I am triumphantly vindicated in my opinion that the Obama campaign's in trouble. This is not adequate to still my deep regret that John McCain might actually be our next president.
Of course, this is just a post-convention bump. But it's a big damn bump.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
LMJ's head explodes in three...two...one...
I'm not excited either, but in the end, better him than Obama.
I caucused for Hillary. Keep that in mind as I say the following.
The press worked fairly hard for Obama to win. It made for a great story. Hillary had been the assumed frontrunner (hell, the assumed nominee!) since the day after election day 2006. They'd already done the whole thing about women presidencies and all that. To replay that story... or to write a *FRESH* one? About Obama? Wow! What a great opportunity!
And the press was in the bag for Obama. Not because of Liberal Bias, mind. But because of "fresh angle" bias.
I have a friend who worked as a reporter on the East Coast (and then later in Prague) and she told me horror stories about stuff like "The Weather Story". It's raining! Find out what the man on the street thinks! It's snowing, find out what the man on the street thinks! Hrm... it's been sub-sero for two weeks straight... go interview the guys at the local Megamart whose job it is to wrangle shopping carts from the parking lot. She told me about going to the local Megamart and trying to squeeze a decent interview on the existential nature of being cold from folks whose best job option available to them was working the cart job at the Megamart.
So when the time came to actually write an *INTERESTING* story jumped up, I can imagine that the reporters were on it like a flash.
But advertising only goes so far. And a story that seems interesting to the editor of the local paper, hell, the story that sells 3% more when it's got this front page than that one... doesn't necessarily translate to the dog eating the dog food.
I look forward to read stories discussing the Bradley effect and how (not whether) America is still oh-so-very racist. But, you know, with a fresh angle.
Interestingly, however, RCP has Obama still ahead in the electoral map:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/
Shorter McCardle: "I told you so."
Popular vote doesn't mean anything, as King George will gladly tell you. While there is a slight cause for worry, I am not freaking out. As someone else pointed out, Obama is ahead still where it counts.
Palin can't even read the papers and know what Fannie Mae is. That's who I want running the country!
The RCP average is skewed by the the USA Today/Gallup likely voter poll which uses a model that cannot be trusted. Also, the average bounce coming out of a convention is 6 points. McCain's bump is merely average.
Luke G.:
Click on the state polls. There's a lot of stale data in there.
Colorado: 8/11-8/26
Virginia: 8/12-9/02
Ohio: 8/08-8/22
I don't think you can conclude much of anything based on pre-convention polls.
Luke G.
True state polls are far less frequently updated than national ones, and it is those polls that are used for the electoral map.
However, one can quite reliably predict state outcomes if the national totals are known. If McCain is really ahead by 3 points, then he is ahead in the electoral count as well. Same applies to Obama, though I think Obama does have more room to win the electoral and lose the popular.
Because of my dislike for the politics of McCain (though I have respect for the man) and the inexperience and leftist views of Obama, I had decided to sit this election out.
But as time goes on and I think of the disaster of Obama appointing judges and his potential for disaster with national security (imagine Obama negotiating with Putin)I will probably hold my nose and vote again for the least worst choice.
One of these days I'd like to be able to vote for someone I really liked.
I think Obama does have more room to win the electoral and lose the popular.
Why? I think the opposite. Obama is likely to do very well in urban areas which boosts the popular vote count, but not so well across the rural states, which will boost McCain's electoral count. I expect his popular vote count to exceed his electoral tally.
There's no doubt it was a successful convention for the Republicans. Obama MIGHT even be fairly said to be in a bit of trouble at the moment. But you are not triumphantly vindicated, if only because you were stating what was obviously before everyone's eyes. You vastly overstated the situation, and your own link shows McCain with a 3-point average lead, and that includes the completely dismissible USA Today-Gallup 10-point outlier.
There's no doubt Obama has a tough fight here. But your strange glee at his recent rough sledding is a bit ridiculous considering your stated preference. And to come off a weekend not blogging to gloat about a point you made that was blatantly obvious in its general thrust if not in your assessment of its severity, based on evidence that doesn't vindicate your excessive gloom (or was it optimism?), comes off as ridiculously self-regarding.
"Click on the state polls. There's a lot of stale data in there."
The stale data understates the McCain advantage, to the extent that those polls were taken before Palin's RNC speech.
Mike--
Did you read the comments to her previous post? Strange that something so "blatantly obvious" sure slipped past many of those commenting on that post. Slipped so far past them, in fact, that they felt the need to add insults and vitriol to their disagreement.
If McCain wins, his pick of Palin will go down as one of the best political moves in modern history. Also, we don't know what the full bounce will be until mid week.
The media has really hurt Obama here. Obama wisely has chosen not to talk about Palin's family and such. The media, by going after her so hard, have made the election about culture. Democrats always lose when election is about culture. When people see jackass elite members of the media picking on someone like Palin in such a hypocrtical manner, they get angry and tend to vote republican. There was already a potential brushfire there by the media trying to shove Obama down everyone's throat as "the chosen one" and sending a shiver up Chris Matthews' leg. But, it was such a democratic year that people were willing to ignore it. Palin and the media's appalling behavior towards her just lit the match.
Sadly, I really don't think it was Obama's fault. If he were running the media out of his campaign headquarters, none of this would have happened. But he wasn't and the media let its snobbery and general lunacy get the better of them. In the process, they really hurt their guy. I wonder if Andrew Sullivan is sentient enough to understand the damage he did to his own cause?
Megan has a good sense for this kind of stuff. She's seen it before. Heck, there were actually people who voted for Bush in '04 because Kerry might have been worse ("the devil you know"), a Republican talking point because they had so little substance to run on. Really, there were people that weak minded. Look it up. It's happening again.
Convention bounces almost always recede over time. Wait two weeks from now and then conduct a ten-day rolling average of polls and you'll see some consistency. Even then, as others correctly point out, national polling doesn't matter. It's state polling that counts because of the Electoral College.
Obama wisely has chosen not to talk about Palin's family
You're kidding, right? That was classic political smear where the campaign surrogates dump the dirt and the candidate comes out and disowns it, like he's above it. This guy is a real snake oil salesman with a lot of snakes and, apparently, a lot of suckers out there just waiting to be taken!
BPA,
I think this is more than a convention bounce. Palin energized the Republican base and turned this election into looking like 2004. Before the convention, this election was looking like 1992 or 1996 with a dispirited Republican base and a candidate no one cared about. All that changed with Palin.
Also, Palin's speech took so much of the air out of Obama. She hurt him bad and made him look like a empty suit. Lastly, his chosing of Biden as a running mate was a complete disaster. It makes him look like a crooked insider. Obama should have gone all in with someone from outside of Washington and ran as a ticket to clean the place up. By chosing Biden, he gave up a lot of ground on that issue.
I don't think so, Steven W. The Obama campaign is not a bunch of idiots. This smear did them a tremendous amount of damage. Of course they did not support it.
Kirsten Powers predicted this in the NY Post as soon as Palin was nominated - that the deranged Obama supporters would be unable to behave themselves and would cause a backlash.
"That was classic political smear where the campaign surrogates dump the dirt and the candidate comes out and disowns it, like he's above it. This guy is a real snake oil salesman with a lot of snakes and, apparently, a lot of suckers out there just waiting to be taken!"
I can't read the guy's mind. I can only take him at his word. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But, if he thought it was a good idea to go after Palin's family, he is too dumb to be President. The Dems should have ignored her. By going bizerk the way they did, they just made the base like her more. They also generated so much interest that millions of people watched her speech. That was a bad idea. She came out and gave a great speech and everyone saw it. Had they just shut up and said nothing, a lot fewer people would have seen it.
With the exception of the USA today/Gallup likely numbers, the race is essentially tied. I doubt BO was pro on going after Palin's family. But lordy, what if a dem candidate had a 17 yr old knocked up daughter? Culture of permissiveness!! Personal responsibility!!
