My first internet bon mot was Jane's Law: the devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.
Red State offers proof positive. Because you know what the Republican Party is missing? What the electorate really wants from conservatives? Secret police.
I've been impressed by the way a lot of thoughtful commenters have avoided the nuthatchery that followed 2004, whereupon the activists denied that Bush had kicked their ass halfway to Texas, and alternately blamed Republican dirty tricks, an American electorate full of bigots and boobs, and their excessive moderation. A lot of commentators yesterday and today have written articles on how exciting it is to have the first black president, and how yes, the Republican party needs a gut rehab.
But of course, every time any movement suffers a major defeat, there are the folks who decide that the biggest priority is to form a circular firing squad and hunt out the members of the fifth column that destroyed the party from within. To be sure, the McCain staffers trying to hang the whole debacle on Sarah Palin's narrow shoulders have not exactly covered themselves in glory. But honestly, guys, they're not your main problem.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"Because you know what the Republican Party is missing? What the electorate really wants from conservatives? Secret police."
I laughed out loud. Insightful, true and very pithy.
:-)
How, exactly, does that compare with the ridiculous, factually challenged "Bush stole the election" insanity that lasted 8 years? Not covered themselves in glory? No, they've acted like scumbags. They may not personally be the main problem, but Republicans who act like scumbags - from giant earmarks, to the Duke Cunningham and Ted Stevens types - are the main problem. Cleaning a dirty house is not insane.
Yes. Because anger of Bush's crimes is just like believing Sarah Palin is awesome.
Megan,
James Joyner has some interesting things to say about this situation and actually spoke with Erick Erickson about their "intention to sabotage candidates you’d otherwise support for hiring staffers who say mean things about Sarah Palin?"
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/palin_gossip_sparks_witch_hunt/
"a lot of thoughtful commenters have avoided the nuthatchery that followed 2004, whereupon the activists denied that Bush had kicked their ass halfway to Texas, and alternately blamed Republican dirty tricks, an American electorate full of bigots and boobs, and their excessive moderation."
I'm not going to say anyone on Kos was rational, but that doesn't make the opposite 100% true either. Kerry was a really weak candidate who responded to swiftboating way too late and let the flipflopping meme take hold. A 50.1% win isn't even close to "kicking their ass halfway to Texas". And while Bush probably would have narrowly won Ohio anyway, there were 10 hour lines in Cleveland and 15 minute lines in the suburbs. I would say all of those are thoughtful conclusions on 2004.
Now, let's apply the same principles this time. Obama didn't massively change the electorate or win a Reagan-type victory. Black turnout was up moderately. 18-29 year olds really hate Bush, and Republicans' lack of immigration reform has turned off Latinos, so Obama won those by significantly larger margins (but not significantly larger turnout). Besides that, most demographics were just up 2-4 points, which probably would have happened with any Democrat. Without the financial crisis it's probably a 3 point win, which I imagine is what most reasonable people would have predicted a year ago.
Sarah is so hot voting. Maybe we could divert ourselves with a rock and roll song "Hot Voting."
I don't see how RedState's actions amount to purging the party of the people who cost it the election. They're trying to purge the party of people who are attacking their branch of the party.
There's nothing unhinged or irrational about that. Palin's a good future prospect for conservative Republicans. There is good reason to find out who is behind the whispering campaign against her and make sure they are held accountable for it.
"The devotees of the party out of power are insane."
I've never read a better description of the Libertarian Party.
sorry about the possible thread hijack, but you mention the turnout numbers. what's confusing me is that all sorts of places are reporting/predicting record turnout north of 130 million, but the combined obama/mccain vote currently stands at 120 million. where are all the extra votes, if they exist? any thoughts appreciated (i've been looking around, and there's little discussion of this inconsistency, let alone an explanation).
Please, please have the party's secret police hunt out the Palin turncoats. A person who thinks Africa is a country, couldn't name the countries in NAFTA and denied a pre-interview briefing with before her Katie Couric interview IS a good leader for the Republicans to "move forward" with. A perfect representative of the Jesus rode a dinosaur cultist crowd.
hmm, so your first bon mot was a cliche? And how has anything changed since then?
you miss the point, megan. not secret police. God's soldiers. scouts in the coming war to end all wars.
palin's patrol isn't about the usa; it's about the return of jesus.
she listens to a higher authority.
my question is what they're high on.
That can't be the real Redstate site! It's got to be a spoof imitator, right? Either way, it's freaking hilarious!!! Thank you!!!
