Is anybody on the Right taken aback by how much power Rush Limbaugh in fact wields within the movement? Rush seems to rely less on logic and more on infantile games (making fun of people's names, for instance), bluster, innuendo, and flat out lying. Rush never participates in fora where he (or close allies) don't get to make the rules, never participates in debates with people with whom he has more than marginal disagreements - generally never puts his ideas to the test in settings that aren't stacked in his favor. To me this isn't evidence that he's a guy who ought to be taken seriously, not on an intellectual level, certainly. Yet, even guys like Ross seem not to want to do more than just imply that maybe he gets some of his arguments wrong. Never mind that they're arguments about fundamentally important things, or that all he seems to do is demagogue (can that be a verb?) those issues. Nobody on the right really seem willing to take him on a serious way.

I don't think either of these guys really understands the degree to which Palin is unpopular outside of the Republican base. She is really, really disliked among independents and moderates. A Republican can't win the Presidency and alienate moderate independents and Reagan Democrats. She's killing the McCain campaign among, for example, upper middle class families in the Philadelphia suburbs, and elderly Jewish moderates in Florida, etc. That's going to be just as big of a problem for her as a Presidential candidate.

I take the point you are both making that the vice-presidency should not have the authority to deliver corporal punishment. But: I think the strength of Obama's appeal in this regard (or conversely, McCain's lack of appeal) is that Obama does listen to other points of view and would amend his views based on the considered input of advisers, including the vice-president. The notion that America should have an infallible president (or more to the point, that America is itself infallible) is coming out of the wrong century, guys, and it's at the heart of this conservative breakdown.

kidneystones: Part of the solution, or part of the problem? Guess what this link points to?

Quoting kidneystones: ... why Sarah Palin must seem a lot like the Anti-Christ.

Uh-huh. In earlier news:

Quoting kidneystones: ... 'fisting' and Sarah Palin.

[...]

... Sarah Palin with a bible between her thighs.

Quoting kidneystones: ... Slate placed an image of Sarah Palin with a bible between her thighs at the top of their page and linked her to an article on fisting.

Quoting kidneystones: Two weeks ago Slate had an image of Palin with a bible between her legs in a piece that included a link to women 'into fisting'.

Quoting kidneystones: They're fisting Palin at Slate right now.

Quoting kidneystones: [Subject]Fisting Palin

Then go over to Slate and check out the Palin look-a-like grinning at the reader with a large bible clasped between her legs and the story below.

Way to keep the hate alive, kid.

My, your posts are becoming more and more favorable to me Can BH have a triavlog between JG, RD, and Pinkerton? Now that would be fun. I agree with the earlier post about the limited influence of Rush. He spent days and weeks on end incessantly insulting McCain, and that didn't stop him from getting the nomination. Rush is an entertainer, not a thinker. If McCain loses (and I still hold hope that he'll win), either Bobby Jindal or David Petraeus will be the nominee in '12. Not Huckabee, not Palin. I'd prefer a Petraeus/Jindal ticket myself, though I could accept it flipped.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I'd prefer a Petraeus/Jindal ticket myself, though I could accept it flipped.

In reading this I can only wonder, what possessed you to vote for Kerry in 2004?

What, you can't see the trend there? Ok, let me lay out the candidates again: Kerry
McCain
Petraeus I think you can guess what they have in common. There are plenty of policy issues that I very much consider when choosing a candidate--trade position, tax position, foreign policy etc. Kerry ran much to the center of Obama's current stances and history. But I also look for leadership qualities. Every great president proved himself in some way by overcoming a significant obstacle in their adult lives. Usually this was in the way of military service. Moreover, see my username. I like balancing Congress and the Executive branch, because that's when government works best. I must respect the candidate to vote for him/her.

Yeeeeaaaah. Toppling the Chinese government in the name of freedom is a fantastically foolish thing to say.

Quoting AemJeff: Is anybody on the Right taken aback by how much power Rush Limbaugh in fact wields within the movement?

I agree with all you go on to say about Rush and why he should not be given so much attention by the Right's intelligentsia, but there's no getting around the reality that he commands an enormous audience who take his words as gospel. So, his arguments have to be taken into account if you're on the Right and you would rather not have your side split into two camps.

Quoting kidneystones: My point, and I will keep repeating it, is simple. Obama and his 'liberal' fans practice the same dishonest politics of attack and intimidation as George Bush for exactly the same reasons: to paper over gaping holes in his record and shift discussion away from his astonishing collection of anti-American allies, his inexperience, and his contradictory and incoherent statements on a host of issues. Perhaps I'll stick Michelle's head over Slate's image of Palin in January. Who could possibly find that offensive?

There is probably some truth in what you have written, I suppose. Yes, as pointed out earlier by Glenn Loury, Palin is the target of misogyny by various leftists, and I suspect that some of the heat that Hillary garners likewise comes from a similar motivation. Ultimately though the VP pick is not that important. McCain is trailing first and foremost, as pointed out by Joshua in his diavlog with Glenn, because he was dealt a weak hand. There just is no desire among a great amount of the US populace to continue on with the Republicanism that has been manifested so far in the 21st century. Obama, should he win, was in the right place

Take a bow gentlemen.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: What, you can't see the trend there?

Okay, I see it now. Follow-up, if you don't mind revealing personal info: Were you in the military? And if so, to what extent?

Quoting Whatfur: Take a bow gentlemen.

Nice catch.

Quoting kidneystones: The bhtv borg are clearly unhappy.

Au contraire. Delighted to mock is all. And the longer you persist in maintaining the fiction that criticism of Palin was dominated by sexism (when you seem to have exactly one datum to support this claim) or that the Obama campaign was responsible for what various online or cable yahoos might have said about Palin or Clinton, the longer I expect my delight will persist. If, on the other hand, you drop this tirade November 5th, I'll understand that you're just electioneering, albeit more coarsely than anyone you criticize.

Quoting InJapan: There is probably some truth in what you have written, I suppose. Yes, as pointed out earlier by Glenn Loury, Palin is the target of misogyny by various leftists, and I suspect that some of the heat that Hillary garners likewise comes from a similar motivation.

Ultimately though the VP pick is not that important. McCain is trailing first and foremost, as pointed out by Joshua in his diavlog with Glenn, because he was dealt a weak hand. There just is no desire among a great amount of the US populace to continue on with the Republicanism that has been manifested so far in the 21st century.

Obama, should he win, was in the right place at the right time.

Thus this diavlog... which attempts to chart the future of "conservatism." My question is this: must the Republican party be perpetually identified with "conservatives"? Certainly in the early part of the history of the GOP one could say Republicanism stood for a type of progressivism.

This diavlog did not address the hard question: how can a political party (in this case the GOP) bring together people for a common political goal, who may be quite disparate in

What a couple of morons! For some reason I watched this - I dislike Ross more than Jonah. Ross is an idiot catholic (and as someone who had 12 years of catholic school - I mean that in the worse sense). He actually believes that tripe the child molesters based in Rome toss out there and bases his entire worldview on this idiocy. Click those heels for the former Hitler jugend - Heil Ratzinger! The vice presidential role is inflated when the presidential candidate is a 72 year old cancer survivor. Sarah Palin is a dolt who is eagerly awaiting End Times, speaks in tongues and wants to cast out witches. She is anti-intellectual and anti-science like most evangelicals. She gives a speech about the need to devote more resources (in a frozen budget) to special needs kids while in the same speech criticizing fruit fly research. I guess she did not notice or no one told her that some of the most important work on autism is done using fruit flies. As Richard Wolffe of Newsweek said of this display of keen insight:
I'm going to be as restrained and measured

A fascinating discussion. I think Ross underestimates the damage Noonan, Parker, Brooks, and Frum have done to their reputations among conservatives. Joining the Liberal lynch mob against Palin was neither courageous nor helpful. People won't forget. No one was demanding they praise or gush over Palin. They could have remained noncommittal or uttered platitudes. Instead all them tried to give the MSM additional ammunition to use against her. Parker did it for the publicity and will be forgotten in a month. And Noonan with her sneering elitism has probably decided to move left in any case - no doubt to a hoped for NYT ed page position. How Palin does in the future will depend on her positions on foreign policy, immigration, trade, etc. We still don't know how many of her talking points have been dictated by the need to support McCain.

Quoting rcocean: A fascinating discussion. I think Ross underestimates the damage Noonan, Parker, Brooks, and Frum have done to their reputations among conservatives. Joining the Liberal lynch mob against Palin was neither courageous nor helpful. People won't forget. No one was demanding they praise or gush over Palin. They could have remained noncommittal or uttered platitudes. Instead all them tried to give the MSM additional ammunition to use against her.

Parker did it for the publicity and will be forgotten in a month. And Noonan with her sneering elitism has probably decided to move left in any case - no doubt to a hoped for NYT ed page position.

