Mitt Romney, Despicable Moron
Just listening to Romney's speech announcing the suspension of his campaign. Thing is, I didn't really realize how important it was for this a$$h*le to resign until just now.
He's still trying to link up Iraq with the "war on terror," and to portray all liberals as cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Oh, and in case you didn't realize it, we liberals are all engaged in a "war against American culture."
Jesus, what a deluded, despicable PoS.
It's also becoming clearer and clearer that a large faction of conservatives hate McCain largely because he's not a mindless partisan. (Witness all the flack he's taking for working with liberals and being a "maverick".) Whereas Obama is popular among liberals largely because he preaches bipartisanship, McCain is unpopular among conservatives for doing so. This speaks volumes about the vices of contemporary American conservatism.
I think the only way to save American conservatism might be a resounding ass-whipping in this election. Maybe then the sane wing of the GOP will rise again after that. Of course, if McCain is the nominee and he loses, the line will probably be that they've tried being cooperative, and it didn't work. It's really too bad. I'm firmly convinced that sane conservatism is necessary for sane politics. I'm starting to wonder whether I'll ever see such an animal in my lifetime.
Just listening to Romney's speech announcing the suspension of his campaign. Thing is, I didn't really realize how important it was for this a$$h*le to resign until just now.
He's still trying to link up Iraq with the "war on terror," and to portray all liberals as cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Oh, and in case you didn't realize it, we liberals are all engaged in a "war against American culture."
Jesus, what a deluded, despicable PoS.
It's also becoming clearer and clearer that a large faction of conservatives hate McCain largely because he's not a mindless partisan. (Witness all the flack he's taking for working with liberals and being a "maverick".) Whereas Obama is popular among liberals largely because he preaches bipartisanship, McCain is unpopular among conservatives for doing so. This speaks volumes about the vices of contemporary American conservatism.
I think the only way to save American conservatism might be a resounding ass-whipping in this election. Maybe then the sane wing of the GOP will rise again after that. Of course, if McCain is the nominee and he loses, the line will probably be that they've tried being cooperative, and it didn't work. It's really too bad. I'm firmly convinced that sane conservatism is necessary for sane politics. I'm starting to wonder whether I'll ever see such an animal in my lifetime.
posted by Winston Smith at
1:08 PM
50 Comments:
How is McCain so different than Romney re: Iraq?
From his campaign website (http://tinyurl.com/3ylqqu): "The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11"
From terrorism.about.com (http://tinyurl.com/3b944c): "f we leave Iraq, they are going to follow us home."
I mean, I definitely appreciate that he has called the war "mismanaged", but he really seems to buy into the whole "War on Terror = Iraq" idea, especially since his whole criticism is that we don't have enough troops there.
And of course, his whole "staying 100 years in Iraq would be fine with me" comment:
http://tinyurl.com/2fx4ou
Yeah, I've been fretting about this very thing cb. Though with the "stay 100 years" comment, he meant that if, as in Korea, our staying would secure a stable peace, then that would be fine. That seems right to me...though I think there's no chance of it being like that.
Obama preaches bi-partisanship, but he's a follow-the-dots liberal. He don't walk the walk.
[Still, the lack of vitriol and dehumanization is well-appreciated by Republicans, who by and large like him.]
It's Lieberman who's bi-partisan, and they threw him out of the party. His closest analogue in the GOP is McCain, and he's their presidential nominee.
Well, there's a difference between agreeing on policies and...something else akin to trying to change the tone in D.C.
I don't really mind conservatives, even fairly conservative conservatives. I mean, I think they're usually wrong, of course. What I really object to is the hack-and-slash, brook no dissent and take no prisoners, demonize-your-opponents style of people like Rove, Bush, DeLay, Santorum, et. al. McCain is pretty damn conservative, but I respect him because he doesn't treat me like I'm a moronic traitor. We completely disagree about abortion, but I realize the the arguments are hazy, and that he might turn out to be right in the long run. All I expect from conservatives is something analogous.