New From the Sarah Palin For Pres in 2012 Website
“Starting Today To Achieve Real Conservative Victory Within the GOP in 2010/12”
Read the short essay at http://www.palin4pres2012.com
Adam, "A 50.1% win isn't even close to "kicking their ass halfway to Texas"
Bush got 50.7% which was 2.4% better than Kerry, and also got 62,040,610 votes--which is only about half a million less than Obama.
Yes, the Republicans won solidly in 2004 and the Democrats solidly this year.
I do love you, Ms. M., I swear I do, but I just cant resist pointing out how swimmingly Budget Day here at AI is going this time.
Activists? Is that what they call MSNBC? Olbermann was pushing the Bush-stole-Ohio bit on-air wasn't he?
dj superflat,
Indeed, I was a bit surprised this morning to learn that the overall turnout was almost exactly the same this year as in 2004 (about 121,000,000 votes between the two candidates). I am just guessing, but the "extra" missing votes may be dispirited Bush voters from 2004 who sat on their hands. This would certainly explain the totals when this election seemed to have higher "energy".
I agree, the party devotees are indeed insane. However, insanity is measured in degrees. The far left, for example, took insanity to new heights in 2002 and remained there for 6 years (BushHitler, Blood4Oil, Inside Jobbers, etc. B.D.S., as Charles Krauthammer called it.) Unfortunately, this insanity wasn't confined to the far-left, but leached its way into the mainstream left.
One can only hope that the GOP devotees do a better job of containing their crazies.
Dear Ms. McArdle,
Secret police are the people who go into your driving record, your child support record, and your licensing record after you've made a public statement embarrassing El Jefe. Shunning people who've stabbed you in the back is just common sense, something all sane people do. A bit of it would have helped Bush a lot, starting with St. Colin and ending with Little Scottie McClellan.
The toothless hicks so embarrassing to the Manhattan Republicans (all 50 of them) are the people who knock on doors and make phone calls. I guess the Republican Party wants to go back to just raising a lot of money and outspending the Democrats. Oh, I forgot, the Democrats now raise three times the money the Republicans do, from investment bankers and tech executives terrified they won't be able to get a late term abortion.
The fringe party is Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, George Will and Rod Dreher. The conservative coalition is unwieldy but the traditionalists deserve a certain amount of respect.
A lot of commentators yesterday and today have written articles on how exciting it is to have the first black president
I know this is not the main point of your post, but this black thing irritates me. Why is it not racism to vote for someone because he's black but it's wrong to not vote for him because he's black? Why is it not sexism to vote for a woman because she's a woman but it's sexism not to vote for her because she's a woman?
I don't accept the argument that this signals a new chapter in American race relations or whatever. What this signals is that Americans aren't as racist as the media would have you believe (although, the media's racist attacks on Rice and Powell because they were part of the Bush administration calls the media into question). We will transcend the race thing when it's a non-issue and not before.
Personally, I could never muster the energy to care about Obama's race and I still can't. It will have nothing to do with his ability to carry out his duties as president.
Members of a branch of a political party seeking to identify and denounce members of another branch who have attacked them do not in any way, shape, or form equate to secret police.
To say they do trivializes what actual secret police do, much as equating Bush to Hitler trivializes the crimes of the latter.
I used to really like reading Megan's stuff, but since joining the Atlantic I've found her to be less and less interesting and insightful.
I'm not sure this amounts to "secret police." That's a bit on the hyperbolic side, I would say.
Jim pointed out above the unsavory actions of Obama supporters throughout the campaign that are a lot closer to "secret police" type thuggish actions than some disparate bloggers trying to "out" the source of unseemly gossip about Sarah Palin.
There are several things the Republicans need to do now that they've lost it all. One of them is to figure out who they are and come up with a coherent message to put before the voters.
After the Bush years, McCain may have been the only Republican with a shot at winning Tuesday, but an ideologically coherent Republican party can't include him as a standard bearer. For all the silliness of the Palin haters, she is more true to the future of the party. To the extent McCain staffers try to scapegoat her, it is they, and not she, who need to be held accountable.
Aye, because if there's one way "secret police" can improve their efficiency, it's to openly declare their intentions over the internet.
Regans first win?
50.7%
Most likely, he siphoned significant votes from Carter, even though he was republican.
"By the end, Anderson's support was on college campuses, and he capitalized on that by becoming a visiting professor at a series of universities: Stanford University, Duke University, University of Illinois College of Law, Brandeis University, Bryn Mawr College, ..."
I honestly can't believe that people still think it's worthwhile to talk about Democratic overreaction to the 2000 or 2004 elections, or the similar subject of "Bush Derangement Syndrome."
