Adios Faux Conservative

so⋅cial⋅ism   / [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Far cry, huh?

 

Sheeze, I cannot believe you want to throw out the experience crap. Clinton (Bill) had no experience and neither does Obama. Governors usually do not have much foreign experience anyway. And if you think Biden is the most experienced then you must believe him (without spinning it) when he said that Obama would be tested in 6 months by other nations because of his lack of experience.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302867_pf.html

 

I just heard about Krauthammer's endorsement a few hours ago. His recent opinion pieces, however, have been quite critical of McCain and complimentary of Obama.

As far as Palin's experience or lack thereof, fine. Let's rephrase it. She lacks an understanding of foreign policy, and even Clinton had that before he won the election.

Frankly, I think you conservatives are just bitter right now, and you're clinging to McCain and Palin.

 

My problem with Palin is that she clearly hadn't spent much time before now developing opinions on the big national issues. That's fine, and it doesn't mean that she's stupid, but it also troubles me for someone wanting to jump to the highest levels. That's what we got with dubya, and it resulted in whimsical decision-making with no judgement. She would be an empty vessel as vice-president. That's not the end of the world, but it's also not the plus I figured she'd be for McCain. In fact, if anything I think that Palin is a net minus for him.

 

Sorta like the Obama who plucked the garrulous and deranged Biden in order to give himself foreign policy "gravitas" only to see Uncle Joe say France kicked out Hezbollah from Syria, and that FDR addressed the nation on TV during in 1929 when FDR WASN'T president and their WASN'T TV?

So, I can conclude then that if a candidate plucks out an incompetent for VP out for strictly political reaons, that negates that candiate's credibilty? Right?

Ergo, I look forward to your admitting you voted for Bob Barr.

Frankly, this is a REASON to vote for McCain, not to vote against him. I have no problem at all with the CIA using waterboarding on a very select handful of really nasty characters, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

I have been paying attention, and Obama has been a non-entity as state legislator. As for a strong family life, good for him...though I question marrying a woman so obviously bitter and rage-filled.

But here's the point. Who is Obama? Really, WHO IS HE??

Is he the candidate who sat in the Jeremiah Wright's pews for 20 years and listened to the crazed anti-American rants? The candidate who tried to convince voters that he really wasn't all that different from Bobby Rush?

Or the guy who wants to invaded Pakistan unilaterally?

And who are his friends? Do we know any of them? From college or law school? What really was his relationship to Ayers or Rezko?

And what has really accomplished? Other than writing two books about his favorite subject, himself?? And hiring David Axelrod to run a shrewd campaign for him?

Frankly, only two things stand out about him that one can actually grab onto.

First, he is a cynical hypocrite, saying one thing about Wright and then throwing him under the bus, oir saying he'd only use public campagin money and then reneging on that promise (really, go watch the you tube video where Obama justifies this move, the most risibly insincere political speech since Checkers).

Second, he is arrogant and contemptous. We know this from the unguarded remarks -- the "cling to guns and relgion" and the "spread the wealth." Barack knows better, Barack is wise.

It's nauseating.

So, we'll see. He's gonna win, but perhaps he will grow into this job.

But frankly, I am absolutely petrified that the Democrats will sweep into power and engage in the most liberal transformation of the American political scene since the New Deal.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

Karl, this is just a bland, rote recitation of talking points, many of which you've blindly accepted without any serious scrutiny.

. . . an opinion not shared by most people. All of this "rage" derives from one accidental comment regarding her pride in America, and even Laura Bush has stated that these comments didn't reflect Michelle's true feelings. Like the accusation that Bush Sr. was a wimp, the belief that Michelle Obama is bitter derives more from repeated conventional "wisdom" than fact.

Twenty years of sermons reduced to a two-minute YouTube video, that is. Frankly, this guilt-by-association cuts both ways. What about McCain's associations with Hagee? What about his associations with Liddy and Keating? Do those matter, or only the comments made by Obama's preacher, distilled to their most poisonous moments?

The truth is that none of them matter all that much.