Also: though McCain isn't that conservative by the standards of conservatives in Congress, those conservatives have gotten way more conservative over the last 30 years. So merely noting, e.g., that McCain is the 20th most conservative Senator while Obama is the 3rd (or whatever) most liberal one doesn't tell the whole story. Though I do, in fact, wonder how such a liberal guy is going to be able to pull off what he wants to pull off.
Sadly, McCain was at it today, coming pretty close to vilifying folks like me. Interestingly, though folks on my side have (rightly) pointed out that folks like McCain were stupid and gullible about invading Iraq, we've never accused them of being treasonous, or of intentionally trying to destroy the U.S. We folk have not been treated so relatively gently by those on McCain's side of the aisle...
I can't argue with your perceptions, WS, because they're perceptions. I'd point to remarks by Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha and Dean that I consider far more divisive and demonizing, and that's leaving out backbenchers like Pete Stark. Neither do I think the Bush Administration has said very much in the way of such intemperance, although I'm sure there is a laundry list of legitimate indictments against lesser GOP figures.
[Surely we won't stoop to the toy department of Coulter and Maher.]
But McCain is the apparent standard-bearer, perhaps a 7 on the conservative scale, and has done it despite all the force 10s of talk radio [another toy store]. Republicans, being temperate and reasonable people, have already sorted out their differences and McCain addressed his first speech today not only to healing his rift with the hard-core, but appealing to independents and "Reagan Democrats" as well.
[He is well advised to give up on folks like yourself, who consider Ronald Reagan to have been a bad president. It's occurred to me that that's the dividing line beyond which any attempt at persuasion is a fool's errand.]
As for the Dems, it's hard to take the party's EEG since Hillary's a 9 and Obama's a 9 1/2 if not a perfect 10. There is little to disagree about---therefore little for the hard core to get exercised about---but the papers tell me there still could be a war for months to come, as the "superdelegates," who aren't selected in the primaries, represent 20% of the total at the convention.
I was of the opinion that Obama has risen like a tsunami, but political genius Karl Rove just said that Obama's best demographic days will be behind him after the end of February. [Decisive African American majorities, and caucuses, where he does extremely well as they are attended largely by the hard core.]
We shall see. Me, I like Obama too, and was at one of his rallies the other night. [Don't ask.]
I must admit I was unnerved by a messianic current [We'll change not only the nation, but the world!] that would have been out of place even at a Huckabee do, although I appreciated that they vilified neither Hillary nor the Current Occupant, except in nod-nod wink-wink code.
[But since I speak Democrat as well as Republican, I understood---so well in fact, that I "passed" as one of Them. Even got a t-shirt: He's Black and I'm Proud!]
Hey, good for you, Tom! Seriously, man.
I won't argue with your perceptions either (though perceptions can, indeed, be argued with, for they are either accurate or inaccurate).
After at least 15-30 years (depending on how you count it) of hard-right conservatism...conservatism so hard that it viewed *Bill Clinton* as something like a communist...the GOP finally nominates somebody who's merely *very* conservative...and does so over the howls of the GOP establishment. And the Dems might--or might not--nominate someone very liberal. It's one instance, I'll give you that... But it's notable precisely because it runs against current trends.
But, again, it's not the policies that I'm currently concerned with, but the tone. And I'm sure you'll grant that it's conservatives how have been most responsibly for ruining that over the past 15 years. (The very fact that Limbaugh and Coulter come up here is notable in this regard.)
As for the C.O.'s role in characterizing me and mine as traitorous...well, we should probably defer that discussion for now. (I *will* admit that I think that vilification of the CO is not only justified, but long overdue...)
So, Obama's messianism bothers you, but Bush's doesn't? Can I suggest more reflection there? I'm skeptical of it normally, but Obama's I find inspiring. I could be wrong.