How Palin does in the future will depend on her positions on foreign policy, immigration, trade, etc. We still don't know how many of her talking points have been dictated by the need to support McCain.

Wow, this is what has become of so-called "conservatism." And RC apparently imagines himself as some sort of arbiter of the term, someone capable of discerning who really deserves to call themselves "conservative," and who doesn't. It's this sort of astonishing arrogance that tempts me to say you deserve to lose. I'm not entirely opposed the

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree with all you go on to say about Rush and why he should not be given so much attention by the Right's intelligentsia, but there's no getting around the reality that he commands an enormous audience who take his words as gospel. So, his arguments have to be taken into account if you're on the Right and you would rather not have your side split into two camps.

Or, at least Rush has to be genuflected to every time something like "where the conservative movement should go from here" gets debated. His brand just has too much loyalty among the populace. It's analogous to the way that Democrats always (feel they) have to go through the ritual of uttering the "we honer John McCain's service" shibboleth before they criticize him.

Quoting AemJeff: Wow, this is what has become of so-called "conservatism." And RC apparently imagines himself as some sort of arbiter of the term, someone capable of discerning who really deserves to call themselves "conservative," and who doesn't. It's this sort of astonishing arrogance that tempts me to say you deserve to lose. I'm not entirely opposed the conservative project - really I'm not. But what this post represents is a going to be a real source of schadenfreude after Tuesday - regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race, the legislature will undoubtedly reflect a complete rejection of the point of view represented here.

More than just schadenfreude, I'd say. If rc's attitude is prevalent among conservatives, it will cause practically unqualified joy among the left. Yes, it's good to have a strong opposition to keep your own side honest, but if we had the left, plus the moderates, plus most libertarians, plus those conservatives cast out for apostasy, I'm sure we'd have enough different difference voices.

Quoting AemJeff: I'll reiterate my assertion that sexism, despite KS's obsession with an illustration in Slate, is not particularly a factor for most of the opposition to Palin. The vast majority of attacks on her, particularly after the the stupid oppo frenzy that occurred just after the announcement of her candidacy, have been related to her ability to speak coherently, her religion, her record as Governor, and accusations of hypocrisy. I doubt that in the foreseeable future there will be a female candidate toward whom some sexist pushback won't be a factor, but in comparison to the attention paid to Hillary or Geraldine Ferraro, Palin's gender has not been out in the forefront.

Agreed. I'd also say that she got something back in return by virtue of her gender. Not only was hurling the "sexist!!1!" card an easy defense that blunted criticism and made many that much more hesitant to criticize her again, it also made everything she did adequately get reported in glowing terms. ("She gave a great speech at the convention! She impressed foreign leaders at the UN! She did great in the debate!") And really, there's no getting around the fact

Quoting bjkeefe: Or, at least Rush has to be genuflected to every time something like "where the conservative movement should go from here" gets debated. His brand just has too much loyalty among the populace. It's analogous to the way that Democrats always (feel they) have to go through the ritual of uttering the "we honer John McCain's service" shibboleth before they criticize him.

You're making some good points. I think there's some truth to the idea that some people really don't want to take Tush on, on the merits. It's just not a winning strategy. Having said that, I glad to see Ross bring up his set of objections.

Quoting AemJeff: You're making some good points. I think there's some truth to the idea that some people really don't want to take Tush on, on the merits. It's just not a winning strategy. Having said that, I glad to see Ross bring up his set of objections.

I share your happiness, or at least part of me does, when thinking in terms of the long-term health of the nation being aided by a robust check on liberalism spinning out of control. On the other hand, I want to see a real split between smart conservative thought and the kind of mindless bloviation that Rush represents, so that the latter can be marginalized. I think that this would also be good for the long-term health of the nation. And, as long as the US remains as powerful as it is, "nation" in both of the above instances could be replaced by "world."

Arguing that the VP isn't important so Sarah Palin is good enough is disingenuous. The VP used to be a symbolic position except in case of a tragedy... but Bush/Cheney changed that relationship entirely. And just as the idea that any incoming President will give up the powers that Bush and Co. grabbed for themselves, so it is that the VP position will never go back to being what it was. And if you need confirmation, listen again to Sarah Palin when asked about the role of the VP during the only VP debate...

I was listening to this one and thinking, "What's the deal with Jonah Goldberg? He doesn't seem to be for any kind of conservativism, just against Democrats." And just a minute later he quotes Irving Kristol, about how conservativism needs to be not against government, but against the left. This is why Goldberg is so boring.

Quoting claymisher: I was listening to this one and thinking, "What's the deal with Jonah Goldberg? He doesn't seem to be for any kind of conservativism, just against Democrats." And just a minute later he quotes Irving Kristol, about how conservativism needs to be not against government, but against the left. This is why Goldberg is so boring.

B-b-b-but he invoked the name of Edmund Burke, too!

Quoting kidneystones: Oops!

Oops is right. What a surprise. kidneystones passes along more wingnut lies. The article he links to (on a virtually unknown site) refers to:

... a Jan. 17 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle that was made public today first on the Web site newsbusters.org, which calls itself "the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias." The story later was linked on The Drudge Report.

The following was posted today on the website of the San Francisco Chronicle:

Lies, Half Truths and Contradictions: Chronicle ''Hidden'' Audio on Obama

It's not true.

But the Drudge Report, the Republican National Committee and apparently even GOP VP candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fell for completely fabricated news from a shady website called Newsbusters today suggesting the San Francisco Chronicle has ''hidden'' audio with Sen. Barack Obama regarding his statements on coal.

''Barack Obama explained his plan to the San Francisco Chronicle this year,'' she told a rally in Ohio Sunday. ''He said that sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry.''

She added, ''And you've got to listen

And speaking of black hearts, check out this just-released video of Palin stabbing McCain in the back. Wink, wink! (h/t: TJR)

Quoting kidneystones: Here's the Obama transcript, seems pretty clear to me:

We note, first, that kidneystones pulled a slimy manuver: substantially editing his post (to add the "transcript") after my response went up. (Original post time: 01:58 AM, last modification -- so far, anyway -- 03:10 AM.) We note, second, that kidneystones provides no link to the source of this alleged transcript. It appears, however, that he copied it from NewsBusters, (or some wingnut blog copying from them -- they're all foaming at the mouth over this), which does not give any link to the source for their alleged transcript. You can find a link to the audio of the full interview on the SF Chronicle's website by visiting this page, if you're interested. I'm not going to bother -- I think between kidneystones and Newsbusters, the total credibility is still zero. Challenge to kidneystones: Provide a link to your transcript source, or admit you're just, once again, passing along hearsay from your fellow wingnuts. Meanwhile, it's almost like CBS is reading kidneystones's posts:

An Obama spokesperson said that Obama’s remarks were taken out of context and pointed out that in another part of the interview, Obama said that the idea of eliminating coal plants was “an illusion.”

“The point Obama is making

Quoting bjkeefe: You can find a link to the audio of the full interview on the SF Chronicle's website by visiting this page, if you're interested. I'm not going to bother -- I think between kidneystones and Newsbusters, the total credibility is still zero.

Changed my mind. I downloaded the audio file (48:33 in length) from the above link and listened to the whole interview. It turns out that the transcript that kidneystones posted is not correct. His version has added sentences at the end that are not present in the audio file, clearly, to make what Obama did say sound worse. I have done some transcribing, from the audio file that I downloaded from the SF Chronicle's site. The section of the interview pertaining to coal starts at about 25:12.

Q: Senator, you introduced a bill promoting coal to liquid fuels and then you said you'd only support them if they emitted fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline. Now, all the scientific evidence points to coal being dirtier than pretty much anything else. So how are you going to square your support for coal with the need to fight global warming?

Obama: I've already done it. I voted against the Clear Skies bill

Quoting bjkeefe: Wingnut lies, in other words. I'm shocked, shocked.

Brendan, thanks for all the work to underscore the wingnuttery. Sadly, for the McCainiacs, this as well as Obama's aunt (asylum status) seem to be the extent of the October surprise. If only they would have started their fear campaign sooner - then they might have been trounced completely as well as bankrupted intellectually. The old fear of the dark, money grubbing, un-American, bogeyman may well have lost its effectiveness this time. Perhaps an Obama victory will further erase the potential for that type of campaign. What else will they run on? I hear that there is a new conservative movement afoot. Let them fight it out in the free marketplace of ideas. rc ocean to the rescue.

Quoting bjkeefe: B-b-b-but he invoked the name of Edmund Burke, too!

Yeah, he loves to drop those, like he got them out of The Big Bathroom Book for Conservatives.

