I want to respond a bit to Joe’s post on Obama, because I think he nails the strongest critiques of Obama from the right.
Joe asked how we could believe that someone who:
(1) was utterly supine and silent for 20 years in his own church as racial hate was propagated by the pastor; (2) who refuses to condemn a prominent supporter and fundraiser for whom bombing American sites is still seen as a good thing, and (3) who has said not a single word on the campaign trail as his party heavyweights removed post-Abramoff earmark reforms…
could be trusted to be a real change agent in power.
And that Michelle Obama’s comments that:
“Because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation…. Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
bring Joe to fear that she’s bringing a kind of all-encompassing politics that really is totalitarian at root.
Here’s what I think about this.
First, I think that Obama is – above everything else – a deeply ambitious politician. Look, no one gets to play at that level without being clinically insane is some fashion; Fred Thompson’s root problem as a candidate was that he wasn’t crazy enough about the job. That means that, along the way, Obama’s made deals with shady financiers, local ethnic powerbrokers, a string of corrupt local politicians that involved the giving and taking of favors that helped him accrete the power that positioned him to stand where he is today. To think that someone not like that is going to successfully run for office – a Mike Bloomberg who didn’t have to trade away scruples – is just a fantasy. And you know what, part of me thinks that we’re better off for it; I’ve developed a whole new respect for machine politics as opposed to the politics of wild idealism.
Second, what I want is a politician like Tom L Johnson – who is idealistic at core, but willing to get his hands dirty in the back and forth of the reality of politics.
I do think that the – spiritual – aspects of American politics have been neglected, and that they are absolutely necessary to the success of the American project. That project involved both a politics of ‘a right not to give a damn,’ as Joe describes it and a politics of being deeply passionate and attached to the American Project and the freedoms and covenant that come with it.
And so what matters is what it is that Obama’s call to politics is about. It’s not an explicit call to transform America in a specific way; it’s a call for us to all talk to each other. And I’ll suggest that that call can be a powerful one for all of us, even if it’s made by an ideologically jejune, passionately ambitious politician.
Let me talk for a second about Obama’s ideology. It’s clear that he’s the product of the ’68 crowd his mother was a part of, and that he’s attached to and most comfortable in a crowd of people who sit around and reminisce about the Revolution That Almost Was (in their dreams). But it’s important to recognize that he never lived it; he’s an acolyte. The Revolution for him is kind of like Woodstock; a matter of values, to be sure, but something that’s as much a matter of history as a living presence.
And I know I’d ducking the fact of his core political values here – but I think you have to remember that he has two values that trump those core values: he wants to be elected, and once he is, he wants us all to talk.
And I think that’s a damn good thing. How is it that a church like Wright’s – a pastor like Wright – can be so successful, so powerful? How is it that members of the black community can stand and cheer when Wright spouts obvious nonsense? How? Well, because we don’t all talk. Because members of the church talk to each other, people on Daily Kos only talk to each other, we on Winds only talk to each other. The kind of insane beliefs that Wright espouses wouldn’t stand up to an honest discussion in the light of day, but because none of us feel the need to stop him and say – with respect, and care – that he’s saying things that make no sense at all.
At the risk of destroying my credibility around here (or yours), I must admit that this is a very nicely written and insightful argument. I can appreciate Obama’s appeal to you more clearly now.
Marc, you should have titled this one “The Power of Wishful Thinking”.
We’re not electing Dr. Phil, we’re electing the President of the United States, in a time of war. Politics is about power, and trying to avoid discussions of policy is an attempt to dodge the inevitable use of that power and its consequences.
Obama’s being a pol, and -walking- wanting to talk things over, do NOT trump his policies: Higher taxes and bigger government, socialized medicine, free trade revanchism, gun grabbing, and surrender in Iraq. Not even remotely interesting. Antithetical in fact.
And Joe’s right: Michelle Obama is a walking, talking liberal fascist who’s a little too open for her husband’s good.
AL said:
bq. …we on Winds only talk to each other.