Anyway, Palin will sink or swim. She's fire up the base for sure. But McCain was set to lose by 5-8 pts. without that. Now the race is down to a smaller BO lead.
Any thoughts from the number-crunchers out there that poll comparisons:
- on one hand, fail to take into account that large and growing segment of the electorate (cell-only landline haters) are inadequately counted in polling data, thus artificially lowering Obama's numbers; and
- on the other hand, fail to take into account the significant percentage advantage in key states like Ohio and Florida where voter caging and vote suppression and possible outright electronic electoral fraud are likely to give a significant boost to the McCain campaign?
Much as I mightlike to believe the bounce, I repeat my earlier call:
A prediction:
On October 1st, the presidential race (as measured by the major polls) will either not have tightened or Obama's lead will have grown.
Posted by Klug | September 5, 2008 11:44 AM
Some free advice guys: Now is the opportunity for you to make money. Here's how:
Go on intrade.com, and buy some contracts for McCain and Obama. You can be pretty much guaranteed that they will at some point be higher, and at some point be lower than one they are today, meaning you can just turn around and sell them right back when they'd make you a profit. Just remember to be a price *taker*. Well, I have a hard time getting the terms right, but basically, ONLY put your limit price in at a price that won't immediately sell, or the fee could destroy your profit.
Example: If the bid/ask is 40.0/41.3, and you want to buy, don't ever place a bid at or above 41.3. Instead, put it at 41.2 or less, so someone else will have to "make the price" by taking your order, and they will pay the fee.
I've played around with about $2000 in play money on the US election and am up $100 already in just a week or so. Pretty decent return, eh? I sent money to start an account, and it's ust about to be available for the real-money trading.
Remember: Poll numbers are not probabilities. The probabilities have a bigger gap! If the poll numbers are 55 for Obama and 45 for McCain, that should translate to something like a 60-65 probability for Obama. The point is, the market is very sensitive at the current numbers to small movements in either direction. If the poll numbers are 49/51 but then reverse to 51/49, that's maybe a 5 or 10 point difference in the betting markets.
Ah, volatility trading!
I'm with trrwv: Can you imagine the hysteria on the right if a career woman Democrat had (a) concealed her pregnancy for a time, and (b) had gone off to a conference so close to her delivery date that she was actually leaking amniotic fluid? She would have been written off a heartless, family-indifferent ballbreaking bitch a la HRC, and it would have gone on and on and on and the mainstream media would be repeating it over and over, "reporting on the controversy".
I pose one Sarah Palin question: if she isn't tough or ready enough to even face Larry King, is she tough or ready enough to be president?
Person,
My anti-Person-investment strategy (recommended by you, afterall) suggests that I ignore you.
Person: As a election-disappointment-hedging strategy, I've purchased 24 Obama contracts. Since my purchase, they've lost 6%. I don't doubt that Obama will win, though.
Person:
Speaking as someone who lost his shirt trading stock options - volatility trading is great until it turns against you. And trust me, you won't see it coming...
SG,
I can easily see Obama winning states like NM, IA, and NV that Bush won in 2004 without having to significantly decrease the percentage margin between the two parties seen in the 2004 election. I don't see the Republicans winning any states, other than New Hampshire, that Kerry won without significantly increasing the margin that Bush won by.
"But your strange glee at his recent rough sledding is a bit ridiculous considering your stated preference."
Don't be so lame. I can certainly find some "glee" in correctly predicting the outcome of a sporting event (from say, watching the teams during training) even if that prediction went against the team I wanted to win as a biased fan. Good analysts are capable of dissociating their hopes from their analyses and it's only human to take some joy in doing a good job.
If I were less concerned with how other people view me, and if I did not attend a (non-Southern Baptist Convention) Baptist church, and if I did not have a child at a very conservative, snooty Episcopal school, I would find someone to make and sell the faux bumper sticker I saw on a (conservative) blog:
McCain/Palin
Go Fuck Yourselves
cause that's my mood. It's been my mood for a little over a week now, and I expect it will be my mood for another 2 months. Or maybe:
McCain/Palin
Kiss my post-graduate degree holding 1st generation post-redneck ass and ps I'm a librarian and I don't see anything wrong with being a MILF
or something like that. I was going to vote McCain as the less bad of two bad choices. I'm now voting McCain partly cause I like Palin, despite my many policy differences with her, but mostly as a "fuck you" to the media and the cesspool blogs.
I wonder if Andrew Sullivan is sentient enough to understand the damage he did to his own cause?
I would say no, but I've read (I won't confirm by actually clicking on the link) that he's now got some BS up about how wonderful and life affirming and Godly Palin's decision to have and raise Trig is. I think the Obama campaign (oh, okay - not the campaign itself - just some people who work for it, wink wink nudge nudge knowwhatimean) sent out new orders over the weekend.
What bothers me is that you and many others see every movement in favor of Obama as nothing but a small moment in a long campaign but every movement in favor of McCain as the beginning of the end, or something. Obama's victories are represented as temporary, ephemeral; McCain's are represented as the beginning of an inevitable march to victory. I honestly don't believe theres any evidence that could compel you to believe that Obama is going to win.
It reminds me of something I caught my nephew doing a few years ago - I thought it was hilarious, and maybe scary given that he and my daughter were about three years old at the time.
They were playing, I wasn't really looking at them. I glance over at them - they're across the room - and I see him push her and grab something out of her hands. Then he looks over, sees me watching him. His eyes widen, and he throws her arms around her in a big hug and says "It's okay, it's okay, I love you."
Congratulations, you're vindicated...I'd buy you a medal, but with unemployment heading toward 8% I probably won't have a job soon.
"Congratulations, you're vindicated...I'd buy you a medal, but with unemployment heading toward 8% I probably won't have a job soon."
If only the chosen one could save you.
Given the number of "Megan, you're an idiot you don't know you what you're talking about and the Atlantic should fire you" comments, I don't think an "See, I told you so" blog entry is unwarranted.
In addition, it saddens me to see so many Obama supporters in denial. The Kerry supporters didn't see how he could possibly lose, either.
And that's why they did. "The other side doesn't play fair" is another way of saying "The other side kicked our butts".
Instead of denying that McCain might possibly win, maybe Obama supporters should concentrate on making sure that McCain will not.
And making fun of "RepiXXcans" on blogs isn't going to do it.
"If only the chosen one could save you. "
I must say, one of the weirdest things about this election (for me as a Canadian looking in from the outside) has been comments like this from the right. A lot of them have been fairly aimed at the often absurdly high hopes held out for Obama by many in the centre and left. But many have been aimed at either the concept of hope in and of itself. Some of them are quite sneering in tone, internet versions of Edward G. Robinson in the Ten Commandments asking "where's your god NOW??"
I'm sorry, but this is plain silly. A week ago, Obama was up by 8! Yes, McCain is buoyed up by a) one Gallup poll with some strange cross-tabs and b) a traditional convention bounce. Statistically, there's no significance to this. Now, if in two weeks time the figures remain the same, we can talk about Obama being in trouble, but until then all conclusions are premature. Honestly, Megan, didn't that MBA include any statistical analysis? What will you say if, in 10 days time, we are back to Obama being up by 2, which has been the rule for the last two months? That's the likelihood, on the current trend, and a pretty strong one.
Seeker6079,
The comment was aimed squarely at the ridiculous idea that the President runs the country to such an extent that an election can have an immediate effect on the business cycle. If unemployment is indeed headed towards 8%, a very dubious proposition, who wins the election in 8 weeks, will have no affect whatsoever on its happening.
Being hopeful is one thing. Being stupid is quite another.
That may be so, John, vis-a-vis your comment. My comment about the plethora of comments just like them still stands. The mockery of the very concept of idealism is pretty disturbing for America, which has always derived so much positive energy and impetus from idealism.
Two new polls just came out that show the race tied. The amount of analysis and angst from one single poll is just ridiculous. Can we no longer wait a day or three to see if things are outliers or not?
