Weapons of Mass Discussion - TROLLS wll NOT be tolerated. Period.
I think Obama will be really damaged once this is drilled into voters head. It is tough to spin out of
He can't spin it...he's tried...and that only made it worse. There is a reason why most of the 527 media is burying this story...
It wasn't the Founders who said the states would be laboratories for government, it was Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
And of course, the question of whether health care is a bust in Mass depends on whether it is such a roaring success elsewhere. It is also too early to tell with a big change like that. This is the argument Republicans made about the DHS. Any big change causes friction and transaction costs. At some point, you have to assess, but it is far too early to know in Mass.
And so what if someone used to a Muslim? Huh? What does that have to do with anything? You accurately pointed out bullshit guilt by association when done by Dems...but you seem to practice it upon them given the chance.
Finally--we have talked before about your penchant for giving the most positive possible construction to Republican words (particularly by Boehner) but given only the most invidious interpretation to Dem words. Do you REALLY think Obama hates small town Americans? Seriously? Or are you just spinning?
Check out his fierce response, it is powerful.
I'd like this election to be about more than misstatements, or spins about misstatements that are taken, falsely, as some sort of reflection of cultural politics. Both McCain and Obama are men of substance, worthy of having the nation decide on the basis of ideas, not on statements that are simply poorly worded.
Don't you want the election to be about that, too?
Oh, and several subsequent polls in PA show absolutely no impact on Obama. Seems like Obama isn't going to be damaged by this anyway. It's going to be a lot tougher to portray Obama as an out-of-touch elitist than it was with John Kerry. Obama has not had a lot of money for most of his life, and after graduating from Harvard, worked in community organizing, hardly a get rich quick scheme!
And, he's running against a guy, McCain, who married into multi-millions with his second wife. Man, I remember all the caterwauling on the right when John Kerry married a woman with a lot more money than he had...My guess is we won't hear any of that this year. Me, I could care less who John McCain married, but the hatred and venom on the right towards Teresa Heinz Kerry and Kerry's marriage was really something to watch.
But oh boy, did obama make up for that with his buddy rezko,now didn't he? Hmm??? silence on that...
sorry for the brandeis quote....
I love it. Where are your protests toward huffington post or kos? Hmm???
Let's see...ive ripped on mccain, matt has...we have taken down a republican auditor.....we rip on a republican senator.....yeah, we are so shills for republicans......
Well, I think you've taken on McCain for being too far too the left. Let's see--that would be like giving credit to a left wing ideologue for taking Obama to task for not being left enough. You guys rip on Republicans all the time here, and I never said you didn't. But there's a difference--you tend to attack Repubs for not being conservative enough, but you tend to attack Dems in very personal ways (as well as ideological).
Rezko...what exactly has Obama done for him? There's nothing there as yet...
For example--today the news reports that Cindy McCain's recipes on her website, the attempt by a multi-million dollar heiress to look middle class, were in part lifted from other sources. They were never served in the McCain household, obviously. They are blaming an intern. Now, I again could give a damn--but my point is, you would be trumpeting this, mocking it, as another example of how fake Hillary is, if it were her. I don't have a word for what it is you do beyond a biased presentation but that is insufficient. It is a particular kind of personal, vituperative assault, which is also seen in the section of your page that profiles Democrats. They aren't just wrong on the issues--they are evil, bad people. I admit there are similar attitudes on some of the left blogs. But can't this campaign, can't national politics generally, get back to a time when we didn't have to hate the other side? When we didn't have to destroy them as people to win?
I'm going to be all mature like and say, the lefties started it... 
Well, I wouldn't say the righties "started it". I actually think it has a lot more to do with the decline in partisanship in the mass electorate as a motivation for voting, and the rise of television. People started to vote more for the person, not the party or the issues. Once that became a major motivation, you had to start attacking the other person's character to convince voters to shift. Television gives you the illusion of "knowing" the person, and thus we had ridiculous poll questions like "who would you rather have a beer with, Bush or Gore?"