Naw, some of are just tourists who stop by on our travels along the roads of the VRWC.
/snark off
Really, all this talking is much, much overrated. Liberals want to talk about it all then talk some more. We need people who are willing to actually DO something. All the talk, talk, talk has gotten us into the straights we are currently in now. (Remember my take on the CCW as HCW?) Kids not being educated properly under the guise of multiculturalism which is just a by-product of political correctness. And PC is pure unadulterated poison to a free society. In fact, it is an invention of the Marxists as a methodology to destroy the capitalist. But we celebrate this idiocy.
Obama is a Red Diaper Baby. Product of the liaison between a Kenyan Marxist and a US feministe, socialist radical. I know a fellow traveler when I see one. Remember what I have said before? Except I went Telefon on them and defected.
So, really, ask yourself, is it
bq. an explicit call to transform America in a specific way; it’s a call for us to all talk to each other
or more taqiyya? Are we going to DO something or talk, talk, fiddle while DC burns?
Feh. ‘walking to talk’ s/b ‘wanting to talk’, above. Preview!
[Tim: Fixed the typo. Implementing “Preview” is beyond me. 🙂 –NM]
And so what matters is what it is that Obama’s call to politics is about. It’s not an explicit call to transform America in a specific way; it’s a call for us to all talk to each other.
Unfortunately for Obama, this fine and powerful call for dialogue does not translate into a call for me to vote for him, for the reasons I gave in a response to your previous article.
It’s sad, because this is not the time for him to run. He’s too naive, and that is the last thing we need right now.
Just how, exactly, has Obama exemplified any of what he is talking about us having to do?
He has no record of doing it.
In fact, his record of those who talk around him is not one of unification.
It’s like I told a friend complaining that we needed to have socialized medicine because so many poor people went without health insurance…. what is stopping you from paying for health insurance for a poor family , I asked (and with this guy money was not the problem).
So… what has stopped Obama from doing what he espouses?
I admire your desire for Obama to be the one to achieve what you are saying… however you seem to project on him in the absence of facts.
Yes, words matter…. but he’s had many years to have his actions matter… and he come’s up stunningly short.
You might want him to be something – that doesn’t mean he is that thing.
He is just an articulate suit, in terms of what you want from him, and an unregenerate leftist in what he truly will bring. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Armed Liberal:
There’s talking and there’s talking. The kind of talk you and Joe do is fine, but what Michelle Obama seems to have in mind is guided self-criticism sessions – guided by those values you admittedly elide, policed by political correctness with presidential backing, and with no outcome acceptable other than unity – a deep unity, to the depths of each individual’s “healed” and corrected soul.
That you give up your dissent from the correct line, even to the depths of your soul.
In fiction, this is what was asked of Winston Smith. In reality, it was the root of the soul-healing procedures of the Inquisition: you don’t need a defense lawyer, because this is spiritual counseling, though the penances assigned for wrong thoughts you need to get over may be heavy.
Obviously Michelle Obama isn’t scary, like the Inquisition. She’ll never have all the power she’d like, and as long as the American Constitution holds up neither will her husband. But she does seem to long for that power, the power to back up guided and uniform spiritual healing with a stern “or else”.
Michelle Obama wants her husband, backed by the power of the American state, to make people better.
Like Capt. Malcolm Reynolds of the Serenity, “I do not hold to that.”
The other part I agree with you on though. Barack Obama does want to be elected. He’s crazy enough for the job, and Fred Thompson wasn’t.
But John McCain and Hillary Clinton are crazy enough about getting elected too, and they don’t hanker for nation wide-state-backed self-criticism sessions for all who dissent from the leader’s thoughts. OK, maybe Hillary, but the problem here is more with the spouse. OK, maybe Bill would like some big-haired girls to get on their knees and confess their dirty thoughts, but that’s not the same thing.
I can’t decide how to respond to this, so choose any of the below:
1.