Someone smarter than me said that if McCain dropped dead in a Harrison time frame, Palin would simply inherit his cabinet and advisors whom would already be in place. So in a real sense voters need to know just whom Obama and McCain are going to have as their chief advisors:
Albright, Petraeus, Rice, Goolsbee, etc. Because Obama's judgement and experience are in question, his campaign should make their announcements and demand McCain do so too.
"The mockery of the very concept of idealism is pretty disturbing for America, which has always derived so much positive energy and impetus from idealism."
Idealism and the cult of personality is the stuff of Europe. That is why the ills of utopian ideologies like fascism and communism have hit Europe so hard and barely brushed America.
America has derived positive energy from the power of the individual, not from the power of the personality and the politician. Americans have always been susupicious of politicians and suspicous of government sollutions to their problems. Yes, many politicians, like Kennedy or Lincoln reached revered standing but that was usually after their deaths. The constant adoration of Obama, while he is still alive and before he has accomplished anything, is distinctly un-American and downright creepy. It is absolutely worthy of distain.
seeker.
Not to mention the fact that we did have one candidate proclaim that we'll all look back and see his election as the time when global warming was beaten, the waves driven back etc.
McCain talking about getting the budget under control, oil dependency etc, may be just as far fetched, but there is at least some hope we can control spending in Washington when compared to stopping the rise of the seas by electing Obama instead of McCain.
Either way, it would be refreshing to hear a candidate proudly proclaim that as president they won't accomplish a whole lot other than veto a bunch of spending bills and nominating some court justices.
Everything else just amounts to hype and spending.
Idealism and the cult of personality is the stuff of Europe. That is why the ills of utopian ideologies like fascism and communism have hit Europe so hard and barely brushed America.
Yes, America was blessed with 8 years of Bush, a new delight in torture, and a party - the GOP - which is now presenting a form of national greatness fascism. Truly, Europe has much to learn.
"Yes, America was blessed with 8 years of Bush, a new delight in torture, and a party - the GOP - which is now presenting a form of national greatness fascism. Truly, Europe has much to learn."
. If you honestly think America looks like Italy or Germany of the 1930s or the Soviet Union of any time, you need to seek treatment.
Has it ever occurred to you that if you didn't make stupid histrionic exaggerations like that, people might listen to your legitimate criticisms of Bush? Everyone who is not delusional knows that this is not a fascist state in any sense of the term or a police state. The fact that you can claim it is and not worry about the consequences of saying so is evidence enough. No one sat around in 1930s Germany and talked about how authoritarian the Nazis were. If they had, they would have been locked up or worse. You really do your cause no good. Why don't you grow up? This is not 1944 and you are not in the French resistance. Bush is not Hitler or a fascist. He is an ordinary politician and you are an ordinary partisan.
Megan, I wouldn't knock yourself out patting yourself on the back on this one. Its actually common knowledge that, when it comes to the presidency, Democrats can't get elected and Republicans can't govern. I'm starting to think God is pissed off at the United States, so he's cursed us with these "christian conservatives" who respond to political dog-whistles and fall for phony personal interest stories. Thus, George W Bush was their choice over Al Gore BECAUSE Bush was in a drunken stupor until he was 40; and Sarah Palin is their favorite BECAUSE she's a creationist with Peyton Place style family baggage. I'll add that, seeing as how its the truth that dare not speak its name (and read that NY Times article if you think I'm crazy) Palin is lying her ass off about little baby Trig. The last time I heard such blatant BS, Bill Clinton was pointing his finger at the camera and saying, "I did not have sex with that woman . . ."
With calm, rational people like Demos and Nathan on their side, it is just amazing the Democrats can't seem to win an election. "Listen you dumb fucking hillbillies, you need to vote for us" is such an appealing campaign strategy.
Looking at how uncritically John defends the party of torture, national greatness, corruption, perversion of the justice system and, of course, of the Decider who invaded the wrong country, I'd suggest that his need for treatment is pitiably obvious. Or did he simply miss the Bush cult of personality, the use of patriotism as a commercial for the GOP, and the total lack of public accountability that the Republicans have fostered?
John, demos isn't calling Americans stupid, just pointing out that you don't know your historical ass from your elbow. Or can't you handle a debate on the issues?
zidane09 (head-butting fan?):
Commenters who denied that Palin/the convention was toa not-then-determined extent trouble for Obama were plain crazy and denying the obvious. But that doesn't make a reasonable-sized convention bounce into triumphant vindication for Megan. The question is one of magnitude durability of the shift, and that's not yet known even now.
Why should we be so awed that Megan turns out to be somewhat less wrong than her most extreme commenters? Trumpeting that is lame. And being all set to come back from a weekend off with that attitude is what earns her the vitriol to start with.
"John, demos isn't calling Americans stupid, just pointing out that you don't know your historical ass from your elbow. Or can't you handle a debate on the issues?"
I will debate on these issues all day. The fact is anyone who thinks America circa 2008 is anything like Germany circa 1938 is an idiot. Plain and simple. There is no debating that point. The fact that Obama has so many idiots like Demos and apparently you supporting him hurts his cause.
I frankly feel bad for Obama. Obama is not a loon and seems to be a decent person of intelligence. I am quite that he understands the difference between the US and Nazi Germany. Sadly, the fact that he attracts supporters who don't, keeps him from getting a fair hearing.
Torture, detention without trial, spying on citizens, military adventures to conceal domestic incompetence, a cult of personality of the leader, an abuse of patriotism as a veil for corrupt actions and perversion of the justice system. Strangely enough, all of those were present in Hitler's Germany, as well as Bush's America. Has John ever bothered to study history? Or does he simply "learn" it in the version approved by Karl Rove? As for throwing insults, as he likes to do, perhaps he might look in the mirror first.
Strangely enough, all of those were present in Hitler's Germany, as well as Bush's America.
Yes, but lucky for us, we have Amtrak, so there's no danger of the trains running on time.
This is not adequate to still my deep regret that John McCain might actually be our next president.
Megan, have you posted the line of reasoning that lead you to support Obama? Speaking for myself, I'd be a lot more interested in that than in the latest twitch in the race.
People, like John, who call Bush an "ordinary" politician are perfectly correct. By Nixonian standards, he is as ethical as the next president. By Warren Harding standards, his administration is free of corruption. And by the standards of Herbert Hoover, he's just your average president when it comes to running the economy. Of course, all three of these average men were also Republicans, so Bush is, in essence, an ordinary Republican politician. Congratulations, John, for making us aware of this fact.
I am trying to think of the 20th century US president that locked up the largest number of US residents based solely on their ethnicity. The name eludes me, however.
I forget sometimes how bad the schools are and how little people actually read history. Have any of you people ever actually read a history book? Anyone here ever read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"? Anyone here ever read a serious history of Stalin's terror? Anne Applebaum's last book would do. Anyone here ever read anything about the Church Commission and the abuses of the intelligence community that happened under Johnson and Kennedy?
Does anyone here know what the Alien and Sedition Acts were? What about the Sedition Act of 1918? Do you people really have any idea how ignorant you sound? You are so stupid and ill-informed you statements don't even qualify as wrong.
People are just histrionic and stupid. They define themselves by their enemies. Bush must be evil and something beyond just another President because if he were anything else, the people posting on here would be ordinary to. We can't have that. We must be engage in the titanic struggle against evil, in the comfort of our own homes of course with no risk to ourselves. You people would be groveling and singing the praises of an actual police state. Be thankful you have to create one in your imaginations.
Is it just me, or is John pointedly not responding to the obvious parallels between Bush's America and Hitler's Germany? Funny, because he says he'll discuss the issues - and then runs from them as fast as he can. But at least he claims to have read a couple of books... I wonder, has he actually read them? Now, how about a response on the issues, John, rather than trying to duck them with a short reading list and a couple of irrelevant claims about other people?
Gee, I'm glad we got rid of the name-calling and unsupported assertions!
Morzer, I don't think John lives in the USA. Either that, or he doesn't read newspapers. Still, you can certainly try and give him a basic education, if you have time to burn.