Ok, we are pretty muchy assured that Obama is going to win. Now, what is the stock market going to do on Wednesday? Up, down, or no change. This is what I am curious about. I heard that Warren Buffett wants Obama to retain Henry Paulson at the Treasury at least for a short term. Another "headscratcher." John

The Republican party has ceded the party of Lincoln to the intolerant religious moralists, the anti-immigration xenophobes, and the frothing out the mouth free market acquisitors. It will be a marginal party in America for the next decade. 9/11 changed me from a democrat to a republican and now the McCain campaign has reversed that transformation. I see an Obama vote as a vote for unity and bipartisanship and a McCain vote as a vote for divisiveness. It is truly sad because a man like McCain could have moved the Republican party away from the Rush Limbaugh's of the world and into the 21st century, instead he appeased them. I'm one of those small "c" moderates that Rush says good riddance too-- well I say good riddance to him-- he can have his loud mouthed hate faction all to himself and he and the Colters of the world can be drowned out by the implementation of the fairness doctrine for all I care now. Obama is the better man, the better candidate, and more what America needs to move us past our post-9/11 morass.

Quoting kidneystones: Slate still has an article linking Sarah Palin to fisting and I won't shut-up about it.

Please DO NOT SHUT UP about it. Blog about it, trail it behind an airplane, buy space on the goodyear blimp. I find it hilarious. I may use it as a sig. The actual article compares Palin to Anita Bryant and I think that is quite a fair comparo. The only thing that has anything about "fisting" is a reference to a link and a link to a site called Christian Nymphos ( Oh they also mention anal sex and "masturbating for your husband", I assume all of these would be problems as well ) . The context of the article is how religious folk are using sex as a way of selling their religion the same way that christian rock uses that unholy beat of rock'n'roll to sell religiosity. If you can use the tenuous connection between Palin and fisting/anal sex/masturbation in the article as a solid link then based on that metric I can easily say that: Palin/McCain etc. call Obama a terrorist,baby killer, muslim, anti-american, anti-semite, ... since the connections McCain and Palin are making are far stronger than the one you

I take back my last post... there is hope for you after all...

As far as criticism of the right's embrace of R Limbaugh (whom I can't stand), the left is no better with their embrace of Keith Olbermann (whom I can't stand either). Unfortunately, it seems that lunatics such as Limbaugh & Olbermann are becoming more popular in America and are getting more air time. What we need more of are true moderates who are willing to criticize both the left and the right equally. Unfortunately, politics today is too competitive and no one is willing to admit mistakes; honest political commentary is a rare thing indeed.

Surprisingly (based on my preferences for candidates), no. I guess I'd never vote for myself

Quoting bookofdisquiet: The Republican party has ceded the party of Lincoln to the intolerant religious moralists, the anti-immigration xenophobes, and the frothing out the mouth free market acquisitors. It will be a marginal party in America for the next decade.

9/11 changed me from a democrat to a republican and now the McCain campaign has reversed that transformation. I see an Obama vote as a vote for unity and bipartisanship and a McCain vote as a vote for divisiveness. It is truly sad because a man like McCain could have moved the Republican party away from the Rush Limbaugh's of the world and into the 21st century, instead he appeased them. I'm one of those small "c" moderates that Rush says good riddance too-- well I say good riddance to him-- he can have his loud mouthed hate faction all to himself and he and the Colters of the world can be drowned out by the implementation of the fairness doctrine for all I care now.

Wait...you're mad at the Republicans when they avoided nominating a xenophobe and instead nominated a man who risked his political career to

I don't know if I'd say it's the competitiveness. It's the hyperpartisanship. The internet fuels that.

The best part about this thread is the added number of visitors BH will now get who Googled "Palin, anal, fisted, etc." with entirely different intentions. Although Bob probably wouldn't officially endorse this marketing strategy, more page-views is a good thing right?!

Ha! Obama wants an escalation in Afghanistan and I'm convinced (b/c of Powell's endorsement) that he's going to consolidate our gains in Iraq in a way that will maintain our geopolitical influence in the region. I think Obama can help more fully realize Bush's dream of a democratic Iraq precisely because of his opposition to the war. He has clean hands, so his negotiations there will be more effective because he can say "I didn't want this" but we got to make it work now. If Obama lets Iraq disintegrate and retreats from Afghanistan I'll be screaming for a Petraus 2012.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Ha! Obama wants an escalation in Afghanistan and I'm convinced (b/c of Powell's endorsement) that he's going to consolidate our gains in Iraq in a way that will maintain our geopolitical influence in the region. I think Obama can help more fully realize Bush's dream of a democratic Iraq precisely because of his opposition to the war. He has clean hands, so his negotiations there will be more effective because he can say "I didn't want this" but we got to make it work now.

If Obama lets Iraq disintegrate and retreats from Afghanistan I'll be screaming for a Petraus 2012.

Well, I'd love for you to be correct on that first sentence, should he get elected, but I'm not so sure. Afghanistan is a difficult situation and I have no clue what the correct strategy but I'm confident David Petraeus will find it. I'm not confident Obama will implement it. I don't see the JFK type of belief in American exceptionalism and commitment to being a positive influence in the world. I think Obama will choose retreat and weakness if it is politically expedient.

I'm scared of that as well-- but I just really don't see him shying away from the use of military force-- and I imagine that he would be much more persuasive convincing the public and the world why its necessary. He's almost the perfect follow-up to Bush in that regard because he gets to do the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan without having to make the same tough choices Bush has taken a beating for-- he can just say he didn't want this but he's obligated to clean it up now. Bush can be the fall guy now, so that history will see his monument somewhere on the mall in 100 years. (trying to fire up anti-bush crowd)

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Surprisingly (based on my preferences for candidates), no. I guess I'd never vote for myself

Heh. Thanks for letting me know. I'll not comment further.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: The Republican party has ceded the party of Lincoln to the intolerant religious moralists, the anti-immigration xenophobes, and the frothing out the mouth free market acquisitors. It will be a marginal party in America for the next decade.

9/11 changed me from a democrat to a republican and now the McCain campaign has reversed that transformation. I see an Obama vote as a vote for unity and bipartisanship and a McCain vote as a vote for divisiveness. It is truly sad because a man like McCain could have moved the Republican party away from the Rush Limbaugh's of the world and into the 21st century, instead he appeased them. I'm one of those small "c" moderates that Rush says good riddance too-- well I say good riddance to him-- he can have his loud mouthed hate faction all to himself and he and the Colters of the world can be drowned out by the implementation of the fairness doctrine for all I care now.

Obama is the better man, the better candidate, and more what America needs to move us past our post-9/11 morass.

Thanks for making that statement, books. I look forward

you mean...conservatives who aren't conservative? (no, that's not saying that conservatives aren't reasonable)

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Wait...you're mad at the Republicans when they avoided nominating a xenophobe and instead nominated a man who risked his political career to get a decent comprehensive immigration plan through? McCain's nomination is the Republican party moving toward the center; the Democrat party, conversely, is drifting left.

There is no excuse for Palin and her selection took the campaign to the right. I mean, she's personally against abortion in cases of rape or incest-- you can't get much more to the right than that. They ruined McCain--and believe me, it crushed me. He was my hero-- but I can't excuse what happened to his campaign in the last two months-- he lost me. David Brooks summed it up best here.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: How is Obama the better man? Have you investigated his political career? How he screwed over his first opponent through dirty means? How the sealed divorce records of his two opponents for the US Senate race magically got to the press?

Forgive the vitriol but I do not think Obama is the better man or even a good man or a decent man.

I know everything about him-- read both his books and all of McCains-- those shady

Quoting laurelnyc: As far as criticism of the right's embrace of R Limbaugh (whom I can't stand), the left is no better with their embrace of Keith Olbermann (whom I can't stand either). Unfortunately, it seems that lunatics such as Limbaugh & Olbermann are becoming more popular in America and are getting more air time. What we need more of are true moderates who are willing to criticize both the left and the right equally. Unfortunately, politics today is too competitive and no one is willing to admit mistakes; honest political commentary is a rare thing indeed.

I agree with the latter half of your sentiments, laurel, but not the first sentence. The difference between Rush and KO is huge. The left likes KO for serving up some red meat (or maybe candy would be the better metaphor), but there isn't a large group of lefties who take his words as gospel. They refer to his sentiments when he rants about some specific "worst person in the world," but that's about the extent of it, generally speaking. By contrast, I think Rush is the primary, or even sole, source of information for a disturbingly large group of people. I can't tell you

I'm a small "c" conservative and lower case "L" liberal. We can build bridges, but I'm still a democracy building in the middle east Bush-ite at heart. I think with Obama will finish that project and has inherent advantages in getting it done. He give the European's cover to send more troops to Afghanistan and he allows the U.N. to step up it involvement in Iraq. It's a good cop, bad cop strategy.

the dems went to the Kos convention. Your failure to see how Obie and Rush are pretty much the same is disappointing. You must have been a fan Obie on Sportscenter. I used to think he was funny, but now I can't stand him. Rush and Obie both have the sickness of self-righteousness.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: There is no excuse for Palin and her selection took the campaign to the right. I mean, she's personally against abortion in cases of rape or incest-- you can't get much more to the right than that. They ruined McCain--and believe me, it crushed me. He was my hero-- but I can't excuse what happened to his campaign in the last two months-- he lost me. David Brooks summed it up best here.

