Weapons of Mass Discussion - TROLLS wll NOT be tolerated. Period.
I love it when Mark gets into a rage. You should sell popcorn, Matt. For the record, Kristol was one of the people who thrust Palin into the undeserved spotlight.
And I love how you think "small town" is the future of your party. Everytime Palin went around and talked about "Real America" in some small town...hey, it worked on hick nativists--but it sure lost you a lot of Hispanic and urban and suburban votes. Reagan understood that the GOP needed those votes, that all of America was REAL America. You didn't get that memo, I guess.
If Palin is the future of the GOP, you don't have a future. Sad for the country, really. We need a smart, responsible GOP. Not one with the foreign policy knowledge of a plumber.
Amen. And don't forget all the other liberal Republicans -- the RINOS like Voinovich and DeWine-- who will occasionally drift over to the Democrats. We don't need them. Look what they've done to Ohio. We're stuck with corrupt Democrats like Brunner running our state. You can also add Limbaugh to those names who will move the party back to its conservative roots.
RIGHT SMACK ON THE MONEY, AND I THANK YOU, SIR! Does George Will belong in your group of exiters? I think so, maybe. What do you think?
Once again, surfer, your effite elitist roots get in the way of your understanding. By mentioning "small town" america, what I am trying to say is "Main Street". Yes, Latinos (didn't your effite liberalness know that Hispanic is viewed by some to be derogatory and not correct as they are not from Spain, but from Latin America?) and urbanites are part of the solution as well, but not those that think only what goes on inside the metropolis is what matters. The suburbs, the rural areas, the city areas, all are part of america. And, again, surfer, you believe the hype about Sarah Palin. Bill Kristol was one of the wizards of smart that said only John McCain stood a chance, and he was wrong, as usual. He backed Palin, then didn't, then did, then didn't. Which is it?
And, surfer, your effite snobbery shows with the cutesy mention of a plumber. I know quite a few plumbers who have more foreign policy knowledge than our president elect. Know why? They served in the military, in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Germany, Iraq, Kuwait. So before you go denigrating those who get their hands dirty to work, kindly check yourself first.
Do you have something against the working folk?
What is Obama's foreign policy experience? Has he ever had to negotiate with multinationals? Has Obama ever had to head up "even ceremoniously" a military unit?
Again, surfer, despite our other discussions, you stand revealed as an effite liberal snob.
And, surfer, hick nativists? Wow. Your lack of understanding of anything that doesn't happen in a large city is startling. And your disdain for many of the American population is disturbing.
Surfer,
I am not in a rage. If you want to see me in one, it could be arranged. However, to say that calling for the so-called experts who gave us one of the worst run campaigns in history's heads is a rage, then so be it.
Yeah, that's what the GOP needs to do--get SMALLER. They are already at the lowest position in the electorate since before Reagan--keep kicking people out of the party.
You guys are like the Democrats in 1985 who argued that if they just got purer, and move farther to the left, America would love them. Uh...that didn't work out very well. Clinton, who was on the right wing of his party, had to become the nominee, much to the unease of the party's purists. The DLC was your version of RINOs.
surfer,
why have people in a party you are going to disagree with 90% of the time?
It is not about kicking people out. It is about standing for something, and not kowtowing to every special interest group. That was the dems in the 1990s and the repubs now.
I think any independent person reading your vindictive attacks on these GOP moderates and dissenters would assess it to be rage filled. Generally, when you call people lots of names like "idiot" and other choice nouns, it's called a flame, and tends to be associated with emotions like fury, rage, etc. I don't think I was out of line to use the word! Maybe that's just been your state for so long, you don't realize it's rage.
People seldom calmly call for other people's heads. Maybe Robespierre and Stalin could...
I'm an elitist, in the same sense that William F. Buckley was an elitist. Back when American conservatism was intellectually respectable. Elitism isn't always a bad thing. Nor is populism always a good thing. I know some very smart people in the working classes. And I think the modern campaign finance system, in which rich people have a much easier time getting elected than at any time since the Founding, is keeping good working and middle class people out of politics. But I do want very smart people in office, people who can conjugate verbs while orating on the fly and who understand recent history. On average, that leaves out most plumbers. The Palin people kept saying "she's like us...that's why I LOVE her..." I want to be governed by people better than "us" in important ways, who yet still feel a connection to the common people. It's a hard balancing act, and presidents have fallen on both sides of the divide. But throwing up your hands and saying--smart people know nothing, or less than the average folks do, is dangerous stupidity. It's the kind of crap that populist demagogues from Pol Pot to McCarthy have used.