Anyway, I sure do hope we have a civil election. Obama's doing his part, and McCain will likely do his.
For my part as a Democrat, I don't mind Clinton, but she doesn't really *do much* for me. Obama, on the other hand, really impresses me.
One particular personality-oriented reason for this is his habit of arguing in an intellectually honest way, which I love. He does this by stating, clearly and fairly, his opponent's putatative position in its strongest form. He doesn't purposely argue against a caricature or distortion of the opposition, at least as far as I can tell. Maybe a remnant from his Harvard Law School prof days.
And there's also Hilzoy's endorsement, which touches on a lot of the more policy-based reasons for my support for him:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html
All wonderful technocratic innovations in the Hilzoy thing---all completely uncontroversial. I [and John McCain] are also in favor of the end of government greed and waste, as well as a hot lunch for orphans.
Yes, WS, Obama's messianism [and I was really talking about some of his followers' perception of it] is inspiring, but I had enough trouble with epistemology attempting to engage the self-proclaimed reality-based community.
The hope-based community will be an entirely different kettle of fish: all kettle, no fish, and great anger if I have the---how did Obama put it---audacity to point that out.
[As for Coulter, I merely brought her up to save you the trouble. I wanted to talk about real people like Kennedy, et al., not infotainers.]
Hmmm. I see Ann Coulter wasn't invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year. [She used "raghead" there in 2006, and called John Edwards a "faggot" there in 2007.]
But John McCain was invited, and he brought the house down yesterday.
You may have got your wish, WS.
I hope "anonymous" gets his...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html
Actually, there was a lot more stuff in Hilzoy's entire post, especially about things like government transparency and and end to war profiteering and crony capitalsim, which for some reason do seem to be something controversial these days. As well as work on nuclear non-proliferation among other things.
I think you're proving my point, unless you think it's courageous to risk losing the profiteer and proliferation vote.
I must admit I was unnerved by a messianic current
and yet you belong to a party where the majority think Bush is Christ's older brother. It is to laugh.
You weren't there, I was.
Apparently messianism is only bad among Dems...
That door swings both ways, WS. Let's say Dems would be appalled at the messianism I witnessed if they observed it among Republicans, which is why I mentioned that what I saw would be out of place even at a Huckabee rally.
Now, I'm not pleased that Huckabee gets so many votes in the primaries, but I'm also on record that if he were the GOP nominee, I'd cross party lines for the first time since 1988.
Apparently it's just not me.
The end of reasonable political discourse in this country for awhile, since you can't criticize the messiah. Not even if you're Bill Clinton.
"I think you're proving my point, unless you think it's courageous to risk losing the profiteer and proliferation vote."
Actually, in some respects it apparently was courageous, since from 2002-2006 Congress was controlled by a rancid GOP majority that refused even minimal oversight over the profiteering and cronyism of the Bush administration (Google Bunnatine Greenhouse for just a small sample), and it was roundly throttled in the 2006 midterms.
I'd just as soon forgo the need for an electoral disinfecting again, and elect the guy who pledges to not allow it in the first place and has the record of making good on his pledges.
I just can't wrap my mind around a Democrat criticizing Bush and Halliburton as fitting any definition of political courage. Such stuff is mother's milk to the left.
Had he stood up against the demagoguery and pointed out that Bill Clinton awarded the same type of no-bid contracts to KBR when he invaded Kosovo, now that would be courage.
But as I said, reasoned political discourse is on hold for the time being as we enter a messianic age.
Actually, that's not really my point. My point is that I find it very attractive that a candidate is pledging greater transparency and accountability in government, something which has been sorely lacking during the current administration.
And I actually misspoke there because unless they really couldn't see what was coming, it actually took MORE political courage on the part of the GOP congress to AVOID oversight of the administration, since they got eviscerated in the 2006 elections, probably to a large degree because of their complicity in the rampant corruption of the Bush administration. Unless they just thought that somehow the American people would just sit still for it and not boot them out on their asses.