You're voting for McCain, not Palin. In the end, the running mate isn't important. Palin, by the way, vetoed a bill to deny state benefits to same sex couples. She also made sure that Republicans in the state legislature didn't cram anti-abortion measures into an energy bill she was working on with the Democrats. She has governed as a moderate. I simply can not imagine why anyone who considers themselves to be at all conservative could rationalize voting for Obama. He is the antithesis of all things conservative. He is far to the left of where the Democrats were 4 years ago. Any conservative value--smaller government, lower taxation, pro-growth policies, pro free trade--he stands against. If this were Mark Warner, I could understand your point. Heck I might even stand with

Quoting bookofdisquiet: I'm a small "c" conservative and lower case "L" liberal. We can build bridges, but I'm still a democracy building in the middle east Bush-ite at heart. I think with Obama will finish that project and has inherent advantages in getting it done. He give the European's cover to send more troops to Afghanistan and he allows the U.N. to step up it involvement in Iraq. It's a good cop, bad cop strategy.

While I see how you arrived at that conclusion, I would bet money with you on Euro troops in Afghanistan. I predict no new Euro troops, a major terrorist attack, a failed response, and worsened conditions in Afghanistan. And that's not even getting into the trouble in Colombia. It's also not considering what an Obama administration would mean for Africa. He's advised by the folks who made sure we didn't stop the Rwandan Genocide.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: I'm a small "c" conservative and lower case "L" liberal. We can build bridges, but I'm still a democracy building in the middle east Bush-ite at heart. I think with Obama will finish that project and has inherent advantages in getting it done. He give the European's cover to send more troops to Afghanistan and he allows the U.N. to step up it involvement in Iraq. It's a good cop, bad cop strategy.

I'm all for increased democracy in the Middle East, too. I prefer methods different from Bush's, of course. I don't share your views of Afghanistan, but I don't want to debate based on pure speculation at this moment -- too distracted by other things. Maybe in a few days on this topic.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm all for increased democracy in the Middle East, too.

Is there anyone who isn't in favor of increased democracy in the Middle East?

Quoting bookofdisquiet: the dems went to the Kos convention. Your failure to see how Obie and Rush are pretty much the same is disappointing. You must have been a fan Obie on Sportscenter. I used to think he was funny, but now I can't stand him. Rush and Obie both have the sickness of self-righteousness.

The Netroots are different from KO (even if he does blog on the Great Orange Satan -- he's just one of many). They represent a way to reach out to a much larger audience than KO's (or at least for a politician to check a box during the primaries), and this audience is much more diverse in its views than the attitude KO presents on TV. Never saw Sportscenter. Don't watch much TV. I hear it was good. P.S.

Your failure to see how Obie and Rush are pretty much the same is disappointing.

Your use of language to imply that your opinion is a fact is equally disappointing.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Is there anyone who isn't in favor of increased democracy in the Middle East?

Sometimes it seems necessary to state what one would think is the obvious, especially after we've suffered through months (years, really) of the GOP attempting to paint the left as against such ideas.

Hey that's one I wouldn't try to claim. Though I think some of you guys (probably not you) have Chavez fetish

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Hey that's one I wouldn't try to claim.

That the GOP hasn't played the game this way? Or that you haven't? If the latter, happy to hear it.

Though I think some of you guys (probably not you) have Chavez fetish

I'm always happy for someone who can speak constructively about the resentments that the US provokes among the rest of the world. Whether Chavez fits into this group, I don't know enough to say. From what little I've read about him, I'd say he's a run-of-the-mill faux populist, but that's not an informed opinion that I'd care to debate, in either direction.

Quoting graz: Brendan, thanks for all the work to underscore the wingnuttery.

Sadly, for the McCainiacs, this as well as Obama's aunt (asylum status) seem to be the extent of the October surprise. If only they would have started their fear campaign sooner - then they might have been trounced completely as well as bankrupted intellectually.

The old fear of the dark, money grubbing, un-American, bogeyman may well have lost its effectiveness this time. Perhaps an Obama victory will further erase the potential for that type of campaign. What else will they run on? I hear that there is a new conservative movement afoot. Let them fight it out in the free marketplace of ideas. rc ocean to the rescue.

And thanks to you, graz. It's nice to be appreciated. I hope you're right in your closing paragraph. I think Obama is the best sort of personality to help that along, but a lot will be out of his control. If he can get a couple of solid accomplishments early on, that will help. I suspect the bigger factor will be whether we see someone with lots of money go down the same road that Scaife did with the Clintons.

Quoting bjkeefe: That the GOP hasn't played the game this way? Or that you haven't? If the latter, happy to hear it.

I was speaking more for myself--yes, I'm sure a few of the jerks (eg Rush Limbaugh) out there have likely said something to the extent of, "Democrats want tyranny in the Mideast." Just as KO is always around to call Republicans Nazis.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I was speaking more for myself--yes, I'm sure a few of the jerks (eg Rush Limbaugh) out there have likely said something to the extent of, "Democrats want tyranny in the Mideast." Just as KO is always around to call Republicans Nazis.

I think you're exaggerating in your last, but I'm not interested in debating KO anymore. If that's how you see him, so be it. Well, I'll add a closing thought. To my mind, his heart is in the right place, his observations are usually in the right ballpark, at least, but I think he suffers from the perceived need to push the envelope to attract viewers. I also think he often undercuts his message with his delivery -- I find his histrionics, night after night, eat away at his sincerity. But then, I'm a "less is more" kind of guy in most every way. In the end, I like the idea of him as a counterweight to the herd of rightwing bloviators, so I guess I have to acknowledge the validity of your perception of him, even if I think he's at least quantitatively far less worse than Rush, et al.

Conservatives, educate me: I am an big L liberal who enjoys listening to smart conservatives. I am however really bothered by two aspects of this conversation: the utterly disingenuousness of continuing to maintain that the Palin choice was anything less than reckless and dangerous. And: the casual way these gentleman talk about the application of military force. They seem completely unvexed by the short and long term effects of conventional warfare.

Quoting bjkeefe: The Netroots are different from KO (even if he does blog on the Great Orange Satan -- he's just one of many). They represent a way to reach out to a much larger audience than KO's (or at least for a politician to check a box during the primaries), and this audience is much more diverse in its views than the attitude KO presents on TV.

Never saw Sportscenter. Don't watch much TV. I hear it was good.

P.S.

Your use of language to imply that your opinion is a fact is equally disappointing.

Touché. But Obie and the netroots are easily the equivalents of Rush and conservative radio. They may just make Rush's influence obsolete and secondary. Not to mention, MSNBC programming shift was directly related to capturing the netroots crowd.

This was fun. Like watching two dinosaurs argue over the typology of rogue celestial objects.

Quoting bjkeefe: I hope you're right in your closing paragraph. I think Obama is the best sort of personality to help that along, but a lot will be out of his control. If he can get a couple of solid accomplishments early on, that will help.

I suspect the bigger factor will be whether we see someone with lots of money go down the same road that Scaife did with the Clintons.

In a lot of ways I think Obama is as good as a candidate can be. With all has going for him going into it, his temperament, his generosity of spirit, his intelligence, if he fails with all that I think America needs to ask itself if the Presidency is even possible anymore. Bush certainly hasn't made it look like good system. As for the noise machine, you gotta hope it's just going to play itself out sooner or later. They've been crying wolf for a long time now. I was heartened to see recently that Drudge is losing his influence on the tradmed. I'm sure the wingnuts will always be going on about black helicopters and whatnot, but maybe soon we can go back to ignoring them.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Touché. But Obie and the netroots are easily the equivalents of Rush and conservative radio. They may just make Rush's influence obsolete and secondary. Not to mention, MSNBC programming shift was directly related to capturing the netroots crowd.

As I just got finished saying to cog.mad., I can see your point of view, even if I still think a difference exists between KO and Rush. I reject out of hand that the top lefty blogs are anywhere near as bad as Rush, especially in the truth and hatred-of-others departments. Of course, there's no way to settle this, so I'm just saying it for the record. I grant that moonbats can be just as bad as wingnuts if you visit below the A- and B-list bloggers. I think MSNBC made a business decision -- getting aboard a train that was already picking up steam -- rather than being any sort of prime movers.

Quoting squidlocke: Conservatives, educate me: I am an big L liberal who enjoys listening to smart conservatives. I am however really bothered by two aspects of this conversation: the utterly disingenuousness of continuing to maintain that the Palin choice was anything less than reckless and dangerous. And: the casual way these gentleman talk about the application of military force. They seem completely unvexed by the short and long term effects of conventional warfare.