Marc, seriously, I’m not looking for someone to help me talk to people. I’m looking for a guy who can function as a reasonable commander-in-chief, speak credibly (not cravenly) to the world, keep the budget-busting to a minimum, and appoint sane persons as judges. He or she can be any color, but I don’t want to hear about what color he is every damn day.
2.
What evidence is there, really, that Obama is the man to lead a national dialogue? Does this man even talk to his wife? So far as I can tell, his wife talks only to herself.
3.
I’ve gone on at length here about how I think Obama could do something great at this moment in time, using his unprecedented political stature to lead black politics out of the wilderness of separatism and victimology. Now, that would be something to talk about. When and if he undertakes to do it.
For me, the Michelle quote is the one that scares me. As the Bard wrote: “Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own”. I don’t want a President who concerns himself with my soul.
I can get on board with a call to duty, and can even be convinced to support taxes if I can be convinced they won’t be swallowed into the gaping maw of bureaucracy, but this is another aspect of Obama that I don’t like: the abandonment of “cynicism”, which he takes to be skepticism about the effectiveness of government-led “solutions”. In other words: shut up and open your wallet.
AL, with all due respect, the notion that Trinity United or the congregation or Rev. Wright are the way they are because we do not “talk” is … the sort of thing Chris Matthews would write.
It flies in the face of reality: Rev. Wright has a vested financial interest (his mansion) by keeping his flock in one place, dependent and resentful and looking for scapegoats, and endorsing his vision of racial separatism and racial superiority. His flock has a vested interest in separatism to explain the failure of the Black community, and preserve the identity. Nobody wants integration and intermarriage. Heavens no! Serbs made the same choice. It happens.
Rev. Wright DOES in all likelihood represent the views of most Blacks. Certainly even Rev. Joseph Lowery would not condemn Wright’s views. Suggesting that the views are so deep and widely held that any criticism brings him grave personal risk. When the NAACP Head in LA, makes extended anti-Semitic remarks as the keynote speaker, to the Jewish recipient of an award by a Black Fraternity, and no one objects, it’s fairly widespread.
Your post runs like a cliche of rich, self-indulgent white yuppies craving the “approval” of “authentic” Blacks. Frankly, most White working people don’t give a damn one way or another if other races or cultures love them, hate them, approve, disapprove, or are indifferent. And are tired of the phony double standards, incessant and baseless charges of “racism,” pleading for special treatment, and pandering by clueless yuppies. I am happy to leave Rev. Wright to his theories of Black and White brains, rhythms, and other issues. I will object to a single penny of tax dollars going to build him another mansion, however.
Rep. Barbara Lee and other Superdelegates are arguing that they must create a party Platform calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, closing Gitmo, and no war with Iran. Otherwise known as the Surrender America and Nuke Israel Act.
“Talking” is not going to do a damn thing. Either we surrender in Iraq to AQ and Iran or we don’t. Either we let Iran go nuclear and nuke Israel out of existence (a prospect many in the Democratic Party and probably most Blacks including Obama himself would contemplate with joy) or we don’t. Either we hold hard core AQ terrorists in Gitmo or we move them to the civilian courts where they’ll all be let go (Soldiers never read them their Miranda Rights).
There is no middle ground. This isn’t a contract negotiation, or a feel-good management session for employees.
“Talking” is a good way to disguise a total lack of anything for White Middle/Working class voters except more Affirmative Action (at their expense), more taxes to funnel to another Mansion for Wright and people like him, more pandering to racist/racialist separatism of all stripes, and a general note of surrender by Dems in all areas of National Security because America is “evil” and creates all problems.
I’m no fan of the lazy, incompetent, tongue-tied, easily bullied, generally bad GWB. But even I’d vote for another four years of him over that. It’s like asking a choice of rolling over Cholla (Bush) versus being stomped to death by wild horses.
I mean, Obama can’t even pander on the Gas Tax! Well, why would he?
I’ll add that Hillary’s ability to fight from a down position has me at least considering voting for her should she get the nomination. Not likely. But still … you have to admire her determination. Handling adversity. A grueling schedule. Keeping on message and on target. I don’t like her. But I respect her.