As for *the left*, it was actually too busy criticizing Clinton for the Kosovo action in the first place to complain about military contracts.
But since you mention no-bid contracts to Halliburton, that's just the tip of the iceberg. How about, off the top of my head, the staffing of the Transitional Authority with Heritage Foundation hacks based solely on their pledged allegiance to George W. Bush, the sanctioning of a lawless mercenary force unaccountable to domestic, international or Iraqi law, the distortion of intelligence leading up to the war including the stripping of caveats by the intelligence agencies in the publically-released NIE, the wholesale selling of the war on false pretenses, going after whistleblowers legally (including Sibel Edmonds), permitting Halliburton to overcharge the US treasury, the mind-numbing "loss" of $9Bn somewhere in Iraq, the illegal diversion of $700 million in funds appropriated by Congress for use in Afghanistan to Iraq, among many others?
Other than that, yes, Clinton's handling of Kosovo was exactly like Bush's Iraq adventure. Or are you going to try to maintain with a straight face that there's anything remotely comparable between the two administrations in terms of corruption, cronyism and the stifling of accountability/oversight?
And my criticism is just as much of the GOP-controlled congress for not only providing no oversight, but actively enabling the orgy of corruption and incompetence that was Iraq II, as well as in countless other areas.
It's Lieberman who's bi-partisan, and they threw him out of the party.
Lieberman's bipartisan in the sense of 'bi-' in 'bisexual' - he swings both ways. Of course, his defining partisan preference is neocon foreign policy.
In any case - and you surely already know this, TVD - no one threw Lieberman out of the party. He lost a primary - were we Democrats supposed to remain wedded to him forever? Did Republicans throw their primary losers out of the GOP? Nope, that's not what the words mean.
Once he had lost, he concocted a bogus Lieberman for Lieberman "party" and ran as an independent. In short, after years of cutting Democrats off at the knees, he finally walked.
Why aren't you a winger pundit, T? You've mastered their rhetorical trick of altering the meaning of a fact so that you can gain traction in an argument. Normal people call this dishonesty, but such bullshit is a key part of the winger palaver. (Ah, there it is. You can now cue the strings for the Republican civility that permits dishonesty but forbids the mild profanity that identifies it.)
LL, I thought Hilzoy did a pretty good job of distinguishing between the faux, fetishized "bi-partisanship" of the Joe Liebermans of the world and the more true bipartisanship of Barack Obamas:
""According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.
This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)...
"Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.""
Google "Obama" and "Exelon."
OK, against my better judgment I'll play your silly game. Here is the first hit (after Obama's campaign website):
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock25jan25,0,4656523.column
Now kindly tell me where the evidence of wrongdoing on Obama's part is.
Had he stood up against the demagoguery and pointed out that Bill Clinton awarded the same type of no-bid contracts to KBR when he invaded Kosovo, now that would be courage.
any links besides freerepublic.com and frontpagemag to support this. not saying it isn't true, just that's what a google search turns up.
hmmm, was obama even in congress during the kosovo war??
some loon comes up with obamamessiah.blogspot.com and it's a national trend?? come on man, surely you can do better than this
Now, now. If you have evidence to the contrary that Clinton used a no-bid contract for the Halliburton subsidiary, present it. Obama being in congress at the time [he wasn't] is irrelevant. Excoriating no-bid contracts when it was the norm regardless of the administration [and KBR is said to be the only company capable of such a massive job at a moment's notice] tells only half the story.
The blogspot is almost exclusively without partisan commentary and merely relays what's in the media.
Look closer than an opinion column on Exelon, say a news story. Say, the NYT, which is the second hit. Obama started by making noise about insignificant radioactive leaks, wrote a bill, watered it down, then claimed to have passed it when he didn't.