I do not understand what is reckless and dangerous about Palin that is not reckless and dangerous about Obama. He's never been south of the border and he's completely deluded about South America. And, for military force, McCain is not going to run around starting wars. He spent 5 years in a Vietnamese prison cell, and like Sun Tzu, he understands the cost of war. He is telling the truth when he says that he hates war. Those who tend to be reckless with force tend to be inexperienced in combat. Like Bush. Like Obama.

OK, I can accept that KO, during his occasional special comment segments, can rise to the level of spittle that you get from Limbaugh daily. But there two huge differences. KO doesn't 1) make shit up
2) follow orders from the noise machine There's no equivalency. When Olbermann talks about how McCain might be a Vietnamese spy every day for two months, then we can talk.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You're voting for McCain, not Palin. In the end, the running mate isn't important. Palin, by the way, vetoed a bill to deny state benefits to same sex couples. She also made sure that Republicans in the state legislature didn't cram anti-abortion measures into an energy bill she was working on with the Democrats. She has governed as a moderate.

I know what she did in Alaska-- I also know that when she got a national microphone she told Katie Couric what her preferences were-- which excited the hell out of the evangelicals. Besides the obvious (if not overdone) reasons why a V.P. is important in relation to McCain's age and health there is another reason. A VP choice like her is a statement about the party's future. It says to the evangelicals, McCain is a moderate and you might not like him, but look who he gave you for our future. The next thing you know she's out in California raising money to make gay-marriage unconstitutional. This is identity politics at its worst.
I never liked it when Bush did it, but I put up with it b/c a Kerry win would have meant defeat in Iraq.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I simply

(see Claymisher's response if you want the much shorter version of the following. Well said, Clay) I liked KO at first (both on SC and MSNBC) but now his pomposity annoys me even when I agree with him. I think he does a good job of bringing up stories that the MSM aren't covering, and his less-political content is usually very entertaining. Fact is, the right loves to throw out a lot of statements that are not only incendiary or offensive but flat-out false. For years, there was nobody on MSM channels that provided any retort. KO is often overblown in his responses, but I'm glad that he was gutsy enough to stand up and call-out GOP bullshit and at least give the public some things to think about. I think Maddow does with much more smarts and style, but KO paved the way for her. I will say that I think Brendan is right that KO's influence is not as large among liberal's as Rush is among conservatives. Even though many of my liberal friends watch KO, none of us use him as a first-order reference when we're discussing an issue. But I have known several people who believe everything they

Samantha Powers is a genocide hawk. She advises him.

Quoting kidneystones: * The original SF story omits any mention of Barack's promise to BANKRUPT any company that builds a coal plant. Hard to believe, huh.

Not really. If you look at the part of the interview that I transcribed, or better yet, listen to the whole interview, you'll see how the word "bankrupt" was nothing more than a rhetorical flourish in the context of what was being discussed. Further, Obama did not say "he" would bankrupt a company -- it's clear that he's saying market forces would, assuming cap and trade policies are implemented. It's also worth pointing out that in January, when the interview took place, other topics were more at the forefront, and that every write-up of an interview picks and chooses what to focus on among all of the questions asked. Kudos to the SFC for posting the audio and leaving it up from the day they recorded it onward. Ideally, they would have offered a printed transcript, too, but if you think the Clinton, and later, McCain people didn't listen to that audio file over and over again, you're even farther out of touch with reality than I thought. By the way, what's the deal with continuing to edit your

Quoting claymisher: OK, I can accept that KO, during his occasional special comment segments, can rise to the level of spittle that you get from Limbaugh daily. But there two huge differences. KO doesn't

1) make shit up
2) follow orders from the noise machine

There's no equivalency. When Olbermann talks about how McCain might be a Vietnamese spy every day for two months, then we can talk.

Well put, especially that last line. Vivid and concrete example, and it has the added advantage of being true.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: I know what she did in Alaska-- I also know that when she got a national microphone she told Katie Couric what her preferences were-- which excited the hell out of the evangelicals.

Well, I guess I'm like the Obama supporters saying 'ignore a bit of the rhetoric and look at other stuff.' Actually in this regard I'm the opposite of the Obama supporters--they say listen to the rhetoric and ignore the actions. I say look at the actions and ignore the rhetoric. I think that Palin at her core is very socially conservative, but is a pragmatist. If she weren't a pragmatist, she wouldn't have vetoed that worthless bill.

Besides the obvious (if not overdone) reasons why a V.P. is important in relation to McCain's age and health there is another reason. A VP choice like her is a statement about the party's future. It says to the evangelicals, McCain is a moderate and you might not like him, but look who he gave you for our future. The next thing you know she's out in California raising money to make gay-marriage unconstitutional. This is identity politics at its worst.
I never liked it when Bush did

Quoting claymisher: In a lot of ways I think Obama is as good as a candidate can be. With all has going for him going into it, his temperament, his generosity of spirit, his intelligence, if he fails with all that I think America needs to ask itself if the Presidency is even possible anymore.

Ouch. But yeah, hard to argue with that.

As for the noise machine, you gotta hope it's just going to play itself out sooner or later. They've been crying wolf for a long time now. I was heartened to see recently that Drudge is losing his influence on the tradmed. I'm sure the wingnuts will always be going on about black helicopters and whatnot, but maybe soon we can go back to ignoring them.

Yes, that (part I bolded) has been a real source of delight to me, too. A sign of sanity breaking out. It's been especially funny to see how pathetic Drudge has been down the stretch (e.g.). He's sunk to the level of the wingnutosphere in his election coverage -- sheer propaganda, just putting up shiny objects with no sign of critical thinking.

I've edited my share of comments after I've posted them. I generally hesitate to do so after somebody's replied, even in the - not nearly rare enough - instances in which a second read seems somewhat incoherent. If I thought somebody was habitually editing their posts substantively after my replies - I'd start quoting them in full - just to make sure what I was replying to was properly documented.

Quoting claymisher: In a lot of ways I think Obama is as good as a candidate can be. With all has going for him going into it, his temperament, his generosity of spirit, his intelligence, if he fails with all that I think America needs to ask itself if the Presidency is even possible anymore. Bush certainly hasn't made it look like good system.

Obama is intelligent, yes. Many of our most intelligent presidents have been failures. Washington and both Roosevelts, on the other hand, weren't particularly brilliant. I've read too many accounts from legit sources about Obama's bad temper to believe the temperament angle. This is the man who called a reporter in the middle of the night to scream at him for a story the guy wrote. A man who cornered another Senator and shouted at him with aggressive hand gestures. Who had to be physically restrained from attacking a fellow state senator. Barack Obama is a hothead. Check his short fuse on the campaign trail. Generosity of spirit...what do you mean? Certainly not financial generosity, at least with his money. Until 2 years ago, virtually the only charity he gave to was Jeremiah Wright's. He is petty

A nitpick. This is beneath you, cog.:

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I know that a lot of people worry about McCain's health, but I see little reason to. He's released his health records, Obama hasn't. He is very healthy. Obama smoked, heavily, for 30 years. I'd love to know what the inside of Obama's lungs looks like. McCain is going to hold up a long time.

You know, or should know, that McCain's "release" was hardly that. After several unexplained delays in their promise to release his records , his campaign suddenly threw together an event, at which reporters of their choosing were invited to a room where they had 3000 pages (IIRC) of documents dumped on them. Notably excluded: Lawrence K. Altman. Those who did get invited were not allowed to take or copy anything, and they had only a few hours to look at them. Your "smoked heavily for 30 years" is also an exaggeration. Also, Obama did have his doctor release a statement attesting to his health. Could have given more, I grant, but there's a world of difference between a 44-year-old and a 72-year-old who's had cancer numerous times. Final thought: after promising on national TV and elsewhere that she'd be releasing her medical records, Palin never has. Not even a letter from her

Quoting bjkeefe: You know, or should know, that McCain's "release" was hardly that. After several unexplained delays in their promise to release his records , his campaign suddenly threw together an event, at which reporters of their choosing were invited to a room where they had 3000 pages (IIRC) of documents dumped on them. Notably excluded: Lawrence K. Altman. Those who did get invited were not allowed to take or copy anything, and they had only a few hours to look at them.

And, in those 3 hours, they confirmed that McCain is in excellent health.

Your "smoked heavily for 30 years" is also an exaggeration. Also, Obama did have his doctor release a statement attesting to his health. Could have given more, I grant, but there's a world of difference between a 44-year-old and a 72-year-old who's had cancer numerous times.

