot, author of ”These Savage Wars of Peace” (Basic Books), wrote this week in USA Today. ”But it should definitely embrace the practice.” In Iraq this ”means imposing the rule of law, property rights and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be.” NYT 5.10.03
August 21st, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’m glad that I can think for myself rather than having to rely on what certain philosophers said.
August 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I’m glad that I can think for myself rather than having to rely on what certain philosophers said.
No, it’s too easy; like a hanging curve.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
More like a screwball…not the pitch…you.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
reg, you are the fool, for too many reasons to list on someone elses blog. I’m done with you. Think, if you can, man; if being in the military means you are pro military than I guess that any “whistle-blower” is a liar. McClellan couldn’t have been telling the truth, after all, he was PART of the white house.
I don’t expect you to understand the above, in fact, I don’t expect you to be able to even understand why Obama is bad for the country let alone bad for the democrats. You are just too foolish. I’m done with you.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Well at least I have some self-control.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
“I’m done with you”
I think just “done” is more like it. And no I don’t “understand the above” because it’s a brazenly meager effort even by your standards.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Oh…and pull up your pants on your way out.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Self control? That’s right, you are “Master of Your Domain,” “King of the Country”, and “Lord of the Manor,” if you watched Seinfeld’s contest and get it.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
It’s getting nasty, the presidential campaign……..too.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:44 am
Self control? That’s right, you are “Master of Your Domain,” “King of the Country”, and “Lord of the Manor,” if you watched Seinfeld’s contest and get it.
Keep throwing them out there, Woody, but I’m not going to climb down in the sewer with you.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 am
My informed and insider predictions for VP picks:
Biden and Romney will be fingered for the political punishment. Both have shown they are masochistic enough to not only enjoy it, but will look forward to participating in the mutual mutilation to come.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:13 am
And we will all watch with a certain self-righteousness reserved only for observers, damning the behaviors of the opposition as well as the process itself, while all the time loving every minute the competition of the game and the blood spilled by each gladiator, none of which will get our thumbs-up for losing.
The winners will then become the tested best to deal with the creeps in our world. The process does have its function. There is no other way that will work……in a democracy anyway.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Jim: The winners will then become the tested best to deal with the creeps in our world. The process does have its function. There is no other way that will work……in a democracy anyway.
You have a point, but I don’t like what they have to do to their opponents to get elected. lying and mud-slinging is bad, but it does get the votes. I’m surprised that the Democrats ever lose.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Why You Are Not In Denver…
Why are there lobbies, in a democracy, Daddy?…
February 10th, 2009 at 11:29 am
I liked it.
January 18th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Hi, just browsing for information for my St. Augustine 4g website. Can’t believe the amount of information out there. Looking for something else, but cool site. Take care.