The Bush presidency has been the most unpopular one in history, and for good reason. His administration bungled two wars, dismantled environmental regulation, made a mockery of its oath to defend the constitution, instituted torture as U.S. policy, and contributed to the financial mess we're currently stuck in.
The anti-Bush voices of 2000, 2002, and 2004 may have been shrill, and they may have trafficked in some ridiculous conspiracy theories at times, but overall they were right. They simply were ahead of the curve in pointing out the early signs of the incompetence and malfeasance of the Bush administration. It's just unfortunate that the majority of the nation didn't recognize those signs until after Bush was re-elected.
Look, it's idiotic to blame this lose on anything or anyone but McCain. He's the one at the top, the buck stops with him.
Some of his staffers are anonymously trashing Palin, in an attempt to divert attention from their failures, and the failures of their candidate. Those staffers are scummy backstabbing little weasels. The Republican Party is far better off if they go backstab among the Democrats.
"I know this is not the main point of your post, but this black thing irritates me. Why is it not racism to vote for someone because he's black but it's wrong to not vote for him because he's black? Why is it not sexism to vote for a woman because she's a woman but it's sexism not to vote for her because she's a woman?"
Isolation of cause. If I vote for a candidate whose policies I agree with that's rational. If I agree with candidate X's polcies and would vote for him whether his name was Koslowski or McGillicuddy, the fact that I might like and identify with him more because my parents came from Warsaw, too doesn't make my vote bigoted --- eliminating the identification factor does not change the result. On the other hand, if I agree with McGillicuddy's policies but refuse to vote for him because I believe all Irishmen to be drunken louts, then clearly I am bigoted.
In real life, it's difficult to separate cause and effect --- many factors influence our votes, entirely irrational ones based on ethnicity and religion and instinct and attractiveness among them. The problem with saying that black people only voted for Obama because he's black is that 80+ percent of black people vote Democratic anyway.
"To be sure, the McCain staffers trying to hang the whole debacle on Sarah Palin's narrow shoulders have not exactly covered themselves in glory. But honestly, guys, they're not your main problem."
__________________
No, they're not the main problem, but they are a definite problem. Who needs anyone on their team who will secretly stab the candidates in the back when things get tough? Considering their actions now, it might have been a blessing McCain lost, if for no other reason than the disloyal staffers would have been a constant source of poison in the White House and they would have been put there because Senator McCain's faulty judgement.
If Wallace and Schmidt did spread this garbage, it was for their personal benefit, not that of the campaign, much less the country. And they should not benefit by their underhandedness. It doesn't take much effort to weed out such jerks - just shine the light on them. Maybe they can get hired by DailyKos or something.
Stop blaming Bush for torture already! We have not tortured anyone, let alone make it U.S. policy.
The definition of torture is contained in the United States Code, which was legislated by Congress. The U.S. military and CIA have adhered to the law of the land in their interrogations. Those few who transgressed have been tried and convicted of breaking the law.
If you think waterboarding is torture, then blame Congress, because the law clearly says it is not torture.
Will we never be free of BDS?
Based on history, her prospects for national office are dim. Perhaps she should appoint herself Senator and have Alaska do a special election for governor if Senator Stevens gets to resign or is expelled.
Stop blaming Bush for torture already! We have not tortured anyone, let alone make it U.S. policy.
What about stress positions, sleep deprivation, starvation, hypothermia etc.? Keep your head in the sand, but maybe this type of behavior is part of the reason why Republicans lost power in 2006 and 2008?
Thank you for your reply, D. I understand that. I also had white people breathlessly exclaim that they were voting for him to make history - what with Obama being black and all. They didn't know the first thing about him and didn't take the time to find out either. But it was fine to vote for him solely because he's black. It would not have been okay to vote against him solely because he's black. That's the part that seems hypocritical to me. Either way, if your choice is made solely because of his race, it's a racist choice. But that's not how it's portrayed.
What about stress positions, sleep deprivation, starvation, hypothermia etc.?
You are describing the typical Investment Banking interview, yes?
As a member of the Secret Police, I am insulted to be associated with Republicans, and demand an immediate retraction!
I also had white people breathlessly exclaim that they were voting for him to make history - what with Obama being black and all. They didn't know the first thing about him and didn't take the time to find out either. But it was fine to vote for him solely because he's black. It would not have been okay to vote against him solely because he's black.