Obama released a 267 word statement. That's it. 'Smoked heavily' may be an exaggeration, but he smoked, regularly, for 30 years. He probably still does. For several of those years, that included marijuana, which has more carcinogens. We don't know what his health is like, and I really want to know. You should too. You can complain about the framework of McCain's release, but he released 3000 more pages than Obama.

Final thought: after promising on national TV and

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Obama is intelligent, yes. Many of our most intelligent presidents have been failures. Washington and both Roosevelts, on the other hand, weren't particularly brilliant.

I've read too many accounts from legit sources about Obama's bad temper to believe the temperament angle. This is the man who called a reporter in the middle of the night to scream at him for a story the guy wrote. A man who cornered another Senator and shouted at him with aggressive hand gestures. Who had to be physically restrained from attacking a fellow state senator.

Barack Obama is a hothead. Check his short fuse on the campaign trail.

Generosity of spirit...what do you mean? Certainly not financial generosity, at least with his money. Until 2 years ago, virtually the only charity he gave to was Jeremiah Wright's. He is petty and bitter--see: casting off newspapers that didn't endorse him.

Yeah, you found every bad thing about Obama ever. He lost his temper a handful of times. Yeesh. When your point his that weak, don't hit 'submit'. Seriously, you have to make better points. You gotta get better at this.

Would you care to elaborate on what precisely your shallow encomiums actually were getting at? I'm assuming that by ignoring my point about intelligence, you're conceding it. You also simply chose to dismiss the proof that Obama is a hothead who is very, very hostile to not getting his way.

Quoting AemJeff: I've edited my share of comments after I've posted them. I generally hesitate to do so after somebody's replied, even in the - not nearly rare enough - instances in which a second read seems somewhat incoherent. If I thought somebody was habitually editing their posts substantively after my replies - I'd start quoting them in full - just to make sure what I was replying to was properly documented.

I think it's fine to edit a post after the fact, especially to fix typos or for clarity. I also think there's no compelling reason to make a big deal out of making larger edits at a later time, if no one has yet responded, although I usually do throw in an "[Added]" if I feel like enough time has gone by that the original has likely already been read by others. I think that if one does substantially modify one's post after a response has been put up, the "reason for editing" field should be used, at minimum. Better, a note should be added in the original post to make it clear what happened. (I'm talking beyond wordsmithing here, obvs.) I'm sure kidneystones will now claim that his asterisk

Quoting cognitive madisonian: And, in those 3 hours, they confirmed that McCain is in excellent health.

3000 pages in 3 hours? A more accurate summary would be: "They found no evidence of ill health in the limited time available." Come on. This drown-'em-in-paper tactic is as old as cheap xerography. There's no way you'd be singing the same tune if you didn't prefer McCain. As to the rest of what you go on to say: When the stupid starts, I stop. You're starting to act the way you did on your first day here, and I don't see why. You have a lot of valuable thoughts to share. Why waste time posting wingnuttery? ttyl.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Barack Obama is a hothead. Check his short fuse on the campaign trail.

Honkie, please.

I don't see wanting a candidate to reveal health records as wingnuttery...

Quoting cognitive madisonian: I don't see wanting a candidate to reveal health records as wingnuttery...

I was talking about your insistence that Obama is still a heavy smoker, the nonsense about his pot consumption, the implicit denial that Palin hasn't kept her word, and like that. I'm going to let you cool down for a while before I respond to anything else you have to say.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Your politics are interesting (have you taken a compass quiz?), but why in the world do you think that a Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat President will combine for openness and accountability? That just doesn't happen, it's not part of organizational behavior. If you want accountability, split the Congress and the White House. Want corruption, incompetence, and wasteful spending? Put all Democrats in. Or all Republicans--it doesn't matter. Divided government works best.

I generally agree that part of Reagan and Clintons successes were because of a divided government. I think Obama is a transformative leader-- he's not going to play party politics anymore because he doesn't have too-- he's the president. The Tom DeLay school of crush the otherside is over. Obama will have Republican cabinet members. You should really listen to the SF Chronicle sound-bite on Obama and listen to him explain how he's going to make policy in the open and accountability. It's very thoughtful. here's the link.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: If the spenders don't have jobs because their employers are taxed more, and thus laying people off, and our putative corporate tax rate discourages new and novel investment, then you're just putting a bandaid on a festering wound, while

Quoting cognitive madisonian: Obama released a 267 word statement. That's it. 'Smoked heavily' may be an exaggeration, but he smoked, regularly, for 30 years. He probably still does. For several of those years, that included marijuana, which has more carcinogens. We don't know what his health is like, and I really want to know. You should too. You can complain about the framework of McCain's release, but he released 3000 more pages than Obama.

Actually, Obama still smokes. He admitted during the primary that he began smoking again. I doubt that he's miraculously quit since then. I truly don't think Obama handles stress as well as McCain does. Perhaps it's just me, but Obama looks far more exhausted all the time and McCain always looks perky to me. I noticed Obama looking more exhausted during the primary and he's always complaining about the stress of the campaign. Duh...running for POTUS is stressful! I think that's why he started smoking again. But yes, McCain's age of 72 is a rational cause of concern for some, however, I'm not too worried about it. He seems far healthier than most and if he takes after his mom, he'll be around for quite some time. I do wonder why Obama was only willing to issue a doctor's note. For someone who

Rush's influence is overstated by himself, his followers, and his detractors.

Quoting bjkeefe: I was talking about your insistence that Obama is still a heavy smoker, the nonsense about his pot consumption, the implicit denial that Palin hasn't kept her word, and like that.

Oh I don't think he's still a heavy smoker, no. But I think he still puffs from time to time. And no I don't mean to suggest marijuana by my choice of verb. I'm a fairly adamant anti-smoking person, so don't think it's just politics. I'm very anal about being around cigarette smoke, let alone actually smoking. Mitt Romney's health standards + Mike Huckabee's oratory + John McCain's positions and experience would make for the perfect politician for me.

Quoting Lyle: Rush's influence is overstated by himself, his followers, and his detractors.

Heh. Nice. Strictly speaking, I agree. But that doesn't mean he still doesn't have a lot.

To answer your first part: Colin Powell's endorsement while problematic on some levels I would think would be an acceptable counter to your assertion. While yes Obama is relatively inexperienced, I don't think it is reasonable to say Palin's accomplishments (while somewhat laudable) are anywhere on par w/Obama's. On a more personal level having read "Dreams from my Father" I have a sense of Obama as an active dynamic thinker who would grow in the the position by virtue of his abilities. JFK and his skillful handling of the Cuba crisis is an anologue for me. Needless to say i do not get this impression of Palin. As for the "never south of the Border" comment you will not convince me with rehashing Mccain's debate soundbites.

Quoting laurelnyc: ... and McCain always looks perky to me.

Indeed. Indeed.

Quoting squidlocke: To answer your first part: Colin Powell's endorsement while problematic on some levels I would think would be an acceptable counter to your assertion.

I deeply respect Powell for his fine military service, but this endorsement is sheer identity politics. This is a guy who sat through the swiftboating of John Kerry and supported Bush. Now he supports Obama, when it was politically safe, because of identity politics. Very disappointing from an honorable and courageous person.

While yes Obama is relatively inexperienced, I don't think it is reasonable to say Palin's accomplishments (while somewhat laudable) are anywhere on par w/Obama's. On a more personal level having read "Dreams from my Father" I have a sense of Obama as an active dynamic thinker who would grow in the the position by virtue of his abilities. JFK and his skillful handling of the Cuba crisis is an anologue for me. Needless to say i do not get this impression of Palin.

Well, I get that impression from neither, tbh. I get it from McCain. Forgiving that Kennedy first had to learn from the disaster of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, let's consider what likely permitted Kenndy's judgment: I'd say it wasn't

Since this is the first election that I've really followed, I'm curious as to whether people have made such a big deal about the health of presidential candidates. I realize that McCain being 72 was a reason for this election, but I'm curious whether all candidates have been expected to release their health records. Also, what do people think of candidates having to release DNA records in the future? I was reading an article recently (perhaps WSJ) that said it was very likely that this issue will become more prominent in the future, perhaps as early as 2012. It said that although health records can be controlled by the candidates, DNA evidence (eg. strand of hair) can always be retrieved and the results will get out to the public, whether the candidate wants it to or not. I am a bit disturbed by this. It's reasonable to want a leader in top health, but I do believe that by expecting perfection, we might reject many extraordinary leaders.

Quoting laurelnyc: Since this is the first election that I've really followed, I'm curious as to whether people have made such a big deal about the health of presidential candidates. I realize that McCain being 72 was a reason for this election, but I'm curious whether all candidates have been expected to release their health records.

Also, what do people think of candidates having to release DNA records in the future? I was reading an article recently (perhaps WSJ) that said it was very likely that this issue will become more prominent in the future, perhaps as early as 2012. It said that although health records can be controlled by the candidates, DNA evidence (eg. strand of hair) can always be retrieved and the results will get out to the public, whether the candidate wants it to or not.