This one is new to me. What are you talking about?

You realize that we've already conducted air strikes in Pakistan like those Obama mentioned, right? And that Palin agreed we should do this, right? Moreover, what Obama described bore little resemblance to an invasion, unless you think that the US invaded Sudan under Clinton and invaded Libya under Reagan. Do you believe this? Of course you don't.

Putting aside how ludicrous it is to judge somebody on the basis of his friends from college, many of these people (in addition to former professors and colleagues at the University of Chicago) have come forward.

These questions have been asked and answered. The New York Times examined his dealings with Ayers, and The Chicago Tribune (which is about to endorse the Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in the paper's entire history) examined his dealings with Rezko. In both cases, they concluded that there's nothing to cause concern. You just don't like the answers.

And finally, Obama's appointment of Axelrod says a great deal about the kind of person Obama would hire in his administration. Axelrod has run, as you'll agree, a basically flawless campaign. Everybody (including everyone on Archer's forum) expected Hillary to win the day. Axelrod and Obama proved everybody wrong.

What do McCain's campaign appointments tell us about the kind of administration he'd run? Which appointments inspire confidence in you? Charlie Black? Sarah Palin? Steve Schmidt?

 

For one thing, you completely ignored the Senate primary, during which Obama received the majority vote in a five-person race that also included a machine candidate and a millionaire.

For another, Jim Ryan was not a likely contender, regardless of the scandal (which, interestingly enough, came to light because Ryan's Republican opponents wanted his divorce records unsealed, if memory serves me right). Even Karl will conceded this point: the GOP in Illinois was in shambles at the time, with a scandal that landed our former Republican governor in prison. Moreover, Ryan should have never dropped out of the race. Nobody really cared about the scandal, which involved wanting to have sex with his wife at a sex club. Big deal.

Of course, now the Illinois Democratic party is in shambles, but that's a different story.

Does running a good campaign mean that Obama would run a good presidency? Who knows? Bush ran a good campaign, too, and look where that got him. However, at least Obama knew better than to support/draft Harriet Miers and Sarah Palin.

 

I'm voting for Obama, but I'm not kidding myself at what's coming. I make the over/under at three cabinet choices who are abominations. And 90% on the judges he picks.

Still, it will be a relief that Bush is gone.

 

For amusement, though, you could always try to imagine who McCain would pick for his cabinet/the courts.

 

The thing is, an abomination at HUD won't do much harm. Someone who thinks you can reshape the world with a kickass military, that's a bit more worrisome.

Obama's flakes will be in domestic policy, where they won't screw up that much. And lefty flakes in foreign policy tend to be the "do nothing" variety. Bush has shown that you can do alot worse than that.

I'll just have to brace myself for the flaky judges.

 

Sorry Bo, don't buy it.

And now we have the NPR interview. Good God, when will the scales fall from your eyes?

The problem with Obama is not who he WAS:

• an extreme leftist who signed onto to Bill Ayers Chavez-loving re-education sensibilities as the natural development of his community organizing Saul Alinsky background
  
• a cynical hypocrite (no, Bo, you STILL HAVEN'T FACED THIS FACT) who will say one thing yet do another simply to get elected
  
• the great teleprompter reader of empty vacuous words
  
• a do-nothing state legislator who just happened by luck to become a Senator of Illinois
  
• a man of little real accomplishment except for writing two books about his favorite subject, himself, to complete the self-indulgent narcissitic inclinations so prevalent in his sensibility

No, it's not who he WAS...distasteful as all of that is, and which for some reason you, and those like you, are simply too incredibly obtuse to see...

No, it is who he will BECOME.

Because, frankly, that is all we can hope for, that he will actually BECOME something, other than what he is (which right now, frankly is a big fat CIPHER). That he will grow into the job and engage in sensible policies.

But I remain very frightened at the prospect.

 

The NPR interview? The one that legal scholars note has been radically misinterpreted? That one?

 

Here, incidentally, is an explanation of that NPR interview, courtesy of Yossarian.