Hmmm. Okay. I don't know the people you know, and the way you describe them surprises me. When you say they knew nothing beyond his race, that strikes me as somewhat improbable --- the whole point of the McCain "Celebrity" ads was that Obama was plastered all over the media for two years, like the dude was Tom Cruise. Even if you didn't keep up with politics in general, it'd be hard to be so ignorant you had formed no impression of the man beyond his skin color. It's hard for me to imagine somebody thinking, well, he seems like an empty suit to me, but he's black, so I'll vote for him. It's easy for me to imagine someone thinking, well, I really dislike Bush and think the country needs to go in a different direction, and he seems smart and plus it'd be historic, so I'll vote for him.
The US isn't torturing terrorist suspects. Techniques are unpleasant but not torture. I think that we SHOULD be using torture, and that the only section of Geneva we should be applying is the one on spies and saboteurs. Get whatever information from them, and then a quick bullet to the head.
But then I actually want to win, rather than surrender like the Left.
According to the Gallup poll, Obama won 64% of people with postgraduate education. According to
Chuck Todd of NBC, the suburbs of most northern and western cities now vote Democratic. These are striking changes from the 50's and 60's, and they're directly attributable to the Republicans pitching their message to the Sarah Palin demographic. The Republicans are now the party of rural and small town America. If Obama performs well as President and if the Republicans don't change their message, they're going to be a minority party for a long, long time.
D, your responses to kat are on-target: It's simply not plausible to pretend there were any significant number of people who voted for Obama without knowing anything about him other than his color. Obama's beliefs, attitudes, policy positions, and history were discussed in the media for two years. It's unlikely that many people who were "excited" about him managed to completed ignore that much coverage.
My impression is that most people who complain about others who supposedly voted for Obama without knowing anything about him are people who believe the media should have focused on Rev Wright and Bill Ayers twenty-four hours a day, since those were the "real" issues in the election.
And if you think Black people who voted for Obama were "racist," consider this: How many white candidates do you think those Black people have voted for in their lives? The evidence shows that the answer is "a hell of a lot."
My first internet bon mot was Jane's Law: the devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
HooHooHooHooHooHooHooHoo
HeHeHeHeHeHeHeHeHeHeHeHe
Oh, oh, {wipes tears from eyes}, oh.
Hoo Hoo.
Oh, mercy.
I haven't laughed that hard in years. That's one mot that is tres bon. Comedy gold. Man, surely that's worth a Pulitzer for Funny. Oh me, oh my.
I realize you aren't one to boast, but do you have any more as brilliantly crafted bon mots you'd care to share?
"The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant." I'll be laughing about that for days.
What comes to mind is that Karl Rove, who is brilliant, was painted as Satan, himself, while Axelrod, who is also brilliant, is considered, well, brilliant.
Bush-haters have not behaved well these last few years. The left has some image polishing to do.
Stop blaming Bush for torture already! We have not tortured anyone, let alone make it U.S. policy.
Indeed. And how do we know this? Why Technical President George Bush, Jr. himself has said it: "We don't torture." So, quite obviously, we don't.
rick wrote: Yes. Because anger of Bush's crimes is just like believing Sarah Palin is awesome.
Democrats have held Congress for two years now. They may feel free to commence impeachment hearings for these alleged "crimes" anytime, provided their own voting records for the past 12+ years can withstand the hypocrisy.
JordanT: What about stress positions, sleep deprivation, starvation, hypothermia etc.? Keep your head in the sand, but maybe this type of behavior is part of the reason why Republicans lost power in 2006 and 2008?
You've no future in political analysis. People who consider sleep deprivation torture were probably not voting for McCain anyway (or shall we use their name for him: McShame?).
What comes to mind is that Karl Rove, who is brilliant, was painted as Satan, himself, while Axelrod, who is also brilliant, is considered, well, brilliant.
Yeah, I remember when Axlerod said liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to terrorists, and suggested that John McCain had a black child out of wedlock. Oh wait, that was Rove. What were Axlerod's transgressions again?
(And Rove is indeed a genius. He got more than 15% of the electorate to legitimately vote for George Bush, Jr., a person so stupid and incurious, so out of his depth, that he is unqualified to night manage a Stuckey's, let alone pretend to be President of the United States of America.)
"What comes to mind is that Karl Rove, who is brilliant, was painted as Satan, himself, while Axelrod, who is also brilliant, is considered, well, brilliant."
Perhaps this has to do with the relative tactics used in each case. Running a campaign largely on the issues, running far less negative advertising than your opponent, hell, making a 30 minute infomercial and not even *mentioning* your opponent...and still getting a large win, makes you brilliant and not evil, yes.
For comparison, would you care to imagine what the Rove-created 30 minute infomercial would include?
As for the nuthatchery portion of Megan's awesome post, we return to The Onion. Ah, that's the stuff.