I am a bit disturbed by this. It's reasonable to want a leader in top health, but I do believe that by expecting perfection, we might reject many extraordinary leaders.

Imagine if we had known all of JFK's health issues. or Ike's. Or FDR's(!). There's certainly a point to be made there. Yes, I do think we make too much of it. And, the idea of

Quoting laurelnyc: Since this is the first election that I've really followed, I'm curious as to whether people have made such a big deal about the health of presidential candidates. I realize that McCain being 72 was a reason for this election, but I'm curious whether all candidates have been expected to release their health records.

I think there was a kerfuffle about Reagan. I know that after Tsongas, many people became more concerned about this issue. Ditto recent revelations about JFK.

Also, what do people think of candidates having to release DNA records in the future? I was reading an article recently (perhaps WSJ) that said it was very likely that this issue will become more prominent in the future, perhaps as early as 2012. It said that although health records can be controlled by the candidates, DNA evidence (eg. strand of hair) can always be retrieved and the results will get out to the public, whether the candidate wants it to or not.

I am a bit disturbed by this. It's reasonable to want a leader in top health, but I do believe that by expecting perfection, we might reject many extraordinary leaders.

Good points, especially your closing thought.

I don't think I will change your mind on Obama As for your stand on McCain's abilities and experience, I will give you that, up to a point. I do find your dismissal of the Powell endorsement as "identity politics" as, frankly, ugly (The only other place I heard that garbage was from Rush Limbaugh). I always thought the choice of Bush over McCain in 2000 showed the ethical bankruptcy of the GOP. I could have been comfortable with a McCain Presidency this time around until the Palin pick, and the xenophobic rhetoric that has marked their campaign since then.

Quoting squidlocke: I don't think I will change your mind on Obama As for your stand on McCain's abilities and experience, I will give you that, up to a point. I do find your dismissal of the Powell endorsement as "identity politics" as, frankly, ugly (The only other place I heard that garbage was from Rush Limbaugh). I always thought the choice of Bush over McCain in 2000 showed the ethical bankruptcy of the GOP. I could have been comfortable with a McCain Presidency this time around until the Palin pick, and the xenophobic rhetoric that has marked their campaign since then.

I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible about Powell, because I do respect the man, but let's not pretend it's otherwise. His claims about senior level republicans suggesting Obama is a Muslim are absurd, and the justification that he's supporting Obama because of the tenor of the campaign when he supported Bush through the swiftboating is equally absurd. Is it ugly? Yes, it's ugly that a respectable man is putting race identification first. What xenophobia do you speak of?

What xenophobia? You're kidding right?
Anyway, I didn't care to rehash this campaign, I already voted, if it goes like it looks like it will do me a favor, don't abandon your principles but accept that the majority of voters have handed your party a refutation. Learn and move on, accept that Obama is your President and lets continue to do our job as citizens by staying informed and conducting ourselves as decent people.

Quoting squidlocke: What xenophobia? You're kidding right?

No, I'm not. Want to talk xenophobia? Look at Obama's ad condemning McCain for driving foreign cars. Look at his anti-Chinese ad, and his general anti-trade rhetoric. Listen to the rhetoric about "building in Iraq when we could be spending that money here."

I had a lot of reactions as I listened to this but they are all really the same reaction: these guys have absolutely no clue how fucked conservatism and the GOP really are. The telling point to me is the scorn that they both heap upon George W. Bush for having the gall to run for president in such a way that people might vote for him -- this condescension towards the "compassionate conservatism" that did allow GWB come within half a million votes of Al Gore nationwide -- without it, he would have finished ten million votes behind! They betray no recognition that their hero, Ronald Reagan, was both genuinely popular and genuinely pragmatic in a way both of them and Rush Limbaugh too would ridicule today. Bush was commonly believed by his own voters to hold what any ordinary analyst would have to categorize as liberal views, on the International Court, on carbon emissions, on Social Security -- let's face it, even on a good day Bush could only win if a solid third of his own voters vaguely thought he would behave like Bill Clinton! For years now, Dems

I think Jonah Goldberg is basically right and Ross Douthat is wasting his time. When was the last time an idea trickled down from the conservative intelligentsia to the Republicans in Congress? I mean, aside from invading Iraq? All of the energy in American conservativism is about hating the left. Goldberg wins.

Quoting bjkeefe: Final thought: after promising on national TV and elsewhere that she'd be releasing her medical records, Palin never has. Not even a letter from her doctor.

Update: ROFLMAO!

Election Eve Info "Dump"

It's fitting that the McCain-Palin campaign ends with a couple of politically motivated pretend nods to transparency.

First Sarah Palin's own personnel board released a report earlier this evening clearing her in the Trooper-Gate investigation. Nice timing.

Now Palin has released a letter from her personal physician proclaiming her to be in good health and fit to serve -- instead of releasing her medical records, which she'd promised to do days ago.

They see fit to do this on the night before the election?

I'll tell you what's transparent: She is so transparently thinking 2012! it's embarrassing.

Quickly! Name seven fathers of modern conservative thought!! If you can do that I'll take you seriously.

Quoting GenerationPatriot: Quickly! Name seven fathers of modern conservative thought!!

If you can do that I'll take you seriously.

we should pm you so everybody doesn't have the same answer!

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, he loves to drop those, like he got them out of The Big Bathroom Book for Conservatives.

I think some of the things he says don't mean what he thinks they mean, either. I was thinking that this time when he said "Aristotelian"; I have never heard Aristotle's philosophy used to refer to "put things into categories" or whatever explanation he was trying to give. I would like to see Goldberg matched with Christopher Hitchens, who I believe would be least likely to allow him to get away with that crap.

Although I'm a liberal, I agree with some of the sentiment here that the country needs an opposition, that the rebuilding of the GOP is something worthwhile and necessary to balance the extremes of the left, and that one-party rule over time is dangerous. I like to hang out also on Rod Dreher's Cruncy Con blog. Rod's heart is in the right place--he wants a principled conservatism which avoids extremism. I've been thinking of posting some of my thoughts there about what conservatives need to do to rebuild. However, I've decided I don't want to help them rebuild. As much as I do value the project, now's not the time. I'm going to keep silent. I believe very strongly that there are really good people on the right, people of character, principle, and love, but as for the movement as a whole, I say let them stay in their echo chamber as long as possible. The longer they can maintain their delusions, the more they will expose their extremism and sickness, and the more thoroughly their insanities will be rejected by the American people. There are a lot of reasons the election has swung in Obama's direction, but primary

Quoting bookofdisquiet: I'm scared of that as well-- but I just really don't see him shying away from the use of military force-- and I imagine that he would be much more persuasive convincing the public and the world why its necessary. He's almost the perfect follow-up to Bush in that regard because he gets to do the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan without having to make the same tough choices Bush has taken a beating for-- he can just say he didn't want this but he's obligated to clean it up now. Bush can be the fall guy now, so that history will see his monument somewhere on the mall in 100 years. (trying to fire up anti-bush crowd)

Or maybe... just maybe, he can find smart new, high tech ways of dealing with foreign policy issues, with scorched earth at a $1000 a square foot being a LAST resort, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars. The smart use of advisers and intelligence, the smart use of sanctions, allies, and high tech weaponry, the ability to negotiate smartly, and above all, the ability to put the interests of the American people, and the people

Bush wasn't dumb-- and the military adjusted to combat circumstances (IEDs) well considering the nature of the weapons used against them regardless of your Monday morning quarterbacking. The military also developed a top-secret weapon that apparently gives them a technological advantage fighting an insurgency and a new counterinsurgency strategy. I imagine Obama will do well to continue with this strategy model in his planned escalation in Afghanistan. I shouldn't even bother to mention the billions of dollars and good will Bush has fostered in Africa in order to insulate those populations from militant Islamists because you're obviously too dense to have this kind of discussion. Under Powell, Bush used USAID to implement the government's development objectives through public/private alliances under a program called the Global Development Alliance. The military is digging water wells and providing health clinics in villages in Africa as we speak. The military and their intelligence people (including RAND Corp.)are game planning this struggle for the next 100 years. Bush abandoned the realist view that accepts stability over freedom and tied America to scurrilous tyrannical allies. He has in essence declared war on

Quoting bookofdisquiet: Bush wasn't dumb-- and the military adjusted to combat circumstances (IEDs) well considering the nature of the weapons used against them regardless of your Monday morning quarterbacking. The military also developed a top-secret weapon that apparently gives them a technological advantage fighting an insurgency and a new counterinsurgency strategy. I imagine Obama will do well to continue with this strategy model in his planned escalation in Afghanistan.