Sounds to me like the McCain campaign is lying through their dirty, rotten teeth. Nice try, Matt "Let's Change the Subject from That Crazy McCain Campaign Worker I Publicized Last Week" Drudge!

 

You mean the NPR interview that was disingenously parsed by lawyers about a lawyer who clearly was speaking ruefully about the court's impotence regarding the ability to transform the economic landscape?

You mean THAT interview?

Gee, who woulda thunk that BO was a strict constructionist! Coulda fooled me! (though I think he's fooled you!).

 

Well, I see you have the "misinterpreted" part down.

If you're interested, I'd be happy to hunt down the McCain endorsements of graduated income taxes from the 2000s. Hell, I'm in a good mood this morning (aced my midterms), so I'll even find Adam Smith's endorsement of graduated income taxes for you!

 

Egads! A positive reference to me on this forum.

Since you did ask for my opinion () I'll give it to you.

1. I'm glad Obama won. I am. Not because I love Obama, not because he's a transformational figure, etc. etc. He's not. This is what I posted in PC&E:

I stand by that. Whatever people think of Obama (and clearly some of you think lots of things about him (hey Karl!)), he's an incredibly efficient guy. And while I do worry about his lack of willingness to buck his party, he's also shown himself to be ruthlessly ambitions and effective. He's also very bright and he's not especially liberal. To me, he seems..........competent. And right now, I desperately want that. I also want someone who won't politicize the DOJ by appointing ludicrously unqualified people from religious law schols (third tier toilets as they're derisively referred to) so long as they love Bush, or appoint his buddies to head FEMA because, hey, Ron Brown's a nice guy. Ah, so why not McCain? As for why not McCain, well...........

2. McCain. The McCain of 2000 had a chance of getting my vote. But that McCain is gone. He hasn't existed for years. To those people here who claim he's a "man of principles".........what? He's reversed himself so completely on so many positions to win the nomination it made his head spin. He claimed in the primaries he wouldn't vote for his own immigration bill. He now claims tax cuts should be permanent - he once railed against them. Whatever McCain may have been, he sold his soul in an attempt to become President. He went to the Rove/Bush machine and set "get me what I need". So he hired the same guys who claimed in 2000 that he had a black love child. A man of principle? Really?
Truth is, McCain's appeal to America was "don't pay attention to what I say, remember what I was". You can't have it both ways. You can't excite the base by appearing to be Bush II and then claim you're nothing like Bush. That doesn't work. And really, the nomination of Palin? After meeting her twice? Biden may at times seem like a functioning alcoholic, but Palin got bamboozled by Katie ********ing Couric. For a candidate for VP that's just downright embarassing. Even Bush, certainly no Alfred Einstein (as Joe Theissman once said), can handle Katie Couric.
Is Palin stupid? No, I don't think so. She's just intellectually incurious and completely unqualified. Does that mean she deserves the vitriol that some on the left heaped on her? No, certainly not. But that also doesn't change the fact that you're unqualified. Being disliked by the "librul 'lites" isn't enough to make you a good candidate. That was also the straw that led men like David Brooks to walk away from her. I don't like David Brooks. But at least I give him credit for being bright enough to realize that when Sarah's supporters stormed the Ivory Towers lookin' for libruls (metaphor here, people), they wouldn't distinguish him, Kmiec, Frum, etc. from the Larry Tribes of the world. Picking a populist anti-intellectual said a lot to me about McCain. None of it positive.
3. Obama isn't as bad as some conservatives think (Karl, ffs, complaining about his "rage filled wife"? that's low) and McCain wasn't as bad as liberals thought. Nor were his supporters all racists, etc. etc. While I do think McCain dislikes Obama, I think is the same way that Hillary does - they both think he took something that was theirs.
4. I'd talk about some of the specific stuff said on this thread, but to a large part I understand where some of you are coming from. Which is OK - we need to have disagreements and we need to have differences. The last thing I want is an echo chamber; it gets boring. Nor is this a post to gloat - I don't remotely regard an Obama victory as a justification or a personal triumph. He was the better candidate, I'm glad he won.* However, people like Karl are in danger of joining ITN and JumpingJackFlash in the "makes DamonEsquire look rational" grouping. For all those people who hated Bush like he burned their puppies in a fire for the past 8 years, you sound just like that Karl. And Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.
5. Be nice to Bo. Bo's a good poster and while you don't like his opinions sometimes, your forum's better for it. And no, I'd not say that of nearly all liberal posters on BS.