Hillary was honest enough to admit that Moveon opposed even the Afghanistan War, and that they are insane and control the Party. I’m not really enthused about her or McCain, but at least they are not in thrall to some lunatic buffoon, who is a national embarrassment.
Wright, if you’ve seen the video, is like a parody of a Minstrel show. He’s that bad. Flavor Flav was offended.
That Obama chose HIM, a guy who makes Jimmy Swaggart look dignified, and Jim Bakker look smart, as his pastor, spiritual mentor, and guide, speaks volumes about Obama’s judgment.
AL, aside from all the good responses made by others, I guess what surprises me is your abandonment of idealism:
bq. That means that, along the way, Obama’s made deals with shady financiers, local ethnic powerbrokers, a string of corrupt local politicians that involved the giving and taking of favors that helped him accrete the power that positioned him to stand where he is today. To think that someone not like that is going to successfully run for office – a Mike Bloomberg who didn’t have to trade away scruples – is just a fantasy.
I don’t believe that this must be the case, as there are plenty of good politicians who are not corrupt–certainly not as many as any of us would like, but they’re still there and they should be supported and promoted and rewarded for their principled and honest approach. Ronald Reagan is the most prominent example in my lifetime of this, but there are plenty of others before him, like Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington. Yes, no man is perfect–we’re all flawed beings–but it doesn’t excuse us from our duty.
The passive acceptance of poor ethics (“everybody does it”) is quite disturbing. 🙁
bq. Second, what I want is a politician like Tom L Johnson – who is idealistic at core, but willing to get his hands dirty in the back and forth of the reality of politics.
So the ends justify the means? Maybe I should drink more coffee before responding, since I don’t think this is a fair summation of your position, but it’s the only one apparent to me at the moment.
Marc, if you haven’t, you have to read Jonah’s book. I just finished it, and Michelle’s little speech was double-distilled fascism. Smiley-face fascism, but fascism nonetheless.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
AL:
So what you are saying, is that you are fine with voting for the second coming of Jimmy Carter.
Obama has no history of action based on his speech. There is no history of dialog with the other party, no history of reaching out, no history of working together. There’s not much history of doing much of anything when it comes down to it. All I see is a highly ambitions, albeit intelligent person, who managed to smooth talk a lot of people who want things to “change” but has no plan to make that change happen. Typical of modern liberal thought, wishing it to happen doesn’t make it so.
I understand how his appeal has gotten him this far, but for those of us who look deeper into what he says, we see a lot of naive rhetoric, subtle Marxist ideology, and a truly troubling lack of character and judgment when it comes to who he chooses to associate with.
Sorry but I could never take him seriously at his word, because he is the antithesis to everything he speaks of. It’s disingenuous at best for him to claim he represents “the new way” when he works behind the scenes in the old way. That’s not change, that’s politics as usual. I tend to view Obama as the Black John Edwards, without the ambulance chasing background, but all of the ignorance. I don’t want that kind of person leading the country. It’s not the Presidents job to “bring the nation together”, its his job to lead, make tough decisions, and protect our nations interests.
If Obama wants to bring people together he needs to act as he speaks, but so far he has yet to do that.
You write:
The kind of insane beliefs that Wright espouses wouldn’t stand up to an honest discussion in the light of day, but because none of us feel the need to stop him and say – with respect, and care – that he’s saying things that make no sense at all.
If Senator Obama really is as keen on all Americans talking with one another as you believe, I believe that he ought to have had just such a talk with Reverend Wright sometime over those 20 years that they had such a close spiritual mentorship relationship.
Senator Obama has *said* that he wants all Americans to talk to one another, but:
o I’m unsure what evidence you have that that is anything other than a sales pitch of an ambitious politician; and
o I’m unsure what evidence you have that he is likely to have any success in prompting/making easier such talk.
Is Illinois now noted for having more open dialogue across divides than prior to Senator Obama’s political career?