You are right, this was done by the military to clean up Bush's mess.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: I shouldn't even bother to mention the billions of dollars and good will Bush has fostered in Africa in order to insulate those populations from militant Islamists because you're obviously too dense to have this kind of discussion. Under Powell, Bush used USAID to implement the government's development objectives through public/private alliances under a program called the Global Development Alliance. The military is digging water wells and providing health clinics in villages in Africa as we speak. The military and their intelligence people (including RAND Corp.)are game planning this struggle for the next 100 years. Bush abandoned the realist view that accepts stability over freedom and

Honestly, people like you are what's wrong with this country-- you are a thoughtless vilifier -- you're the same as the Ann Coulters of the world and you don't even recognize it. Perhaps a few words from our president-elect from Audacity of Hope: .... And yet publicly it's difficult to find much soul-searching or introspection on either side of the divide, or even the slightest admission of responsibility for the gridlock. What we hear instead, not only in campaigns but on editorial pages, on bookstands, or in the ever-expanding blog universe, are deflections of criticism and assignments of blame. Depending on your tastes, our condition is the natural result of radical conservatism or perverse liberalism, Tom Delay or Nancy Pelosi, big oil or greedy trial lawyers, religious zealots or gay activists, Fox News or the New York Times. How well these stories are told, the subtlety of the arguments and the quality of the evidence, will very by author, and I won't deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact. In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right

Oh yea, I forgot unscrupulous and unethical. And I don't idolize anybody.
Obama is smart, Bush is a moron.
Maybe you didn't go to school with these rich kids like I did (as a middle class kid), they were hard drinking jocks and frat boys with no respect for anyone, most inherited their dads businesses, tried to outdo their more capable fathers and most of them squandered their legacies in record time.
Spoiled rotten, arrogant, entitled, and totally ungrateful. Take a look at what happened to Clinton's surplus, and the open market, and every other aspect of American life, and wake up.

You might want to get a handle, Handle. All the problems you preach about, the surplus, the market, etc., etc. -- you might want to think about who really caused all that -- Clinton signed and passed Glass/Stegall and the artificially low interest rate was a product of the post 9/11 stimulus. The economy was headed into a steep recession b/c everyone was sh*tting their pants. I have no interest in continuing this with you-- you're not interested in debate-- your just a loud mouth know nothing who should take their bile to Daily Kos.

Quoting bookofdisquiet: You might want to get a handle, Handle. All the problems you preach about, the surplus, the market, etc., etc. -- you might want to think about who really caused all that -- Clinton signed and passed Glass/Stegall and the artificially low interest rate was a product of the post 9/11 stimulus. The economy was headed into a steep recession b/c everyone was sh*tting their pants.

You are right, it started with Clinton, but what did Bush do about it in 8 years? Put more foxes in the hen house, his current economic adviser was a former head of Goldman Sachs. Who did they consult on energy policy early on? Kenny "rolling blackout" Lay, from you guessed it... Enron! Stupid!
How is it the guy is president for 8 disastrous years, 73% of everybody thinks he's the worst ever and you won't admit he's responsible for anything that happened on his watch?

Quoting bookofdisquiet: I have no interest in continuing this with you-- you're not interested in debate-- your just a loud mouth know nothing who should take their bile to Daily Kos.

You never wanted to debate, all you ever seem to do is take the most unbending deluded ideological stance on Iraq and

wow, get a handle, Handle. You must listen to Alex Jones-- no 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Your right, it's all Bush's (the man who got 62 million votes in the last election) fault. Your vitriol is as juvenile as is your argument. I wonder what Lincoln's approval rating would have been after he suspended habeas corpus and went to war with an oppressive slave holder society? I wonder what FDR's approval rating would have been if he declared war on Germany (as he should have) prior to Pearl Harbor? If approval ratings show anything, it's how utterly thoughtless and infantile the American public can be. The financial crisis? I doubt you could tell me what CDOs and CDSs are, let alone how the markets for those instruments work apart from what you read on Wikipedia. What's your opinion on banks using SIVs? And to blame Bush for 9/11 is outrageous--of course he was responsible for keeping George Tennett (a Clinton appointee) at the CIA and his incompetence could have contributed. Maybe you ought to blame 9/11 on the right person-- Osama Bin Laden-- and the 20,000 or so terrorists that we've been killing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, Clinton had a

buh bye!

sure you didn't

This is about you getting the last word? You are amazing. Go for it!

you can have the last word -- your ignorance speaks for itself

Oh NOOO, handle!! Is this turning into a habit? Let me guess...those "frat boys" didn't let Rudolph play in any fratboy games? Just how (or maybe more importantly, why?) did you keep track of all these guys and the supposed, future destruction of their Daddy's businesses? Things are becoming very clear. When did you discover that the hard drinking jocks and frat boys were not laughing with you but at you? Was it when they tied you up drunk and naked and left you in the elevator of one of the women's dorms having taken turns writing quips and drawing cartoons on your body with a permanent maker? You know like "insert quarter here -----> ( | )" In any case, let it go handle....let it go. Just remember what your Mommy said "you arn't different sweetie...just special".

LOL!!!!!!

They were my friends, I played football with them, and we drank copious amounts of beer and other things together, and I still keep in touch. I now live in the upper white trash neighborhood their parents raised them in, so I ask them how the kids are doing..
Post drug and alcohol damage (al la bush) I wouldn't want any of us running the country, let alone our daddies car dealership.
But, like Bush, if you take it too far, you end up not knowing what the hell you are doing and actually become proud of your brain damage, but that never happened to you... did it?
What happened see, was I was choking on a pretzel....

Sorry book, but once you are on my no-read list, you are on it, and there’s no way off, due to the fact that I’m not reading your posts. Not because of your faux outrage or disagreement, but because it’s apparent to me that you do not read mine very carefully, so I return the favor in the extreme. I just wanted to apologize to the other posters and readers here and make an excuse for myself, as I have not been firing on all cylinders, following a bout with the latest mutation of the Asian flu (off the subject: I would be all for an international effort to get the Chinese and others to stop keeping pigs and ducks together… google Pigs ducks and flu if you don’t get this irrelevant-to-my-post rant).
The apology centers around my observation of the post Palin candidacy negatives now coming out. While watching the less than flattering news stories on channel after channel, it suddenly occurred to me that the real, fact based Bush bashing will not be stylish until after 1/20/2009, so I have clearly jumped the gun here.
Another significant source of my regret

Wait a minute! you were too chicken to reply to the actual thread, huh tough guy? You were hoping I wouldn't even see this because I always embarrass you in our exchanges and then you have to take a mental health break. (how's that workin for ya'?) Don't fret, I'm tired of you and I wont hurt you anymore.
Plus, remember when I told you you were going out of style? Bye!

One more thing and I'm done... promise!
Why don't you tell your new friend Book what the frat boys did to the Vietnamese-Americans back in the day? I bet he already knows... Magic markers probably would have been a relief.

It breaks my heart.

Quoting handle: Sorry book, but once you are on my no-read list, you are on it, and there’s no way off, due to the fact that I’m not reading your posts. Not because of your faux outrage or disagreement, but because it’s apparent to me that you do not read mine very carefully, so I return the favor in the extreme.

I just wanted to apologize to the other posters and readers here and make an excuse for myself, as I have not been firing on all cylinders, following a bout with the latest mutation of the Asian flu (off the subject: I would be all for an international effort to get the Chinese and others to stop keeping pigs and ducks together… google Pigs ducks and flu if you don’t get this irrelevant-to-my-post rant).
The apology centers around my observation of the post Palin candidacy negatives now coming out. While watching the less than flattering news stories on channel after channel, it suddenly occurred to me that the real, fact based Bush bashing will not be stylish until after 10/20/2009, so I have clearly jumped the gun here.
Another significant source of my regret

Quoting cognitive madisonian: You really don't know what a disgraceful presidency is like. Nor do you know what a very dark chapter in history is like.

You may be right, but now I know what a post from a real deep thinker looks like.

YOU ARE BANISHED TO THE NO READ LIST!!!! FOREVER!!!! NEVER TO RETURN !!!!!! Except if you were a fratboy or have any constructive argument that Bush may have one good policy or two, then of course KING HANDLE will spew vile at you as he relives the embarrassment of being black balled from Kappa Alpha Sigma Nu Theta Delta or whoever else he blames for his pathetic life!!!!

Quoting handle: Wait a minute! you were too chicken to reply to the actual thread, huh tough guy? You were hoping I wouldn't even see this because I always embarrass you in our exchanges and then you have to take a mental health break. (how's that workin for ya'?)

Don't fret, I'm tired of you and I wont hurt you anymore.
Plus, remember when I told you you were going out of style? Bye!

Pretty funny stuff. I suggest you stick with beer pong and stay away from poker tables. LMFAO!!!.

The Center for Governmental Studies has a very insightful video on youtube about Sarah Palin and the vice presidency. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nK89KrCYX8