"I haven't laughed that hard in years. That's one mot that is tres bon. Comedy gold. Man, surely that's worth a Pulitzer for Funny. Oh me, oh my."
_________________
Geez, how smug, not to mention arrogant. :)
It should be mentioned that an anonymous source has convinced some people to believe that Palin thought Africa is a country and that she was unaware of Canada (which borders her state, and through which she wants a natural gas pipeline built) and Mexico.
I could make some snarky comment about this, but when people lie like this (or call it slander, whichever), they should be pariahs. This is not acceptable.
Stock traders who leak false information would be drummed out of their trade. Yes, it is idealistic to want this in politics, but it isn't evil.
Certainly not as evil as digging through some guys files because he asked Obama a straight question. I cannot think of anything that the republicans did that was worse than this this year.
But of course, every time any movement suffers a major defeat, there are the folks who decide that the biggest priority is to form a circular firing squad and hunt out the members of the fifth column that destroyed the party from within.
And the saner variant, the "if they'd only listened to me!" speech.
That's one that applies no less to libertarians. My favorite variant is the one that notes how so many people call themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." True, but so often their supposed general principles are exactly betrayed in the hot button issues of the day. "Social liberalism," for example, does not extend to legalizing gay marriage for all of those people; nor does "fiscal conservatism" cover free trade or reducing agricultural subsidies for most people, much less opposing the Medicare drug benefit, opposing the expansion of S-CHIP, wanting to change the tax structure of health care so it's not tied to jobs, or wanting to cut corporation tax because of tax incidence. Unsurprisingly, all the Obama ads that I saw were hitting McCain for being too libertarian on those fiscal issues. Obama ran ads talking about how unpatriotic McCain was for opposing "buy American" government rules on motorcycles.
That doesn't suggest that a pure libertarian would win either.
Obama did, OTOH, convince people that he was more likely to cut taxes than McCain.
Uh huh. John, do you have any evidence at all for this claim? The slightest scintilla? I cut and pasted your last sentence into Google, and this is what I got:
My favorite variant is the one that notes how so many people call themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."
Sooooo tiresome it is when people say that (and so many do as you note). So tiresome.
But you have to love the leaders who fly in the face of that understandable cliche and rule as fiscally liberal and socially conservative. Dutch Reagan and George Bush, Jr. spring to mind.
Megan - I have to say you are one of the very few who didn't go completely insane during the election. Thanks for holding both sides accountable, and this is coming from a conservative (albeit reluctant) McCain voter.
I have to say, though, McCain's campaign has gone from bad to worse since the election. Despite the fact that Sarah Palin should have never been selected, how well does it reflect on anyone to dish out this crap about Palin, true or not?
If The Atlantic ever gets secret police, please sic them on your comments section.
"Certainly not as evil as digging through some guys files because he asked Obama a straight question. I cannot think of anything that the republicans did that was worse than this this year."
Yeah dude, you're spot on. A registered Republican who voted for McCain in the primaries who within a few days of being called out numerous times in a nationally televised debate by McCain goes on Fox News, gives numerous interviews and press conferences...
*God forbid* someone like that be subject to any scrutiny at all. Let's not even discuss whether someone like that may have some sort of agenda, certainly not when he says at a *McCain rally*, a week after asking Obama a "straight question" about the tax rate on an income bracket there is zero chance he will ever in his life reach, when he says that a vote for Obama is a vote for, and I quote, "death to Israel", and that raising the top marginal rate from 36% to 39% is, and again I quote, "socialism".
No, someone who says things like that who claimed a few days before to be an "undecided voter" should be taken entirely at his word and his words taken for the truth and nothing at all about him should at all be questioned.
And you wonder why you lost. Yeah, keep making Joe the Plumber your mascot.
> What the electorate really wants from
> conservatives? Secret police.
I think there is a point here.
Get some of those secret police. Put them in cool uniforms (stormtrooper outfits, maybe some leather) so they are not QUITE as secret.
Deploy them in hotbeds of liberalism, such as San Francisco.
Have them "work with" some of those comsymps, especially the godless gays.
If the gay virus is really THAT infectuous, in a few years time you'll have some happy gays, and maybe the repeal of Prop 8.
Well, for example there's these numbers and there's this.
In fairness, both these results also show that more people thought that taxes would go up under Obama than under McCain. People overwhelmingly thought that McCain would keep taxes the same. 31% of people thought that taxes will go down under Obama, but 37% thought that taxes will go up. For McCain, only 11% thought that taxes will go down, but 26% thought that taxes will go up. McCain convinced most people that he would keep taxes the same, and convinced more people that he would cut spending. A majority agreed on what he would do, keep taxes the same. For Obama, nearly one-third of people agreed with each of the propositions of tax cuts, taxes the same, and tax increases.