Oh yeah, and the nuclear company, Exelon, is now a big Obama contributor. [I admit you have to read the NYT article carefully, as they bury the facts as well as they can. The LA Times did an even better job of obfuscating the facts.]
Now, I'm not saying Obama's a bad fellow or did anything here that they all don't do. But he's no messiah and if he appears cleaner than the rest, it's because he hasn't had the time.
Except that the original version, preferred by Obama, would have passed if not for this section that you conveniently left out:
"Senate correspondence shows that the environment committee chairman at the time, Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma who is a strong supporter of industry in battles over energy and environmental legislation, agreed with many of those points and held up the bill. Mr. Obama pushed back, at one point temporarily blocking approval of President Bush’s nominee to the nuclear commission, Dale E. Klein, who met with Mr. Obama to discuss the leaks.
But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory."
So if there had been 60 Democrats in the Senate when Obama introduced his preferred bill, it probably would have passed in that form, only to be vetoed by Bush in all likelihood.
And then there's the net outcome:
"Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis."
So it seems Obama had two basic choices:
1) Do nothing and allow the problem to continue, or
2) Get the best bill he could out of the Senate
It seems he opted for the better choice.
Even your/Obama's version contradicts your/Hilzoy's contention that Obama hath remade "bipartisanship" in His own image.
And Exelon is now a big Obama contributor.
Really? Can you show me where he abandoned or sacrificed his principles? Or do you see a third option besides the two I proferred in the previous comment? Maybe he could have chained himself to the disposal site for the waste. That would show 'em.
No, I don't think I can "show" you anything to your satisfaction. I believe the facts---that Obama promises no "better" way of doing things than anyone else can---speak for themselves, you don't. So be it.
Yeah, you're right. Obama should have magically changed the rules of the US Senate so one asshole can't hold useful legislation hostage based on his personal hostility to regulation.
Well, now you are getting it. Obama won't remake "bipartisanship." No "S" on his chest, no halo about his head.
And if he picks up a big industrial contributor in the process of compromise, well, that's OK too.
But "personal" hostility to regulation can also be principled hostility [why must everything get personal?], especially to such useless legislation on trace amounts of tritium, which are demagogable, but pose no real health risk.
More from the Columbia Journalism Review, no bastion of the right wing, including Obama's claim that he passed the legislation, which he didn't.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_energy_equivocations.php?page=1
So can I assume you'd have no problem with your kids drinking from that water source?
And I'd take Inhofe's *principled* hostility a lot more seriously if he didn't rant about anthropogenic climate change being "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind" and he wasn't neck-deep in fossil fuel and industrial interests. More like hostility to science.
And kindly show me where I said Obama would remake "bipartisanship". I merely said he practiced genuine bipartisanship, as opposed to compromising one's principles, as for example Senator Rockefeller is currently doing by advocating immunity for the telecoms.
Not only is he the chairman of one of the relevant committees, but the Democrats currently are in the majority - this is exactly the opposite situation of the Obama case.
Did anyone stop drinking from that water source as a result of Obama's demagoguery?
Let's get real here.
He raised a media and community ruckus, threatened a bill, watered it down, picked up nuclear industry contributors, and LIED about getting the bill passed.
And I don't use the word "lie" loosely, as most folks around here do. Me meself would merely say that Sen. Obama misspoke himself in the heat of the moment in Iowa when he claimed he passed his legislation.
Stuff like that happens all the time.
Meanwhile, back in the "community," folk who can't accurately judge what acceptable and unacceptable levels of tritium are just got the shit scared out of them by an ambitious politician named Obama, making nothing out of nothing.
Man, just read the NYT report, don't take my word for it.
Dude passed a law that didn't pass with no penalties for not "voluntarily" disclosing what's the government standard for insignificant.
And picks up Exelon's money in campaign contributions in the non-correction of a non-issue.
No, I can't "show" you anything. I admit it. You think Obama will correct this country's ills by playing basketball with some guy on the other side of aisle.