"People are just histrionic and stupid".
Promising start for your autobiography, John. The rest of the world might suggest you limit the reference to the first person pronoun. We can explain what that means, if the reference is too complex for you.
Anyone here ever read "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"?
Yes. But I disagreed with his conclusion that Hitler warned the world with Mein Kampf. I read that one, too, and it's so incredibly confused and disorganized, the world can be forgiven for not figuring it out. Come to think of it, it's almost like a book Bush would dictate, if he were locked in prison and given a stenographer!
This is getting eerie.
Obvious parallels? Are you insane? Did I miss kristal nacht when 1000s of brown shirts killed people and destroyed the property of Muslims or harmless liberals? Did I miss the night of the long knives when Bush murdered Chaney, Rove and most of the Christian right that got him elected? By 1938, Jews had no legal rights in Germany and 1000s of people were in concentration camps being starved to death and worked to death. Thousands more had already been executed.
I am not responding to this issues directly, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the basic history of the 1930s. What are saying is so stupid that it is impossible to respond to absent a long discourse on the basic facts that you obviously don't know. It is very hard to argue with the insane or the completely ignorant.
I am trying to think of the 20th century US president that locked up the largest number of US residents based solely on their ethnicity. The name eludes me, however.
After it was said and done it was agreed that it was the wrong thing to do. It likely hurt the country by taking productive citizens away from the war effort, and is a black mark on the record of the US. I would hope that we would learn from this and the next time resist locking people away without trial and then torture them, but I guess I was wrong.
Secondly, WWII was an existential threat to most of the world as we knew it. Germany and Japan's ability to make war and cause death was far greater than any terrorist's wet dream.
Man, I thought people had moved on to more recent scholarship than old William Shirer. Still, if you are stuck in the 1960s, it might explain why you find Bush "ordinary". Hallucinogens, much?
Megan's post is missing this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo
"It is very hard to argue with the insane or the completely ignorant."
True, but in your case, John, we have enough compassion to try. Aren't you grateful?
If you read that book and understood any of it, you clearly know that the US is not 1930s in Germany. Either that or you are just being flippent. Furhter, there was more to what Hitler said than Mein Kopf. He gave speeches and was very clear about what he intended to do. No one beleived him because they didn't want to. It was too horrible to comtemplate. Better to say he was playing to the crowd and not serious. No one wanted to think that a repeat of 1914 was possible, which was understandable if you understand how horrible 1914 was.
I am a little surprised that John would compare Cheney (NOT Chaney!) to Ernst Roehm and the Brownshirts. Still, hysterical troll meltdowns do get incoherent when confronted with logic and facts...
"True, but in your case, John, we have enough compassion to try. Aren't you grateful?"
I will be calling my superiors at DHS to make sure you people are locked up in a concentration camp before the week is out.
Either that or you are just being flippent.
Give that man a Klondike bar!
I think, John, that you'll find that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. But if you remove your Kopf from your Arsch, it might help. Seldom has a troll been so rapidly self-pwned on basic historical facts...
"I am a little surprised that John would compare Cheney (NOT Chaney!) to Ernst Roehm and the Brownshirts. Still, hysterical troll meltdowns do get incoherent when confronted with logic and facts..."
If not Chaney than who? Clearly Bush is a murderous killer who killed off anyone who is a threat to him. Certainly, someone in the movement has gotten whacked already. I know you people are going get locked up soon exposing Bush's evil plans. I really curious to hear the full dellusion here. Who is next on the list?
Moreover, why are you guys so hopeful about Obama? Do you really think a mad man like Bush is going to just give up power in January? Fools.
Has anyone noticed that John is reaching a point of mental disintegration? Look at how atrocious his spelling and syntax have become. Mein Kopf indeed! Dummkopf, more like!
"I think, John, that you'll find that Hitler wrote Mein Kampf. But if you remove your Kopf from your Arsch, it might help. Seldom has a troll been so rapidly self-pwned on basic historical facts..."
What fact? That you can spell Kampf? Again, what minority group is today without rights like the Jews were in 1930s Germany? What members of Bush's cabal has he killed off to keep power? How is invading Iraq the same as invading eastern Europe for living space for the Germans? How many Americans have been executed or locked up in concentration camps so that Bush can stay in power? Bush waterboarded three guys and locked up a bunch of losers in GUITMO. If he is a mad dictator, he is a pretty pathetic one. Jesus, Chavez does a better job than that, letalone Mugabee.
John, if you really are going to get your McCain troll points, you ought to know that Richard B. Cheney is the current VP of the "ordinary" politician you love so much. Chaney (Lon) was an actor. Please, do learn your lines, before you flounce onstage.
John, the point people are making is that Mein Kopf = My Head, in German. Mein Kampf = My Struggle. Hitler wrote one of those two. Care to guess which?
John,
I found your first comments on this thread to be refreshingly rational, but as I kept reading I started to feel bad for you for getting sucked into a pointless argument. Good point though about how elevating a political opponent to the personification of evil helps give meaning to those who pride themselves on their opposition to him. It's the sort of thing Viktor Frankl might have noted in this context.
I am a McCain troll because I don't think the US of today is anything like Nazi Germany and I don't think history depends on who wins the election. You people are pathetic.
If this were Nazi Germany, we wouldn't be having an election. To troll to say things that are ridiculous to get people riled up. There is nothing ridiculous about saying that things are not particularly better or worse in this country than they have been at any other time. Johnson wire tapped MLK in hopes of blackmailing him. Further, come January Bush will step off into history and you clowns will have to invent new windmills to fight. Try getting a life. It is so much easier than living as Walter Mitty fighting the man all day.
Looking over the thread, I can't decide whether John is a grotesquely stupid Republican, or a brilliant satirist mocking grotesquely stupid Republicans. It really is a tough call.
You are right Dave In Hackensack. I should never allow myself to be pulled into such a stupid argument. I just can't believe how dumb people are sometimes.
Oh come on, morzer. I'm no Bush fan, but John is quite right to shrug off the "obvious parallels" some folks here are drawing between the US today and 1938 Germany. The US was more like that during WWII, when FDR ordered Japanese citizens to be rounded up and deported to camps. And FDR had way more of a cult of personality than Bush, unless you seriously think Bush could get elected two more times if we didn't have term limits.
Here's the real test: Will Bush step down when the new president is elected? If not, then that would make him a dictator (assuming he could get the military behind him, which I doubt). I believe he will step down, and that automatically makes his administration, as flawed as it is, very different from Hitler's.
Sprite, the point is not that Bush is an exact copy of Hitler. What worries people is the extent to which he has adopted Hitler's methods, and taken the GOP along with him. Sure, FDR was wrong on the internments - but he didn't declare that Japanese-Americans were sub-human or ought to be gassed. Nor did he use torture. There are plenty of parallels between Bush and Hitler, and it's dangerous to ignore what they have done to our civil liberties and public life.
Isn't the whole Bushitler crowd really Karl Rove's plants to make follish comparisons that real "ordinary Americans" find ludicrous?
While one could certainly find some omnious parallels between the Third Reich and 21st Century America, one's list of differences would be arguably so much longer as to satisfy all but the most virulent Rovian plant. [No, I did not vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004, nor will I be voting for McCain.]
but he didn't declare that Japanese-Americans were sub-human or ought to be gassed.
In sharp contrast to Bush's declarations to that effect.
Popular vote doesn't mean anything, as King George will gladly tell you.
I've seen this at least a half dozen times from Obama supporters in the last 12 hours, without even visiting political sites. Meme of the day! (Distributed straight from HQ by text message?) Whistle on!
Of course, poll numbers in early September don't mean anything either, so there's hardly any real point in having a 90-comment thread about them. Except for the fun of it.
Remember: Poll numbers are not probabilities. The probabilities have a bigger gap!
Not much. At the real-money odds sites like Intrade and Iowa Electromic Markets, Obama is down from 70-30 a month ago to 54-46 today.