I should say more accurately that Obama convinced more people, primarily those who voted for him, especially Democrats, that he was more likely to cut taxes than McCain, and that he was more likely to cut spending or keep it the same. Republicans strongly felt that Obama was likely to raise both taxes and spending, but only 28% of Democrats think that federal spending is likely to go up under Obama and only 17% think that their taxes personally will.
The spending number is kind of interesting but probably reflects partisan belief that all sorts of unidentified "wasteful programs" will be cut; the most realistic thing it could mean would be defense cuts paying for everything proposed.
The term "secret police" usually refers to police that work in secret - not to police that go after people who secretly (anonymously) betray the trust of people who hired them. Redstates' actions may not be wise, but they are as open and obvious as Megan's bad writing.
Let's see what we have here:
followed by:
But you're still right, somehow. Can't you just say that you were wrong? Doesn't the fact that a higher percentage of Americans thought Obama was more likely to raise taxes than McCain, and still voted for Obama won tell you something about the general acceptance of the Libertarian credo?(admittedly, that was rather clumsily worded) So this:
doesn't really hold water. In fact, most Americans, I would wager, do not like to pay taxes - myself included. Nobody is disputing that at all. Unlike the libertarian camp, however, we recognize it as a cost of doing business in America, the sort of America we want anyway, and fork over. Oh, and just to put this to rest, yes, most people want the other guy to pay taxes, and will try to slough it off on them. That's not under dispute. Just as most people also want higher pay and better benefits for fewer hours and a smaller amount of work. That's human nature, not a great principle upon which to build a philosophy.
A local Democratic state rep says "People are fed up with politics as usual. The Republican model now in campaigns is to destroy the other person."
Hey, I didn't vote for Pres. Bush (or McCain)but was appalled by the level of discourse: chimp, moron, Bushitler, etc. etc. While Sen. Obama largely eschewed this stuff, his local surrogates (especially those on campus)crawled in the politcal sewer. Can you imagine the MSM outcry if young Republicans wore t-shirts calling Sen. Clinton the c-word? Disagree with GOP policies all you want but keep it civil and recognize that the opposition isn't Satan. And, Mrs. Democrat legislator, look at the beam in your own eye before commenting on the other guy's.
creech,
I can only imagine the outrage the first time someone calls Obama a chimp.
There is a huge difference between "secret police" and "identifying staffers with questionable judgment and trying to prevent them from getting hired in the future".
I think Palin had some good qualities, but I don't think she's a great choice if the Republican party wants to come back to power. But loyalty and good judgment are important for staffers, and if someone is trying to dump the failure of the McCain campaign entirely on her shoulders, it's something reasonable to consider when hiring them for a political staffer job in the future.
I don't know the people you know, and the way you describe them surprises me.
D, these people are really stupid and they believe themselves to be really progressive and enlightened. Seriously, they either disagreed with almost everything Obama was proposing (vague as it was) or didn't know anything, but claimed they had to vote for him to prove the country isn't racist...by voting for someone based on their race. This struck me as stupid and it also struck me that nobody would call this a racist position.
I'm not saying they are a majority of the people who voted for him (although, nice straw man, Karl!). I happen to know plenty of black people who voted for McCain. The fact that they weren't a majority of blacks doesn't mean that the other black people voted for Obama only because of his race. So, race isn't an issue for everyone and I don't think it was an issue for most people since most Americans are white - which just means that this country is less racist than the media and race-baiters portray.
My question, which you are avoiding, is why is it not racism to be for a black man because of his race but it is racism to be against him for the same reason. When did racism become redefined as something other than judging people - positively or negatively - on the basis of race?
I can only imagine the outrage the first time someone calls Obama a chimp.
Do you really think the outrage would not be justified, Wingy? Do you know nothing of the history of this country or the world, for that matter? Please pick up a book and educate yourself.
@yancy, i emailed the GMU prof quoted in the articles about turnout, he said the discrepancy is from the absentee and other ballots yet to be counted, and i notice on CNN that the vote tally keeps rising. so the gap is likely to close (obama is up to 65 million votes now, so the initial impression that he didn't get many more votes than bush in 2004 was wrong).
"'I can only imagine the outrage the first time someone calls Obama a chimp.'
'Do you really think the outrage would not be justified, Wingy? Do you know nothing of the history of this country or the world, for that matter? Please pick up a book and educate yourself.'"