Rand:Jonah’s book is the stupidiest crap ever branded with a -“hisotrian”- “historian” label. Or self-branded I should say. Note: He writes an entire book about american facism, but never once discusses the “American Facist Party”? Don’t you think that’s an oversight?
I am not a historian, but there are severe flaws in his arguments that are throughly rebuked “here”:http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=jonah_goldbergs_bizarro_history , and “a series of essays on his lax historical matieral “:http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/liberal-fascism-response.html, as well as Jonah’s responses, which of course evade all of his criticisms.
Alchemist, I’ll assume from your nonsensical post that you haven’t actually read the book.
bq. he has two values that trump those core values: he wants to be elected, and once he is, he wants us all to talk.
Color me cynical, but I have a hard time buying value #1 as a reason I should forgive his lack of experience and hard left policies.
As for wanting us all to talk: I get enough “let’s sit down and work it all out” in the endless meetings I suffer through at work, thank you very much. Getting everyone to talk together is great when _lack of communication_ is the problem you face; but talk does not solve engineering problems, or economic problems, or any kind of problem requiring a “real world” solution. It only really has an effect on _political_ problems, and even those don’t get solved without a blending of two _technical_ solutions. I don’t see the case that the problems facing our country are primarily political ones which would resolve themselves if everyone just talked about them.
To put it another way, in the business world political problems–which are by definition just a conflict of people with different values pushing for different technical solutions they favor–are never solved by cramming people into a room to talk. They are solved by strong leaders who force issues, set deadlines, and inevitably hurt people’s feelings because they want someone to *do the damn job*. Political problems are always distractions from solving real problems, and continually focusing on them in a doomed attempt to make everyone happy is a sure way to ensure the entity as a whole loses. The flip side of this, where people sit around and talk and everyone comes out happy, most commonly gives rise to the scornful epithet of “design by committee”, and produces solutions that should have been killed by any intelligent observer.
I have no problem talking with the man or with others who share his ideas, but I strongly object to someone who thinks everything would be solved if we just sat down and talked. Because that person thinks the real solutions should be obvious to everyone, and anyone who objects is just refusing to “listen to reason”. That’s a bad perspective to encounter in a middle manager or a technician; but it’s a downright *dangerou* attitude to encounter in a politician.
Following on the points Unbeliever raises in #18, here’s “Steve Sailer”:http://isteve.blogspot.com/search?q=obama+de+gaulle writing in February of this year:
bq. Many people assume that because Obama likes to show that he understands their arguments by paraphrasing them back to them, often better than they made them themselves, that he therefore must agree with them. But it’s just conservative egomania to assume that the problem with people who disagree with you is that they don’t understand your arguments, and therefore anybody who is smart enough to understand you, like Obama is, must agree with you and have your best interests at heart.
bq. … when Charles De Gaulle visited embattled French Algeria in 1958, the first thing he told a vast crowd of worried pied noirs was, “I have understood you.” The French-speakers cried in relief because, finally, France had a leader who understood their plight. De Gaulle then proceeded to give their country to their mortal enemies. He understood the French Algerians just fine, as well as they understood themselves. He just didn’t care about them as much as they cared about themselves.
bq. Sen. Obama has written a 442 page autobiography in which he took great pains to indicate that (A) He cares about his own feelings a vast amount. (B) He cares about one segment of the population far more than he cares about the rest.
bq. I could well believe that Obama moderated his feelings at some point since 1995… But I would feel a lot more confident about my guess if the media would stop pretending that Dreams from My Father doesn’t exist and somebody would sit down with him on camera and say: “According to your autobiography, you were way, way out in left field as recently as 1995… Have you changed since then? How so? When? Why? How can you prove it?”
bq. I strongly object to someone who thinks everything would be solved if we just sat down and talked.
Then you shouldn’t object to Obama on this basis, because that is not what his position is.
I recall his position is that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for”. If so, and if we should be the change we desire in the world … it just adds force to Brent Buckner’s intelligent question in post #15:
bq. Is Illinois now noted for having more open dialogue across divides than prior to Senator Obama’s political career?