Last week, Obama was ahead by even more than McCain is now. These are short-term convention bounces. The polls right now are unstable. In annother week, the race will return to a 2 point difference.
john, you're so obviously right, and the ignorant people disagreeing with you so obviously wrong, that i can't see why you'd bother debating the point. let it go, they're fools (like john, not saying criticisms of bush are ridiculous, only that comparisons of bush to hitler are ridiculous).
It's pretty simple really. The democrats don't want to just win the election; they want to drive McCain before them, and hear the lamentations of his women.
They want to demolish him (and by proxy Bush), and so eking out a 1% win isn't enough for them. They want to annihilate the Republicans to symbolically repudiate the last 8 years. McCains convention bounce belies the idea that America is just itching to give them what they want, and so they are in psychic distress, because its looking like even if Obama wins, he won't win BIG.
With all due respect, I don't think you're paying a lot of attention to what you're looking at. It seems you're eyeballing the margins, which don't really mean a lot all in all, and trying to assert some "gigantic" bump from that. But if you actually look at the chart on the page, which allows you to scroll through and see the RCP averages day to day, the picture looks totally different.
To wit, Obama's pre-convention trough comes on 8/21 at about 44.9%. His post convention peak comes on 9/2 at 49.2%. So that represents a bounce of about 4.3% or so, in terms of polling averages. McCain's trough, naturally, comes on 9/2 at 42.8%, and his peak, thus far, comes today at 48.3%, or a bump of about 5.5%, thus far.
In other words, to date McCain's convention bump has only been good for about 1% more than Obama got out of Denver. That's not exactly a strong performance, when you consider that Obama's bump was cut short by the Palin announcement and media coverage of Gustav, and that Obama continues to lead McCain in state polls in swing areas. Indeed PPP came out with a Michigan poll today that had McCain "bouncing" to a 1% deficit there.
And there is a reason we call it a "bounce" after all.
John writes: "Bush waterboarded three guys and locked up a bunch of losers in GUITMO."
Anyone who believes only 3 detainees were waterboarded and who can't spell Gitmo is a hopeless idiot. Of course this is John we're talking about, and all of his posts provide ample evidence for his sparkling brilliance. He is the Mr. Wizard of Atlantic commenters, so he must be joking.
I believe John's sole regret about the massive use of torture by the Bush-led war criminals is that the torture sessions weren't filmed and put out on a DVD boxset so he could give copies to the people he loves at Christmas. There is, of course, nothing that honors the Baby Jesus as much as reducing Islamic detainees to quivering hulks of brutalized flesh, and John is a great America who realizes this.
John writes: "It is so much easier than living as Walter Mitty fighting the man all day."
Please never stop posting here, John. You are the gift that keeps on giving. "Mein Kopf" made me laugh harder than your Kopf.
That the Walter Mitty reference makes no sense, either, is just another sign of your great talent for unintentional comedy.
Obama's biggest hurdle, aside from the freaks on the Left, is the (D) Congress. I think alot of 'undecideds' are going to feel more comfortable with the 'split', rather than setting up a triple (D) Government.
Also, to echo an, above, point, the pick of Biden added alot of lead to the balloon of "Hope" & "Change". That flippin' dude has been in the Senate since he was 29, nothing says "Change" like a career hack.
But, (D) or (R) aside, the 'Black Box' voting systems are a major liability for everyone who takes representation seriously--the issue that Obama sidestepped, in the Primaries, in NH, might cost him, in more ways that one.
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
John above says "I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the basic history of the 1930s."
I am not such an expert either, but let me recommend The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930s, by Piers Brendon.
Echoing morzer@3:47 PM, it would seem like Megan gives too much credit to a poll, with the poll supporting a preconceived notion that she (and others) are looking to have affirmed.
It's all too early to tell, and Obama or McCain being up 2-8 in any single poll is meaningless.
All I have to say, I've said before, this could go bad. In all honesty the debates, and forums that are left could bury Obama.
"That the Walter Mitty reference makes no sense, either, is just another sign of your great talent for unintentional comedy."
It only makes no sense to you because you are dumb as post Larry. What is unintentional comedy is that you really think you are smart. You are in fact so dumb, you don't even realize how dumb you are.
To explain it to you, like you will get it but I will try. Walter Mitty lived in a fantasy world of being a Pirate or whatever to escape his daily life. Leftist kooks like you and the people who do their best to ruin what is an otherwise reasonable blog do the same thing. Their fantasy world is that they live in a police state and they are the brave opposition against the forces of oppression. No political argument with people like you and your ilk is ever a reasonable disagreement among reasonable people. It is always some monstrous force of oppression invented in your own mind to which you are fighting. It is all a figment of your imagination meant to make you feel more important. Like I explained above, if your disagreements are just normal disagreements between reasonable people, then you really can't derrive much self importance out of that can you?
It is corrosive to our democracy and civil society. All of the horseshit that people like Demos and you fling around is going to just come right back on you. What do you think the nutcases on the right are going to be saying if Obama wins? This is the same kind of histrionic bullshit that you say just like they did in the 1990s when Clinton was in power. They were nuts then and you are a nut now. In being that way, you just help to create more nuts on both sides and make it impossible to have a disagreement or a reasonable conversation about anything. It is perfectly reasonable not to agree with Bush or think he is a bad President or think that the Iraq war. It is not reasonable, however, to think that there is some plot to turn the country into a police state or it is a police state now or somehow paralel to Nazi Germany.
You are right about me posting here too much. There is no point in arguing with the fanatical or the insane. I am hopelessly naive to think that anyone or anything could convince the trolls on here like you to think even just a little bit. You and your ilk have too much of their personal identity wrapped up in your beliefs.
Maybe somewhere there is a site on the internet where people from both sides of the political spectrum can talk and disagree about issues without saying the amazingly inane shit that you and your ilk put out. I am not optimistic, but before you showed up, this place was like that. Maybe I can stay one step ahead of you.
LMJ
What was hard to understand about the Walter Mitty reference?
Mitty was a hen-pecked suburban nobody who daydreamed of another existence as a heroic naval commander, brilliant surgeon etc.
John is suggesting that some of the people claiming the Long Dark Night of Facism (TM) has descended on the USA are also living out a fanatasy. Rather than being partisans campaigning for a presidential candidate they support (an entirely honorable role, in my view), they are heroic soldiers in a life-and-death against the forces of evil. In order to sustain that belief, it becomes necessary to accept some frankly silly comparisons, such as USA 2008 = Germany 2008.
John writes: "It only makes no sense to you because you are dumb as post Larry. "
There you go again, Johnny. Here's a hint: When accusing your intellectual superiors of being dumb, try to use correct English. Get that through your thick Kopf.
40 degrees south adds: "John is suggesting that some of the people claiming the Long Dark Night of Facism (TM) has descended on the USA are also living out a fanatasy."
It's "fascism" and "fantasy," chuckles. But I see you're another one who hasn't actually read the Walter Mitty short story. I'm not going to help you out much here, but do try reading the story before you die.
"In order to sustain that belief, it becomes necessary to accept some frankly silly comparisons, such as USA 2008 = Germany 2008."
The silliness isn't so silly when you consider that the US is now a nation whose leaders proudly use torture and wage preemptive war. Even Nazi Germany had the moral sense to try to keep its use of torture a secret.
But more importantly the vicious, sickening activities of the Bushpigs deserve comparison to the worst humans who ever lived on this planet because this is my country and what they have done shames me deeply. If you're not able to feel shame over such things I pity you and yours.
For the demented folks who actually support what has gone on, I have only contempt.
it's funny -- you claim they deserve comparison to the worst humans ever on the planet because . . . non sequitur. i'll say it slowly so you get it -- whether something shames you deeply, or should shame others deeply, has no relevance to whether it bears comparison to "the worse humans who ever lived on this planet." any claim that such a comparison is warranted is inane, and you confirm as much by failing to provide any reason to make such a comparison (other than your shame). you also make the inane transfer from the claim that bush can't realistically be compared to hitler to people supporting bush. which means you either can't read or are willfully ignoring the many statements from various commenters that they are in fact reasons not to support bush, but those reasons nonetheless don't support a comparison to hitler. are you honestly so simpleminded that you're making these statements in good faith, or are you the troll yelling troll in a troll theatre? do tell.