So you are now namecalling and saying I am like Stalin? Intersting move, for one who wants to have a "dialogue".....As usual, your own elitism gets in the way...
The people are the ultimate governance in our country, not people to lead us and influence us and "show us the way"...I think your take on the American people shows a sad cynicism....but your mileage usually does vary....enjoy the arugula....
If you think that the people you named disagree with you 90% of the time, just because some of them thought Palin was woefully underqualified for national leadership, or others are a few ticks towards the center on certain issues, I think you're wrong. A lot of Dems in 85 and 89 wanted to kick moderate Dems out of the party, or at least continue nominating unelectable lefties. The smart people realized you needed a big party. That's why, incidentally, your God Reagan put GHWB on his ticket in 1980. Bush was old school Republican establishment, previously pro-choice, pro-civil rights, your average country club Republican at the time. Reagan needed that moderation to unify his party and bring the nation to his side. At the time, people on the right like Philips and Vigurie were infuriated. But it worked. Politics is balancing ideology and the desire to win. The perfect and the possible.
But again, since I don't agree with the GOP any more, I kind of hope you win this debate--you'll guarantee a lot of Dem success! Keep up the good work with that circular firing squad.
Actually, if you read with greater care, I was saying you were NOT like Stalin. But reading for comprehension is probably a sign of elitism...
Ahh, surfer, I guess I thought you were capable of understanding hyperbole. I guess you are not as elite as I thought.
You and WFB both being elitist?
This is more a question of conservatives actually walking the walk instead of just talking the talk. The pundits mentioned treat conservatism as a theory, as some type of thing to be debated, whereas those of us in the trenches, both urban and rural, are living it.
As to kicking out the mods, isn't that what the exile of Joe Liberman was about? Also, your messiah Obama talked on the daily kos in 03 about kicking out the mods.
And Ronald Reagan is not my god. My God is my Lord, whose Son Jesus Christ died on the cross, and rose on the third day.
But, talking about gods and such, you must worship LBJ as you continue to steal is shtick every turn, with the "perfect and the possible." Lame.
Also, surfer, you want people who are better than you to lead you, who can conjugate verbs, etc.
Well, I guess Abe Lincoln was horrible, as most contempories called him illiterate and a hick. I guess Jefferson was a rube, as most contemporaries thought him to be too much of a common rabble rouser, and not an elite. I guess you also don't care much really for LBJ, as his vocalizations were not all that eloquent. Your arguments are reeking of inconsistency and show that it is merely about your own brand of elitism.
And that rule by elites who are "better than us" is something called communism. And it is a failure everywhere it has been tried, because the experts forget about the people. Are you saying you advocate communism, surfer?
Your prior comment was not hyperbole, but your final one here is.
Anyway, elitism can have a baleful and a positive connotation depending on context. Washington believed in rule by a national elite, and I'm not nearly as elitist as he was. It can mean, in his sense and mine, closer to meritocracy. I don't ever want to live in an America where the common people feel abused, and in fact I'd like to live in an America where the common people had greater access to health care. Check out the debate about the tragedy of the "pre-insured" on today's Washington Monthly for a view of what an elitist health care system (in the negative sense) we have today.
Your use of the adjective "most" in the above discussion of Jefferson and Lincoln is one I would not share. I think both men's political opponents believed what you say, but not "most" contemporaries. Which historians are you relying on for this most?
(And I trust you never found that LBJ quote you cited? I may refer to him a lot, but you won't find me publicly quoting him and being unable to back it up, like some people I could name. That quote was bogus to the skies, and anyone who knows squat about LBJ would have seen that...Well, a meritocratic elite would have, anyway.)
Surfer says: "But I do want very smart people in office, people who can conjugate verbs while orating on the fly and who understand recent history. On average, that leaves out most plumbers. The Palin people kept saying "she's like us...that's why I LOVE her..." I want to be governed by people better than "us" in important ways, who yet still feel a connection to the common people."
1. Have you done an empirical study of most plumbers to know they cannot conjugate on the fly? Where is your evidence? Most plumbers I have met are capable of doing that. I guess, again, Lincoln, Johnson, Washington, Jefferson would all be disqualified based on their inabilities at speechifying. So how did that Stephen Douglas administration go?