*I'd have considered voting for Romney ahead of him, though, to be honest, probably would not have. But I'd seriously have thought about it. I'd definitely have voted for Hillary over him.*

 

You know, I hear this a lot. Obama's "smart."

But I would never say that. I would say he's shrewd, clever, savvy. But smart? No, not really.

People reveal themselves ultimately by remarks that seem innocent yet explain more about them than anything they might do or say with the crutch of the teleprompter and the thoroughly memorized but vacuous branding statement.

And what was that?

When he bashed Cub fans as purely party animals who didn't appreciate the game while White Sox fans understood baseball.

Having gone to Cub games for over 20 years, I will say till my dying day this conclusion is totaly invalid and incorrect. Moreover, it's a meme, a meme that is superficial and the province of the mindless -- and, I daresay, highly unintelligent.

Should we be surprised? Of course not. LIke "spread the wealth" and "I'd sooner disown my Grandmother" it's all a part of the same sensibility that's 10 miles wide and an inch deep, the sensibility that thinks it knows a lot but in the end relies on myth and achieves little.

There's a profound hollowness and shallowness, like sticking a poker in a fire thinking the log is solid, only to find that it crumbles into ashes.

 

Good post, Nic, but I'm not sure I agree with this section. Considering the recent leaks from the McCain camp, which MassRef says that his McCain camp connections can confirm, I think it's pretty clear that Palin is in fact quite stupid. Maybe there's a seed of intelligence somewhere under that pinned-up hair, but a lifetime of intellectual incuriosity smothered it.

As far as the vitriol, the left clearly crossed the line when it came to attacks on her daughter, and it pissed me off every time someone made a joke about her disabled son. But Palin herself hit below the belt plenty of times and has a long, well-documented history of being nasty and vindictive.

 

Good point, actually. Obama's comments were grossly unfair to animals.

I bet anything that some older, liberal relative of yours made nearly the exact same comment about Reagan in 1979.

 

Not to worry, pal...I am way more rational than these guys and, I daresay, a good chunk of the folks who post of the P&CE board.

Look, there are three basic paths for BO.

1. the path of leftist liberal transformation -- or at least the attempt to do so -- of the USA
   
2. the new Jimmy Carter
   
3. the third Clinton term

If he's as clever as you think he is, he'll go for 3. That wouldn't bother me very much. But I give that a 33% chance.

 

A vast swath of the liberal population think conservatives and Republicans are thugs, stupid, or fascists.

That shoe didn't fit Reagan.

The shoe I put on BO -- who I think likes English bench shoes -- fits nice and snug.

 

So, chew on this story.

Sarah Palin was at a lunch and was placed next to Doris Kearns Goodwin. This was before she was nominated.

You know what they spent much of the time discussing? Lincoln. Why? Because, to paraphrase George C. Scott, "Kearns you miserable bastard! I read your book!!"

More memeing. Like Bush is incurious, a guy who reads 4-5 books a month.

 

It's amazing how he fooled Lawrence Tribe, Columbia, Harvard Law, David Brooks, the founder of the Heritage Foundation, and everyone at the University of Chicago Law School.

 

Several years ago, I talked with the head of the NEA, Dana Gioia (we have a mutual friend). He insisted to me that Bush and just about everyone in the Senate were actually quite smart--much more so than people realized. I believe him. He also said that the House is full of yahoos and idiots. I also believe him on that.

Quick question, Karl: which countries are part of NAFTA?

What is American exceptionalism?

What is the Bush Doctrine?

And is Africa a country or a continent?

If you can answer any one of these three questions, then congratulations! You're smarter than the Governor of Alaska.