I too am in a funk about the turn taken by the Obama campaign. I've been that way since I was in the Anchorage aiport leaving from my absolutely wonderful Alaska vacation on the very day that Palin's candidacy was announced. It's spoiled all the good feelings I had about the Alaska trip.
This too shall pass. I'm still confident that Palin will be seen as a flash-in-the-pan after 3 or 4 notable gaffes. (I doubt she could find Mexico on a map.) The American attention span gets shorter all the time and she can't run on the cover of People ad infinitum.
It's brilliant for the McCain campaign to go back to running as the anti-everything candidate but eventually you have to be 'for' something, don't you? This will be my eighth presidential campaign since coming into my voting rights and I'm ready for some real debate. I'm still hopeful it will happen after 28 years.......
Megan,
Please enforce your recently-announced comment policy in this thread.
I'm thinking especially of this rule: "Further note: terms like "Rethuglican" and "Dimocrat" are automatic grounds not merely for deletion, but for banning."
dj superfluous types: "it's funny -- you claim they deserve comparison to the worst humans ever on the planet because . . . non sequitur. i'll say it slowly so you get it -- whether something shames you deeply, or should shame others deeply, has no relevance to whether it bears comparison to "the worse humans who ever lived on this planet." any claim that such a comparison is warranted is inane, and you confirm as much by failing to provide any reason to make such a comparison (other than your shame)."
I might bother to respond to your gibberish if it weren't gibberish. But it's gibberish. Please learn basic English before posting again, and then make an effort to express yourself coherently.
yeah, that's right, just gibberish. or not. but i'm glad you've conceded your inability to respond and quit the game. i didn't expect much more from someone without a basic inability to comprehend difficult syntax, or even basic logic. cheers.
ps if you'd like to compare educations, test scores, accomplishments, whatever offline, i'd be happy to shame you.
dj stuporfish replies: "ps if you'd like to compare educations, test scores, accomplishments, whatever offline, i'd be happy to shame you."
Your syntax isn't "difficult," chuckles. It's just lazy and bad. I'm not about to be shamed on the comparison front by some nitwit who thinks doing an ee cummings impression is cool.
cummings actually was cool. You're just a joke.
you're right, you can determine the value of input by whether the speaker adheres to certain formalities. come on slugger, take the pepsi challenge, let's see if you're really as smart as you think you are, if you can really plausibly claim i'm a nitwit (please note, i'm not resorting to appeal to authority to justify my arguments, just responding to your claim to be able to tell i'm a nitwit).
see, my beliefs don't require vilifying all those who disagree with me as being uneducated, unworldly fools operating in bad faith, who just won't admit the truth for some nefarious reason. yours seem to, which makes pretty clear who the fool is here.
Jeebus, what a repulsive pack of baying hyenas.
I'm calling Godwin.
dj superficial continues: "you're right, you can determine the value of input by whether the speaker adheres to certain formalities. come on slugger, take the pepsi challenge, let's see if you're really as smart as you think you are, if you can really plausibly claim i'm a nitwit (please note, i'm not resorting to appeal to authority to justify my arguments, just responding to your claim to be able to tell i'm a nitwit).
see, my beliefs don't require vilifying all those who disagree with me as being uneducated, unworldly fools operating in bad faith, who just won't admit the truth for some nefarious reason. yours seem to, which makes pretty clear who the fool is here."
Perhaps someday you'll actually post something that gives a clue as to what your beliefs are. So far you haven't, and you've just been masturbating in public.
I look forward to your fascinating posts in which you actually say something. Knock yourself out, chuckles.
To all pro-lifers claiming that abortion issue overrides the economy because life is worth more than money: please give me a decent answer about Iraq war. Is pride (or oil) worth more than life?
To all "country-first" ideologues: why do you care more about the portion of your taxes than about the health of the country burdened by two wars, record deficit, and record national debt?
To all "small-government" ideologues: why do you want to get in people's bedrooms and inside their bodies? How will small government be able to deal with that task, if it can barely carry its current load?
To all "anti-elistist" voters: should not the US President be a smart man? Or rather, should not a smart man be the US President?
To all supporters of scholl choice: advocating a school prayer and a specific niche curriculum on a national scale (e.g., creationsim) is inconsistent with advocating school choice. Pick one or the other!
To the "Republicans for change": change the party.
To those happy with George W Bush, the deterioration of the US economy, the collapse of the American prestige in the world, the proliferation of terrorism around the world, the loss of civil liberties in the US, the polarization of the American political discourse and the American life in general: vote McCain/Palin!
Jason Von Streicher says: "Jeebus, what a repulsive pack of baying hyenas.
I'm calling Godwin."
Call him collect, chuckles. Ask him what comparison is apt for a gang of torture-loving dingbats who push a doctrine of preemptive war. It's probably a short list, but the Bushpigs are on it. Solidly.
Follow up question: why does the GOP refer to Obama as the Chosen One, if they are the ones who see the divine providence even in their lunch menu? I am unable to comprehend this, so I do welcome some advice.
LMJ
You suggest my post suggests I haven't read 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty'. Looking through my copy of The Thurber Carnival (Penguin Books, 1945), I can't find anything inaccurate in my description. Care to explain where I went wrong?
I'm happy to own up to a couple of spelling mistakes, and may well make another in this post. I guess that is sufficient evidence for you to determine I am a republican that supports torture and preemptive wars.
For what its worth, I think the same Walter Mitty-like fantasists can be be found at both ends of the spectrum. Your republican equivalent is right now warning blog readers readers to stockpile ammo and canned goods against the day Barack HUSSEIN Obama declares the USA to be an Islamic Socialist Republic. Or some equally deluded gibberish.
Said readers are probably thinking 'Why is this deluded loser screwing up what was a rational discussion?'. Which is pretty much the response you seem to get too.
To all "anti-elistist" voters: should not the US President be a smart man?
Yes, but not an arrogant one. Elitism isn't a state of being, but a state of mind. I'm all for electing people who are, on the whole, smarter and better than the rest of us. I'm opposed to electing people who think they are better than the rest of us. That probably means I should vote against all of them, somehow.
the polarization of the American political discourse and the American life in general
I curious to know why it is that "polarization" is somehow caused by conservatives. Polarization is caused by people strongly disagreeing. If liberals don't like disagreement, they can start agreeing with conservatives. If they decline to do so, I don't see how they can blame conservatives for the existence of disagreement. Nor can I see how anyone faults politicians for highlighting the disagreement and saying "Vote for me because I'm right and my opponent is wrong."
The rest of your comment shows a great deal of confusion; "Small government" types are not usually the same as moralist conservatives who want to invade bedrooms, vouchers advocates are not seeking to impose creationism on a national scale (actually, who is?), etc. These people share a label, but no single person agrees with everything that is identified as "conservative."
And people refer to Obama as the "Chosen One" to mock the (allegedly) outlandish expectations of his supporters. If he really were the Second Coming, their expectations would be justified, after all.
Rob,
Thank you for reasonable answers, albeit I disagree with most of them... (I got a response of a decidedly lower quality to these same questions posted on a different blog.) Now, if I could ask you a couple more questions...
A child of a single mother disadvanaged by his mixed race and with a very worldly view on things... Do you think he really looks down on "us" after having experienced, first-hand, most of the worst things that the US has to offer? I think he is looking up to us, actually. And for that reason he seems to be a different kind of politician.