__________________
Uh, I think that was his point, ed. The outrage would be entirely justified, just as it should have been when the term was used against President Bush.
But could you tell us again how much more wise and educated you are compared to the rest of us? That's endlessly fascinating and always a sure fire way to win an argument.
That doesn't suggest that a pure libertarian would win either.
Ron Paul's candidacy proved that Americans are no longer interested in limited government, since it means that they can't appoint government busy-bodies to punish people doing things they don't like. And America has become a nation of busy-bodies, as Megan's link so clearly demonstrates.
That Megan, a libertarian [snort], was completely turned off by Ron Paul and preferred Obama clearly shows that even libertarians aren't libertarian any more. Why advocate for Constitutional government when pooh-poohing the ignorance of the hoi polloi, and advocating technocratic leadership by your favorite professors is so much more comforting to the ego, and makes you more popular with your cool liberal blogger friends to boot?
America as it was envisioned, a place for lovers of liberty, is dead. The Republicans destroyed any shred of credibility limited government once had in the minds of most Americans, and the Democrats certainly are happy to take advantage.
Do you know nothing of the history of this country or the world, for that matter? Please pick up a book and educate yourself.
Ed, when I pick up a history book, here's what I find: the word "slave" is derived from "slav" because so many slavic tribes were enslaved. So many of of them by the Muslim empire in Africa and the Middle East. As a slav, I will now commence taking offense at everything and anything black people, Arabs, Western Europeans, etc. say and do and I will demand that they bend to my will to compensate me for the wrongs committed against my ancestors due to the extreme racism of everybody else.
Anything you say in response to me will be a sign of your racism and hatred.
Kat,
You accuse me of setting up a straw man by claiming you said "a majority" of those who voted for Obama knew nothing about him. I never said that at all. I never even used the word "majority" or any word like it.
What I did say is that I doubt there are many people who voted for Obama despite admitting they knew nothing about him other than his color. You claim there were a lot of "stupid" people who did this.
I'd be happy to see some evidence of this fact. All I can say is that I didn't encounter any such people--let alone many. You claim you did. Others can judge based on their own experiences.
Kat,
You accuse me of setting up a straw man by claiming you said "a majority" of those who voted for Obama knew nothing about him. I never said that at all. I never even used the word "majority" or any word like it.
What I did say is that I doubt there are many people who voted for Obama despite admitting they knew nothing about him other than his color. You claim there were a lot of "stupid" people who did this.
I'd be happy to see some evidence of this fact. All I can say is that I didn't encounter any such people--let alone many. You claim you did. Others can judge based on their own experiences.
Obama was younger, more articulate, and a Democrat after years of Republican disappointment. He was also much, much richer, and much blacker. Stylishly black, and good-looking; black skin and white features go together well on him. I guess if he had a more "Negro" face he wouldn't have won.
Next time, Republicans won't shoot themselves in the foot by deliberately impoverishing their campaign. McCain, a campaign finance expert, castrated his own final attempt at the Presidency by bankrupting himself.
The media mostly supported the candidate that paid them the most money. Do you think it was a coincidence? True, Obama did some advertising on Fox, but it's owned by Murdoch, and perhaps Obama needed to hide the bribe. The Obama ads on Fox did Obama no harm.
That's it, in a nutshell.
But could you tell us again how much more wise and educated you are compared to the rest of us? That's endlessly fascinating and always a sure fire way to win an argument.
dumbasssayswhat?
Exactly, right, ed. The funny thing is, Mike S thinks we haven't caught on to the fact that his entire philosophy is composed of nothing but bad faith. Or that if we can't make him say words to that effect, that we haven't 'proven' it.
No, I have a few simple tests for bad faith, relatively uncontroversial ones at that. The arguments here over the last few days are pegging the meter for bad faith, amongst a crew that is notorious for that very attribute.
Oh, and btw, since Mike claims not to get it, 'chimp', 'ape', etc are also considered highly offensive terms,ethnic slurs against black people:
So if Mike S didn't know this, well, yes, I do have a better education than he does. Much.
While some of the left-wing reaction to the GOP takings in 2000, 2002 and 2004 did border on hysteria (ok, some were pure hysteria, no lie) there are those pesky exit polls.
The differences between the exit polls and the official counts all seemed to benefit the GOP, and then to do so mainly in certain critical areas.
That is certainly no smoking gun, but is the same level of evidence US Department Of State has used in the past to denounce as invalid elections in places like Belarus.
It is also interesting to note that in 2008, in the battleground states of Florida and Ohio, those darn polls suddenly started working again.