As if the problems of the human condition can be resolved by talk, charm, and basketball. I do believe that you and Hilzoy believe that, but I also believe you're wrong.
How can someone possibly argue with anyone who in light of the facts offered, thinks Obama *threatened* a bill? Maybe he'll "threaten" to expand Medicare to everyone too. And if he can't do it because of resistance in Congress, let's just castigate him for attempting to merely gain political traction by demagoguing the issue. And remind everyone that he might have gotten financial contributions from Blue Cross/Blue Shield too. And Al Gore hypocritically exhales carbon dioxide too, don't forget.
As for twaddle like Obama can "correct this country's ills by playing basketball with some guy on the other side of the aisle", there might not be enough straw in the world to construct that there argument.
Oh, and I'll take your spin on Obama's involvement in the tritium issue as a *yes* to the answer I asked about your kids drinking that water, mmkay?
Oh, and lest I forget, of course we all know that the EPA would never compromise on its oversight and reporting about the safety of our environment and resources to mollify commercial interests, right?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/nyregion/03suit.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=EPA+air+quality+Ground+Zero&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Damn Senators Schumer and Clinton for insisting on investigation just to make a political point. So no disclosure necessary, nothing to see here, move along...
Hey, Anon, welcome to the fun. TVD likes Kool-Aid, especially with a tritium spike. He's also fond of arguments of the form:
B has attribute y all the time.
A has attribute y once.
Therefore, there's no difference between A and B.
In this case, attribute y is the normal compromise of a legislative process, possibly colored by ties to an interested party. So TVD wants to be able to reason by induction from one case. Not very plausible!
Then there's the loose imputation that Obama's claim is a lie. I'm anti-parsing, so I don't think passing a committee answers to what Obama is implying with the verb 'passed'. But this is a garden variety political exaggeration that I'd put into the category of mild bullshit, and not even close to the consistent lying of the Bushists, whom TVD conspicuously defends, even if he's willing to say something negative about them in an apparent attempt to appear more objective.
I DO hope you guys realize that Tom can keep this stuff up basically forever... (No offense, Tom, but, well...)
Does Obama actually strive for bipartisanship? The answer is clearly 'yes.' One might not like Obama, or one might not like bipartisanship, but one can't deny that Obama has worked hard and consistently for bipartisanship. Check out e.g. Jeffrey Rosen's piece ("Card Carrying"?) in the new TNR.
Notice how Tom, like so many anti-Obama types, basically asserts that he won't change everything. I think this might just be--at least partially--an honest mistake. It's true, of course, but irrelevant. Nobody thinks he'll change everything. What some of us, rather, hope is that he will change some important things.
We've got three good candidates this time, but Obama is the only one who seems to have a decent chance of bringing about the kind of change that many of us think is important. I'd be happy if HRC were elected, and under normal conditions I could live happily with McCain. But Obama is the one who has zeroed in on the most important issues and made them central to his political life. The ability to identify such issues is important and, apparently, rare. The very fact that these issues have resonated so strongly with so many non-crazy people is something that should make skeptics and cynics at least try to think seriously about this for a bit.
I'm not anti-Obama, except on the issues, which he'll have to address sooner or later. In fact I appreciate that he's made a conscious effort not to demonize.
But I'm not ready to buy into the prevailing notion that he's some different kind of political animal.
He's still prone to the usual partisan filth that I'm used to hearing from his side of the aisle. Here he bags on Cheney on a personal level, which you folks think is just fine and justified, but it certainly doesn't fit the "healer" image. Just the same ol' same ol'.
Sorry to use the Weekly Standard, but since the media's in the tank for him, you won't read about stuff like this anywhere else:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp
As with all the facts I present, like his cuddle-up with Excelon, feel free to ignore this one too.
And yes, I would let my kids drink the water, as did everybody else with the "affected" wells that Obama demagogued.