About my alleged confusion... If you watched the GOP convention, you might have noticed that the radical religious conservatives (the ones who want to invade people's bedrooms and bodies, and the ones who want to impose teaching of creationsim on the national scale, the ones who believe that God speaks directly to them and they look down on us and KNOW that they must guide us like a herd of sheep) were actually rallying the small government conservatives, the school voucher advocates, and other conservatives under their flag. This is why I was saying that even Republicans should not vote Republican this time around. This is precisely why I am assigning most of the blame for polarization of the US society to the Bush-Rove-McCain-Palin GOP, although I don't want to excuse the likes of Michael Moore, either. And, finally, the expectations HAVE to be outlandish, considering the mess that we are in right now...
Irreverent,
The fact that you can attribute polarization to a newcommer like Palin shows how completely out of touch you are. She just showed up and she's part of the reason why things are bad?
How about... every body on both tickets and involved in both campaigns with the SOLE EXCEPTION of Palin is the reason for the polarization? Well, not the reason to be correct, but they exacerbate the polarizing...
That you seem to attribute it all to anyone with an R after their name shows that YOU are part of the problem and not the solution.
Megan,
Don't panic. All election bounces pass away, and this one will too.
I think Obama & Biden can cope with this temporary glitch.
LMJ,
I'm at a loss what to say about your comparison between one of the commenters and the founder of "Der Stürmer". Calling you an idiot would be accurate, but still inadequate.
Speaking of Der Sturmer, have any of the people here suggesting "obvious parallels" between Nazi Germany and GWB's USA actually read any nazi publications or propaganda from the 30s? Let me guess: No.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#ww2
Take a peek. Here are some choice quotations:
"Be true to Hitler's spirit! Ask in all that you do: What would the Führer do. If you act accordingly, you will not go wrong!" (Hess, 1934)
"The German nation and its soul belong to Adolf Hitler and his party." (Ley, 1934)
"Today, all of Nuremberg celebrates Adolf Hitler. The flags now being raised atop this building will fly there forever. He who sins against them deserves death." (Streicher, 1934)
"The Jewish people is the people of the Devil. It is a people of criminals and murderers. The Jewish people must be exterminated from the face of the earth." (Streicher, 1933)
Does that sound anything like what Bush and the Republicans have said in the last 8 years? Note that all of those quotes are from the first two years of Nazi rule!
Does anyone here sound anything like Streicher? I don't expect MLJ to ever be accurate or fair, but this is just nonsense.
Glorious,
None of them have ever read anything. Further, they have probably never been to a non-western country and seen what real oppression looks like. In some ways it makes me feel good about the country that it allows so many of its citizens to live in such blissful ignorance of real oppression. Forty years ago we had Jim Crow and that wasn't so.
Well, John, they are clearly sockpuppets. I think you were really just arguing with one or two people.
Morzer
lynnefawkes
keithperry
sashaqz
jasmine
Are all very clearly one or two people. Similiar styles and posted within minutes of each other, in the typical sockpuppeteer method of comment-chaining.
Lame, I know. I hope Megan's intern bans them and MLJ for his incessant name-calling.
Glorious crows: "Does that sound anything like what Bush and the Republicans have said in the last 8 years? Note that all of those quotes are from the first two years of Nazi rule!
Does anyone here sound anything like Streicher? I don't expect MLJ to ever be accurate or fair, but this is just nonsense."
I came in on the discussion after the Nazi comparisons were already being made. I'm having fun with them. No, the Bushpigs aren't quite Nazis, even though they DO share some qualities with the Fuhrer's bunch. They're hyper-nationalists, they support preemptive war, they have a penchant for torture, and they think they're doing the sky fairy's business. I realize that these few points of honest comparison aren't enough to convince the bloodthirsty dopes who have actually voted for the worthless bastards that they are backing evil pricks, but so be it. The Bushpigs are NOT AS BAD AS NAZIS. Let's be clear about that.
They're perhaps worse than Mussolini's Italian fascisti, so all of you who support the Dumbya/Cheney gang can sleep long and well tonight. Don't let morality get in the way of your self-congratulation. You're NOT AS BAD AS NAZIS. And that, in the end, is the great moral example you can share with your children.
so moe finally admits he was wrong in asserting that bush and co. could legitimately be compared to hitler and the nazi (sounds like a new wave band), which was my only point. moe also says he was just having some fun with the comparison. so you admit to wasting everyone's time disputing something you now admit to be obvious (it's pretty much indisputable, so you'd have been a bigger fool not to ultimately admit it (oops -- split infinitive, i must be an idiot!)). in the future, please expressly identify your "just for fun" comments so those people trying to have a legitimate discussion (i know, a small, small number) can ignore them. thx much.
now, the mussolini comparison is actually marginally interesting. but he was, you know, like a dictator and all that. if you really think bush is going to hold onto power come january 2009, i'll take that bet with whatever odds you want.
I love this shellgame. First, we're accused as being the same as the Nazis(and yes, you did do that yourself, "Jason von Streicher?"). When we dispute that, you sarcastically congratulate us for not being as bad as the Nazis.
Cheap, angry and sarcastic rhetorial tactics don't work well when they are used with a hamfist like yours. Escalating the failure won't raise you out of insignificance.
I also hope Megan's intern applies the new rules. Despite being warned, you've continued in twisting the names of people in the most obnoxious and juvenile fashion imaginable. You ought to be banned.
dj superbad writes: "so moe finally admits he was wrong in asserting that bush and co. could legitimately be compared to hitler and the nazi (sounds like a new wave band), which was my only point. moe also says he was just having some fun with the comparison."
I didn't make the comparison in the first place, genius. But perhaps you misunderstand what "comparison" means. It doesn't mean "equating." You can make a comparison between two things without concluding that they're equivalents. I realize that may be difficult for some to understand.
Despite their best (or should that be worst?) efforts, the Bush-led incompetent war criminals are NOT AS BAD AS NAZIS. So their few remaining supporters can hold their heads up high for having a bunch like that as heroes.
"now, the mussolini comparison is actually marginally interesting. but he was, you know, like a dictator and all that. if you really think bush is going to hold onto power come january 2009, i'll take that bet with whatever odds you want."
Failure-to-thrive babies are a very sad thing, but failure-to-learn conservatives are much more numerous and even sadder. One more time, for such conservatives - MAKING A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO THINGS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SAYING THEY ARE EQUIVALENTS.
And Bush Republicans are not as bad as Nazis - but they're a whole lot closer to them than Eisenhower Republicans were.
And getting closer by the day.
"Despite being warned, you've continued in twisting the names of people in the most obnoxious and juvenile fashion imaginable. You ought to be banned."
Your fun muscles have atrophied. Go to the gym.
"child of a single mother disadvanaged by his mixed race and with a very worldly view on things."
His mother wasn't married to BHO senior?
He led a disadvantaged life?
He went to the best schools where ever he lived, his mother (when she finally got) married to Mr Sotero(sp?) and took him to indonesia where he also went to the best schools. Then she got divorced and then abandoned him and left him with his upper middle class grand parents who sent him to the best schools in Hawaii.
Aside from having a self-centered airhead of a mother BHO was never disadvantaged by anything. He and you are just the usual Dem phonies who all claim to have a disadvantaged youth (see Joe Biden).
And yet you will effortlessly vilify Clarence Thomas who actually grew up in poverty and through his sheer intellect and ability has achieved his goals. No thanks to Joe Biden who vilified him at his confirmation hearings
It is also very interesting that the dem ticket is composed of two lawyers and the Rep ticket has two non lawyers.
Lawyers are taught to be able to represent any side of a case.
The liberal lawyers in the Dem party use this skill to flip flop their positions from day to day sometimes in the same sentence.
eg. the classic example "I voted for it before I voted against it." Not-President Kerry 2004.
You Liberals are so transparent.
thedaddy
the diddy writes: "The liberal lawyers in the Dem party use this skill to flip flop their positions from day to day sometimes in the same sentence.
eg. the classic example "I voted for it before I voted against it." Not-President Kerry 2004. "
Now you cons have Sarah Palin, who was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she "saw the writing on the wall" and decided to lie through her teeth and pretend she was against it.
How about them apples?