Again, while no smoking gun, one wonders if that has anything to do with the Florida Secreatry of State now being a moderate and uncorrupted Republican and the Ohio Secretary of State now being a Democrat?
Nathan,
Are you the least bit familiar with statistics? These polls are built upon layers and layers of assumptions. The if but one assumption is wrong the whole thing can very easily turn to garbage.
When the margin of error is +/- 3 or more percent and the election is close there can be no certainty. But even more importantly, that +/- 3% estimation can change dramatically if those assumptions stated above aren't right. Random chance can have a huge impact here.
I don't understand where there is a conspiracy here. Certainly in "close" situations where the votes are several hundred or perhaps several thousand apart we are within the margin of fraud -- on both sides.
And to be clear, there is only one party that is firmly against showing photo ID to vote.
So until the Democrats who are complain stand up and back photo ID requirements to make your vote count I think the fraud is most likely to occur on the other side.
You know I was being a bit provocative, but if you all are thinking that people are going to stop saying horrible things about the president, well it ain't gonna.
Geez, look at all the horrible stuff thrown at Condi Rice.
Sam:
You are absolutely correct in what you say about margins of error in predictive polling;my reading is that 4-6% are not uncommon. So, a person who predictively polled at 50%, and then only got 44% of the official count wouldn't be exceptional.
Historically, up until 2000, exit polling has been much more accurate;1% to 3% differences from the official count.
In some states in 2004, the difference between the exit polls for Gore and the official count was in the range of 5% to 13%. While not proof positive of fraud; that is exceptional.
Personally, I have no problem with requiring a positive ID for voting (though that sort of fraud isn't a significant problem, and it is sadly easy to get fake ID) so long as it is accompanied by a knowledge test for the prospective voter. Questions would be kept factual and simple, such as: Is Africa a continent or a country? Does the Vice President run the Senate? Can you cut taxes and raise spending without increasing debt? If you can agree to back that, I'll back your picture ID. Deal?
Based on history, her prospects for national office are dim.
Similarly, based on history, Obama's prospects were also dim. How'd that turn out?
Geez, look at all the horrible stuff thrown at Condi Rice.
Such as? What were the three worst examples?
Bush-haters have not behaved well these last few years. The left has some image polishing to do.
Posted by Andrea | November 6, 2008 7:35 PM
You can polish my image anytime, you torture-defending scum.
You can polish my image anytime, you torture-defending scum.
Wait, I thought you guys won this election. When does your mood improve?
Bush-haters have not behaved well these last few years. The left has some image polishing to do.
How so? From what precincts? Are the Bush-haters worse than institutionalized Right Wing Hate Radio or the WSJ advancing Vince Foster murder conspiracies?
For example, I hate Bush for being a willfully ignorant, incurious boob (he couldn't name other world leaders in a simple quiz, define tribal sovereignty in any coherent manner, or Social Security either). I hate him for sending U.S. troops to Iraq for no good reason, selling the entire enterprise on bulljive like 9-11, yellowcake from Africa, and nuke-delivering balsawood planes. I hate him because he wants to amend the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. I hate him because he elects not to believe in evolution. I hate him because he condones torture, and mocks people he killed as (technical) Governor. I hate him because he is too weak-willed to admit that he's in way over his head and must defer to Dick Cheney et al.
Are these legitimate reasons to hate Bush? Am I irrational? Why did people hate Clinton? Because he killed Vince Foster? Obama? Because he is a Marxist and is a terrorist ("it's in his blood, heh heh")?
Who's image needs polishing more?
Will we never be free of BDS?
Well, you guys had an eight-year head start with Clinton Derangement Syndrome, and that doesn't seem to have abated in the slighted.
Pot, kettle, black, etc.
Do you know how bad a president george w bush was? A black man named barack hussein obama just got elected president of the united states. Do you know how irrelevant the right is? A black man named barack hussein obama just got elected president of the united states.
in a landslide, no less.
I've been impressed by the way a lot of thoughtful commenters have avoided the nuthatchery that followed 2004
Nuthatchery...?
You know reading this kind of commentary really reinforces how much trouble the GOP is in right now. It reminds me a bit of the feeling among democratic party circles after the 1968 election of Richard Nixon. Left wing activists were walking around for days going, Nixon! Nixon! how is this possible?
Nuthatchery. Call it what you will, the genius of the Democratic Party and its supporters was to channel that feeling into highly constructive projects that have now born fruit for two cycles in a row, 2006, 2008. I mean what next, you're going to call Howard Dean an idiot? Fine, I really don't mind conservatives being in the wilderness for another 1932-1968 type period.