Welcome to the Van Dyke Factor, home of the All Spin Zone.
I accept your retreat from the battlefield of ideas.
I thought you spun away the whole Excelon thing, turning feet of clay into some heroic action, but since WS' original purpose in this post was to declare that it's incumbent on conservatives to restore civility and order [as it always is], I wasn't going to mention it until you obliged me to.
The very definition of spin:
"Dude passed a law that didn't pass with no penalties for not "voluntarily" disclosing what's the government standard for insignificant.
And picks up Exelon's money in campaign contributions in the non-correction of a non-issue."
Yeah, I liked that one, as it distilled the facts that the NYT did its best to obscure.
The fact that there's no reasonable counterargument forced you to play dirty, but it's understandable.
The next time Sen. Obama opens fire on "lobbyists," remember this one. No, his Excelon exec contributors aren't technically lobbyists, but they'll be able to get him on the phone just the same.
"So it seems Obama had two basic choices:
1) Do nothing and allow the problem to continue, or
2) Get the best bill he could out of the Senate
It seems he opted for the better choice."
There's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, and one far more consonant with Obama's past reputation. And that inductive logic is much more powerful than your Kool-Aid induced (you're right, LL) mind-reading about Obama's motives.
It seems he opted for the better choice.
Well, Excelon was apparently happy with it.
I'm starting not to worry about an Obama presidency so much. If this is your storied bipartisanship without compromising his principles---not passing legislation that does nothing about a non-issue---the republic is safe from his inspiring presence.
[Looking to LL for validation? Oh, my.]
You've still adduced NO evidence whatsoever of the motives you impute to Obama, whereas his past history is rife with genuine and productive work with those of both parties, so why should I care what you think about his penchant for *bipartisanship*?
It's getting boring. You were far more interesting, and worthwhile as comic relief, when you were defecating about Habermas and religion.
Still unable to argue without ad hom and rudeness, I see. Well, the civil behavior was nice while it lasted.
And I don't impute any bad motives to Sen. Obama---I simply illustrate that he's no different in kind than any other politician. This does not make him a bad person, but it undercuts your/Hilzoy's assertion that he's somehow special.
"Dude passed a law that didn't pass with no penalties for not "voluntarily" disclosing what's the government standard for insignificant.
And picks up Exelon's money in campaign contributions in the non-correction of a non-issue."
No, no bad motives implied at all. I mean, obviously not.
But the point is not that Obama is perfect, which seems to be your treasured strawman. (Find me someone who is) He may, in fact have been guilty of the typical and distasteful back-room dealing that has become the norm in Washington regarding the Exelon affair, although that's far from proven here. I remain open to evidence, stronger evidence than you've adduced here, which must be weighed, as I said, against the totality of Obama's prior legislative career.
The main point, and the one made in the post by Hilzoy, is that the transparency and disclosure he's calling for, and would presumably implement if president, would allow the sunlight that's been sorely lacking during the 7+ years of President Cheney's reign.
And that would create a situation where he could be justly held accountable by us, the American people, for our judgment of the propriety of his actions, whose counsel he sought, what potential conflicts of interest he had etc. So that if such a case as the Exelon one did arise during his presidency, the resorts to the courts to gain access to the workings of OUR government in OUR name which have become the hallmark of the Cheney administration wouldn't be necessary. Which again, before your typical initiation of a red-herring chase, was the main point. Not that I expect you to understand it.
With TVD, the mote in your eye is always bigger than the beam in his. But then he'll deny it's his eye, anyway, and posture as the one truly objective inquirer after truth. And somehow, without fail, that truth ends up being a pox on both their houses and, by the way, he'll stick with the Republican.
Along the way, there will hardly be a point, however inconsequential, that he won't misconstrue. Here's an example:
[Looking to LL for validation? Oh, my.]
Anonymous at 10:32 PM was agreeing with me, not seeking my validation. It's not a hard distinction.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home