But just because it is a widespread phenomenon does not justify contributing to it further.
surfer, when has american politics ever been the pollyanna way you describe the "good old days"? Also, in terms of the profiles of democrats and also the so called "hateful" ways I go about things, have you ever heard of idiom or hyperbole? Hmm?
back to the good old days of civility...did you know that john adams was accused by opponents of being a pimp? yeah, that is civil....or have you read some of the editorals and ads about andrew jackson?
I hate to break it to you, but what you learned about the good old days of civil politics were not all that civil...
I love how when a conservative jokes about democrats with quasi personal jokes it is "hatespeech and hatefulness"...but when liberal comedians do it it is somehow humor.....
and where, where do we ever claim to be nonbiased? where do we say we are going to be objective? We do have a slant. We are honest about it..that is what separates us from the liberal mainstream media.
And, in my opinion, though liberals are well meaning, their methods and their ideas for governance ARE bad.
Well, Mark--I don't think there was some halcyon day in which discourse was elevated and everyone was friends. But if you look at the public discourse of today compared to 1956 or 1960, there has been a great decline. I think there are more personal attacks today than at that time, or even than in 1984. You're right, the election of 1800 was a particularly venomous one. It seems like now they all are, and more each time. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
There was a good study done by Scott Keeter that showed with the rise of television, voters began to vote more on their perception of the candidates' character and personality, not their issues. Once that happens, in order to win, you have to make the other guy seem like a terrible person. That's true for Dems and Reps.
Another big change is even more personal--the members of Congress used to be friends across the aisle, Not ALL of them, and not all the time. But there were VERY strong friendships in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Now, it is extremely rare. They have to destroy the other side, personally, just to raise money. Just to win. That leaks down to politics even at the local level, I think.
It makes our country weaker than it was, which of course we should all oppose.
Several historians actually trace the decline in Congressional comity to two things--the airplane and campaign finance reform. The airplane made it possible for members of Congress to leave Washington every weekend. used to be, someone like LBJ had to stay there for most of the year, cause TX was so far away. While he and his children were there, they naturally became friends (and so did their spouses) with other members of Congress and their families. It is really tough to totally demonize someone when your wives are best friends. That day is LONG long gone. And then campaign finance. Dems raise money by convincing their donors that Tom DeLay is actually an evil person. Reps raise money by convincing their voters that Hillary, or Pelosi, are actually evil witches. Was that true of some prior moments in American politics? Sure. But I think it was rarer, and different. For example--during Andrew Jackson's presidency, for as much as he was criticized (for not knowing Greek and Latin well, among other things!), someone like John Calhoun had a fundamental respect for his honor. You saw a little of that with the relationship with Rostenkowski and Reagan, but not in the Clinton-Bush years.
If in some small way, you could reduce the vituperation, I am naive enough to think that it could make some small difference. Before you write something about a Democrat, just remember that we are all on the same side in the war against Al Qaeda. Dems and Reps alike die on the battlefield every day, and are buried at Arlington. Dems and Reps alike burned alive on 9/11. We need liberals and conservatives. Neither side is always right. Never have been, never will be.
Well, quite frankly surfer, i wish more democrats actually acted like they were on the same side in the war on terror, as opposed to parroting al queda talking points. I wish dems and libs would support the very constituents that are dying of the same party on the battlefields, that they would remember the lives of those of their own party killed on 9/11, but I dont see a whole lot of that with their comments, from the truly nutzo of Rev. Wright and Farakhan to the more subtle of Bill Maher and others.
Liberals have great intentions. Their policies are huge mistakes. The Great Society--failure at ending poverty, success at creating cycles of dependency. Social Security--one of the greatest cons in history, that is going to bite us in a few years.
And let us not forget the fact that the TVA still exists in the 21st century......
and you talk about there being less friendships. That is nuts. They still go to all the same parties. They still hang out at the same clubs. The difference, and I think you are on to something, is the presentation, and this is due to the failure of the liberally infiltrated education system. We no longer teaching thinking skills, but feeling skills and excuse skills. That does not lend itself to thinking critically about a candidate, when it is so easier to go on feel and who gives us more. Again, an attitude brought about by liberal giveaways with the best of intentions.