By the way, Obama wasn't "sent" to the best school in Hawaii. He earned a scholarship to go there. That's how it works with smart people sometimes.
By the way, when Gloria was so upset by my use of Streicher and wrote "I hope Megan's intern bans them and MLJ for his incessant name-calling," how did she/he/it fail to notice that I used "Streicher" in response to a post in which Steeny called posters "a repulsive pack of baying hyenas"?
Apparently name-calling isn't really what bothers Gloria, after all.
The hypocrisy of the right is endless and vast.
And have you noticed that I've focused on a singular aspect of your overall obnoxiousness? To wit, the endless name-twisting that was explicitly condemned as a bannable offense?
You routinely employ rhetoric identical to statements like "a repulsive pack of baying hyenas." I didn't object to it. I objected to twisting people's names into nazi references. That's something that's 1) A direct personal affront 2) Far more abhorrent than any reference to animals, baying or otherwise 3) Explicitly prohibited.
But you've already demonstrated that you cannot reliably distinguish between different behaviors, words, or motivations. So I can't say I'm surprised that you're making the false charge of hypocrisy here.
Gloria again: "I objected to twisting people's names into nazi references. That's something that's 1) A direct personal affront 2) Far more abhorrent than any reference to animals, baying or otherwise 3) Explicitly prohibited."
Megan explicitly prohibited twisting the names of political parties. What exactly are you referring to, chuckles?
And am I supposed to think that you'd welcome being referred to as a hyena?
Granted, I would hate to insult poor hyenas by making such a comparison, but is that really what you're saying?
i love moe's claim that bush and co. are getting closer to the nazis by the day. yeah, as you're sitting in your mom's basement watching the cartoon network and using the dial up to accuse bush and co. of being war criminals i'm sure you're real worried that the secret police are about to break down the door and take you away. funny thing is, if bush and co. are a dictatorship, or anything close, they're doing a very, very bad job. real dictators use things like antiterror laws as an excuse to, you know, lock up the opposition, meddlesome press, etc. obviously lots of that going on, i salute your courage in being willing to criticize such a dangerous, dangerous administration at such great, great personal risk. you truly are a brave soul speaking truth to power. now that you've taken your courageous stand against tyranny, you can get back to your game of D&D.
"now that you've taken your courageous stand against tyranny, you can get back to your game of D&D."
You're right, waging preemptive war and using torture aren't worth mentioning. What the hell was I thinking? The policies of the Bush administration should make all Americans proud.
I call again for the tapes of the torture sessions to be issued in a DVD boxset so that John, dj sooperfloat, Gloria and I can give them out as Christmas presents to one and all. And let's have a bonus DVD of Afghan wedding parties being shredded, just to make Baby Jesus get the giggles!
um, again you fail basic reading comprehension -- i was responding to your claim that bush and co. are getting more like the nazis by the day. your response simply ignores that, attachs the straw man of support for bush and his policies. i have not, in any of these comments, said that criticism of bush and co. on a variety of grounds is not warranted. but thx again for demonstrating your lack of understanding.
By the way, Obama wasn't "sent" to the best school in Hawaii. He earned a scholarship to go there. That's how it works with smart people sometimes.
Right, even you admit he wasn't disadvantaged, thus putting the lie to your original "whiney" statement.
thedaddy
Do you think he really looks down on "us" after having experienced, first-hand, most of the worst things that the US has to offer?
I think he looks down on a large number of people to whom I feel a certain kinship, namely, gun-toting rural Christians. And I think his party's leadership--from which zillions of political appointees will be drawn--is stuffed full of people who do the same in an even more extreme way.
That said, credit where it's due: Obama's not half so bad as Kerry (or Hillary) was in that respect.
I can see where the internal contradictions of the Republican party are confusing, but the dems have the same problem, battling to keep black students in failing public schools, for instance. I'm still not clear on how McCain and Palin are more "divisive" than Obama and Biden. I'm sure both sides would like to unify the country in voting for them.
Rob Lyman writes: "I think he looks down on a large number of people to whom I feel a certain kinship, namely, gun-toting rural Christians. "
Yes, the sort who used to enjoy looking up at folks who looked like Obama... while they were hanging from trees.
And no, I'm not kidding. Anyone ever look at the old lynching postcards? The flocks of grinning goobers having a good old time?
This "looks down on" argument is trivial and stupid. Who do Bush and McCain "look down on"? I think I know the answer, but it's not something I'd base a vote on.
Anyone ever look at the old lynching postcards?
I've seen them, and the fascinating thing about them is that the smiling people are all dead now. Maybe it's divine punishment, or maybe it's because we aren't living in the 1920's any more, and comparisons to people who were alive then are unfair.
This "looks down on" argument is trivial and stupid.
Someone who looks down on you is perhaps somewhat less likely to take your concerns seriously, and more likely to do things that hurt you. Was it not their contempt for blacks that led the grinning lynchers to both lynch and grin? So it's hardly trivial or stupid to wonder if the most powerful man in the country has contempt for you and yours.
LMJ
I'm still waiting for your analysis of 'The Secret Life of Walter Mitty' demonstrating that my 10.02 description of it was wrong. As per your 10.29 post.
Pedantic I know, but thats what happens when you accuse your opponents of dishonesty. They start to demand you can back up your statements, even the trivial ones tossed out as insults.
Rob Lyman writes: "Someone who looks down on you is perhaps somewhat less likely to take your concerns seriously, and more likely to do things that hurt you. Was it not their contempt for blacks that led the grinning lynchers to both lynch and grin? So it's hardly trivial or stupid to wonder if the most powerful man in the country has contempt for you and yours."
Tell me again which party noose-collector and blatant racist Macaca Allen belonged to, Rob. And tell me just how many of your fellow wingnuts jumped ship on him once his actual nature was revealed. Let's face it, you view different "looking down ons" very differently, don't you?
Which Atlantic blogger links to white supremacist Steve Sailer, and cites him approvingly over and over again? It's "moderate Republican" Ross "Welfare Duchess" Douthat, of course. Where were the Rob Lymans on his blog - before he gutlessly killed comments as he moved to the right for the election - saying he was a numbnuts on race? Nowhere to be found. ::crickets::
Where does Rob Lyman stand on the horseshit wingnut blather about how Obama is a Muslim? Who the hell knows? Is that sort of crap beyond the pale? Should John McCain say it is?
It's hardly trivial to ask such questions.
Sam, you wrote this:
"The fact that you can attribute polarization to a newcommer like Palin shows how completely out of touch you are. She just showed up and she's part of the reason why things are bad? ... That you seem to attribute it all to anyone with an R after their name shows that YOU are part of the problem and not the solution."
in response to this:
"This is precisely why I am assigning most of the blame for polarization of the US society to the Bush-Rove-McCain-Palin GOP, although I don't want to excuse the likes of Michael Moore, either."
Can you read at all or did you loose your reading glasses while trying to find a test-subject for your lazy brain?
****************
John wrote:
"If this were Nazi Germany, we wouldn't be having an election... "
Nazis were elected into government. This is why elections are not a joke and the choice should not be based on who you'd like to drink beer with.
"If [Bush] is a mad dictator, he is a pretty pathetic one."
That I agree with, but that's not a reason to make things even worse and to elect his much more agressive pupils.
LMJ
And your response to my Walter Mitty question?
Let's face it, you view different "looking down ons" very differently, don't you?
I must confess to not understanding your point here. I have not argued that the right's "looking down ons" are better than the left's. I have argued that it makes perfect sense to avoid voting for people who look down on you, i.e., to consider what somebody thinks of you and yours is not "trivial and stupid."
If blacks wish to avoid voting for Allen or Douhat, well, not only is that their right, but it makes perfect sense, and I will not argue, as you have re: rural residents and Obama, that their decision is "trivial and stupid." There's no reason to vote for bigots that look down on you, regardless of the reason for their bigotry.
now that you've taken your courageous stand against tyranny, you can get back to your game of D&D
You got something against people who play D&D?