2. You talk about people better than "us" who still feel a "connection" to the "common people."
This statement is laced with bigotry and disdain for those who get their hands dirty. And, who gets to decide who is better than us? Who gets to decide what is common? You seem to be advocating for some type of techocracy surfer, or some type of oligarchical rule by experts. Funny, those attempts have been made, and all the experts and academicians came up with were five year plans that failed in Russia, they came up with great leaps forward to eliminate their rivals and set back development by years....Great move there surfer....
Mark--do you spend more than ten seconds building these straw men? Doesn't seem like it.
1. I mean to suggest tha tbeing president requires preparation, much like being a plumber. I don't have any empirical evidence that plumbers are versed in recent political history and know a lot about public policy. I also don't have empirical evidence showing that members of Congress would on average make poor plumbers. Do you need some or can we accept that this likely is true?
2. Oratory is one sign of presidential quality, but hardly sufficient and occasionally not necessary. Lincoln was damn good, incidentally, the Cooper Union speech saved his career. Washington was more than adequate. LBJ had the gift on occasion--See the We Shall Overcome speech, or the one down south in 64 during the campaign. Of all the men you named as poor orators, you are only right about one of them, TJ.
Oh, and Mark--I think the people should decide. I am a firm believer in the Constitution and the American system. I just think it goes AGAINST that system's historic roots to want to be led by people who are "just like us." Even Andrew Jackson, the great democrat of the 19th century, did not advocate for the type of know-nothing populism that Palin stands for. We should let the people decide, and most years, in their wisdom, they elect someone better than the average person.
You know, Mark, the reason it is so fun to argue you with you is that I'm never sure what new weak argument you will put forth with passion and utterly misplaced zeal...You harumph around from point to point like a lobotomized bull in an intellectual china shop, knocking over concepts and spilling over historical nuances with ignorant fury. I believe you just called Lincoln a poor orator. I think they might revoke your MA in history just on grounds of basic historical ignorance. Pray that none of your profs read this blog.
Surfer,
I have asked my profs about lincoln, some of whom are leading experts on the civil war era, and they said that the prevailing view of lincoln by most of his contempories was one of a hick and a rube, a rabble rouser and not much else. So, I don't think they are goin to take away my degree anytime soon.
Surfer, I am so sorry you feel the need to make your pathetic self feel better by engaging in namecalling and insulting my intelligence. If I have helped you feel some measure of adequacy, then you are welcome.
As for the LBJ quote, as I told you, I am busy with studying for becoming a special education teacher. I hold learning about helping my students more important than placating you. I did read it, and I will find it. If it is not in your approved time frame, sorry.
Surfer, you are nothing more than one of those trolls who will cherrypick anything to score cute points on things.
Again, read some of the common news articles about Lincoln from the time, both north and south, and they look upon his oratory skills in a low manner. For the gettysburg convocation he didn't even get top billing because people didn't think him much of a speaker.
But again, i guess that bit of historical fact doesn't mean a whole lot to you. You just want to engage in some idiotic gotcha game.
And I don't think it much of a straw man when you go about making blind assertions about plumbers and members of congress and such.
You know NOTHING OF ME, nothing. You are a simple troll who is a mild annoyance at worst. Your comments on my intellect mean nothing. You know nothing of me. Nothing.
And again, surfer, again I come back to this....if you don't agree with what I write, if you don't like what I write....DONT COME HERE. Dont come back. It is that simple. You can act as elitist as you like, but I am not going to stop. Please, start your own blog. Share with the world your vast store of intelligence....
It is so fun to argue with you surfer, because in every comment you make about how you are really for the people, you lace it with disdain for common people and for common language, you prove my point about your blatant and narcissistic elitism and cowardice with every keystroke. if you were really all that, as it were, you would take up the challenge and start your own blog.
No, you instead choose to troll the net, cherrypicking here and there, playing both sides against the middle, hiding in the cowardice of a comments section under a false name. Please, surfer, be a man and start your own blog....but wait, like any liberal, you would rather live off the sweat of others, and then preach to them on what they do and how to do it.
What does healthcare have to do with being led by experts in an elite society? Nice attempt at tryig to gain that sympathy through changing the subject....
The health care reference was to say that while I believe we should be governed by a meritocratic elite (chosen by the people) I don't lack sympathy for those who struggle without health care. The real elitists are the ones who don't give a damn that our health care system is so bad so long as they have goldplated health care, like I do.
As for the rest--well, you make some good points. I don't know that I agree that all liberals are cowards who like to live off the work of others--I think that's a cantankerous cheap shot. Par for your course.