"We no longer teaching thinking skills"
Sometimes, parody becomes impossible.
However, I do think that the friendships today are different. I don't even think they go to the same parties anymore. The modern campaign finance system means that they have to spend 10-20 hours a week raising money, most of it at "parties". But in 1960, they actually socialized freely with members from the other party. I commend to you the 3 volume biography (so far) of LBJ which details, in volume two, the vast social life among members of all parties before the airplane. Members from both parties whose memories stretch almost that far back to today talk about the radical shift in the mood of the chamber. I don't think they are all wrong. Something has changed in fundamental ways.
Surfer,
You ever hear of a typo. Your coy attempt at insulting me shows you are just out to be an ass...therefore, to use your own little coy gotcha...
you say: I commend...
I think you mean recommend....
Sometimes parody becomes impossible....wow, don't I look intelligent now? Hehehehe
Oh, wait, I get it...you would rather the people elected by their states to serve their interests hung out in dc on the public dime, making nicey nice.....yeah, wise use of tax dollars and the people's time.....
Hey, ever heard of joking around? I thought you liked that? Remember? When I said you were harsh in your treatment of Dems, you retreated to humor. I was trying to be funny. Sorry if I hit a nerve, sometimes context and tone are absent on the internet. I don't think you're stupid--if I did, I would not have made the joke.
Incidentally, "commend" is the right word in that context, English is really funny. It's something like the idiocy of having "flammable" and "inflammable" mean pretty much the same thing. Commend does have other meanings not contained in recommend but in the context I used it, either works and in fact, as I see it, Commend is preferable since "recommend" contains a tone of formality I am not in a position to have in regards to you.
But seriously, the Robert Caro LBJ is one of the best biographies/histories written about American politics, ever. So much of the modern political world we live in has its roots in what Caro depicts. You'll read of amazing people like Senator Russell, a great racist but also a patriot and brilliant politician of the South, an amazing 75 pages on what life was like for East Texas housewives in 1900-1930 when LBJ was growing up, and as I said, a portrait of Washington in the 40s and 50s when real deep significant friendships were present across the partisan divide. That had, as you suggest, downsides--but it had many upsides as well, including a less harsh, bitter political environment. We could respect each other and disagree back then. less so today, and the country is weaker for that...
Surfer,
I apologize....was having a bad day....
Does the Caro biography rightly label Johnson an opportunistic bigot in terms of his begrugding signing of the Civil Rights movement and his comment that this will have the blacks voting democrat for the next 200 years?
No prob, happens to us all.
Let's just say the Caro biography is a vast project, the central question of which is: can such a deeply flawed man as LBJ be the source of good public policy like the eradication of de jure segregation? I wouldn't say he was "begrudging" in his signing of it. And what he said when he signed it was not that it would get blacks voting dem for 200 years--he said to an aide after signing the 1964 CRA that he "given the South to the Republican Party for a generation".
LBJ on race is a fascinating and complex topic. Caro portrays all the many ways in which LBJ sucked up to the prejudices of the White South, but didn't share them as much as many from his region. Which is, of course, worse in some ways. But by the end of his life, in the last decade, LBJ was one of the greatest fighters for CR that the nation has ever had. There's a great story of Thurgood Marshall, who LBJ wanted to appoint as solicitor general. And Marshall said, why me? And LBJ said, so when all those racist Southerners have to come through the Justice Department every day, they have to see a nigger in the third highest post of justice in the land.
It's a fabulous biography. It is such a tough portrait of LBJ that some have labeled it a toxic, unfair portrayal, but so far, I disagree. It's tough, but fair. LBJ was a corrupt liar. He also did more for black Americans than any president ever has, with the exception of Lincoln. Upon such paradoxes are great books built....I do recommend starting with volume one, but a political junkie like yourself would love vol 3 the best. The portrayal of the senate...priceless.
Commenting by HaloScan