As for Lincoln--being viewed as a hick and an untutored man of the woods is not the same as being a bad orator, as I'm sure your profs pointed out. The Gettysburg Address was neglected at its delivery, true. But Cooper Union, AND Douglas-Lincoln debates established Lincoln as one of the premier orators of the day. There was a lot of, ahem, elite snobbery about Lincoln's education and background but not about his oratory, which was my sole point.
I don't think you'll find that LBJ quote, it sounds entirely bogus to me, but if you do, I"ll send you the Caro bio. Good luck.
as i said, surfer, i am not saying that when i find the reference to the quote that it will validate it. i am saying that i have read the quote.
As for oratory vs. being a hick; well, I suppose there is some room for nuance wiggling.
However, if he was viewed by so many as such a great orator in his own time, then why the low billing at gettysburg? I think it depends upon whom you were speaking to.
Me personally, i have always admired lincoln's style, but then again, he is a republican....
I always understood what happened at Gburg was that Abe spoke for like 6 minutes, and the other guy spoke for two hours. The standards of the day rewarded long oratory. When Abe took on Douglas, he spoke for six hours at a stretch. Cooper Union was also longer. Even Babe Ruth would get low billing at a baseball game if he only came up to bat once, and pop flied on the first pitch and then sat out the rest of the game. You can't make a global judgment on the man based on one data point. And the reaction of those present was quickly overshadowed by the reaction of those who read Lincoln's prose. He was without question the best writer to have ever been president--indeed, some of his work appears in collections of great American writings. Not so for Clinton, or nearly every other president, although Jefferson gets a nod from time to time.
Incidentally, kudos for taking on special education as a profession. It is a noble calling.
surfer,
again, you are making it sound like I THINK lincoln is a shmuck. I do not. I was offering you some of what his contemporaries said, and what has been related to me. As with most Presidents, time has told the prescience and the value of his prose.
Surfer, have you ever read some of Bush's speeches, some of which he has had a hand in writing himself? Some of it is excellent work. Now granted, it will never be up to Lincoln's or anyone post 1950s because by then there was a team of speechwriters that ate up a lot of work. Exceptions would be to Reagan and to JFK. However, who knows, if you discount his verbal issues, some of Bush's speeches are great writings on democracy.
But, as I said before, I am not disputing Lincoln's writing style. I like it personally. However, some contemporaries, and yes, that does include opponents, would feel otherwise.
However, I marvel when I read his prose, since a lot of times it borders on political and historical epic poetry with its lyric and sense of timing.
Regarding gburg, you are right, the other guy spoke in longer length.
Again, I am not saying Lincoln was an idiot, just that quite a few contemporaries (and yes, again, that includes opponents) felt that way. There were others who felt him gifted oratoriclly, and still others who felt (as some feel about Palin) that his words lacked substance and were all about firing people up, not about truth.
Mark--I think my confusion at your meaning is justified--your correction of your meaning is one that I would agree with. Few great orators were universally recognized as capable in their day. Often, a great orator is discounted by his opposition as merely a demagogue, or lacking intellectual heft. But what you SAID was this:
I guess, again, Lincoln, Johnson, Washington, Jefferson would all be disqualified based on their inabilities at speechifying. So how did that Stephen Douglas administration go?
**
You didn't say that contemporaries rated them as poor speakers, you asserted they were poor speakers. And you included one of the worst orators in White House history, TJ, i the list. I don't think I was in error in interpreting that to mean that YOU thought Abe was a poor speaker. Your words in context could mean little else. But I'm glad to hear that your words did not reflect your thinking.
Again, oratory vs. content of speeches would be interesting to check out.
For example, I think we could agree taht while TJ was considered a terrible speechifier, much of his words are very moving..for example, the Declaration of Independence, the Virigina Constitution he helped on, etc.
Pardon my messiness in context, when I was typing my response I had 3 minutes between class changes where I was subbing.
I just wonder, if we did not have youtube or audio of Bush, would we consider his speeches well conceived in posterity vs. our present view of him as someone who cannot complete a sentence very well, based on his speech patterns.
Whether you like Bush or not, the man is intelligent. While he does not read all the newest intelligentsia, he has read some interesting and dynamic works, like the Case for Democracy and other books. Howevever, this is getting to be tangential to the original discussions.
Glad to see everything is clarified....do I get to keep my degree now, surfer? Oh wait, you didn't bestow it, nor my summa cum laude, nor my inclusion in a national historical honor society....never mind.
Commenting by HaloScan