I disagree with those who say Obama does not have a record of talking or working with the other side.
I think I’ve commented on this site before that the thing that most impressed me about Obama the Senator is the time he took *after* getting elected to travel downstate to meet and talk with whiter, more conservative constituents. By all accounts, those who participated were impressed that someone with whom they had sharp disagreements in policy and divergences in experience took the time to meet and talk.
Also, I think if you read between the lines in this “Todd Spivak article”:http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ (though I think the point has been made better elsewhere, can’t find it), there is some indication that Obama got along better with Republicans across the aisle during his Illinois legislative days than some of his fellow (African-American) Democrats.
*The problem is not Wright.* What impressed me the most before was largely undone when he diagnosed the downstaters as *bitter* gun-toting, religious bigots. It’s not race, it’s class.
#19
Steve Sailer again. You getting ad revenues from his site or something?
This is a nice argument and all but containing one major flaw.
No one can “prove” that their words of the present will be acted upon in the future. Not Obama. Not McCain. Not anyone.
This is an unattainable standard.
So if you’re simply saying you don’t “trust” Obama. Fine. I disagree.
On what basis, you would ask?
He seems genuinely sincere and his actions and words do not conflict, in my view, as often or as sharply as McCain, certainly, or HRC.
This is certainly a gift, many people have been swayed and will continue to be by his talents. I certainly don’t see this as a bad thing.
I am myself convinced that he is trying to use his talents for the public good and not for personal gain or ego gratification or a sense of entitlement like the vast majority of current and past candidates. His past history might be shorter than others but it DOES clearly demonstrate a man who will work hard for the betterment of his community and who is driven to enact positive changes for people.
What seems to worry some people the most is that his “community” does not match theirs. The success of his campaign so far, however, indicates that these people are an out-of-touch-with-Mainstream America minority. The main challenge to his campaign at this point is that this minority is disproportionately represented in the media and current government.
But let’s stop pretending that he’s a Manchurian Candidate representing the “way way out in left field” position, OK? These are simplistic, prejudicial and ultimately completely unsupportable conjectures.
Also, I think if you read between the lines in this Todd Spivak article (though I think the point has been made better elsewhere, can’t find it), there is some indication that Obama got along better with Republicans across the aisle during his Illinois legislative days than some of his fellow (African-American) Democrats.
Well, that’s a pretty low bar. And why should we have to “read between the lines”?
#15, 21
bq. Is Illinois now noted for having more open dialogue across divides than prior to Senator Obama’s political career?
Well, this is kind of a silly question, but if you’re asking whether there is any evidence from Obama’s Illinois Senate history that shows he is willing to put aside ideology in the service of the public good, there’s plenty of evidence out there to support this.
“Like this.”:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Excerpts:
Mr. Obama did not bring revolution to Springfield in his eight years in the Senate, the longest chapter in his short public life. But he turned out to be practical and shrewd, a politician capable of playing hardball to win election (he squeezed every opponent out of his first race), a legislator with a sharp eye for an opportunity, a strategist willing to compromise to accomplish things.
By the time he left Springfield in 2004, he had built not only the connections necessary to win election to the United States Senate but a record not inconsistent with his lofty rhetoric of consensus building and bipartisanship.
AMac quotes Steve Sailer directing a question to Obama: “According to your autobiography, you were way, way out in left field as recently as 1995… Have you changed since then? How so? When? Why? How can you prove it?”
AMac,
Is the fact that Steve Sailer thinks of someone as a leftist supposed to be evidence of something going on outside Sailer’s head? By my reckoning Sailer is well to the right of Enoch Powell, at least on the issue that concerns him most. If some statement in Obama’s autobiography implies that he held far-left views when he wrote it, let’s see what he actually wrote, not a Steve Sailer paraphrase.
In the meantime, Obama’s stance on fuel costs suggests that he is either better briefed than his opponents on basic economics, or he is just more honest about that issue. Clarity and straight talk about economic issues is not something I associate with people who are way, way out in left field. YMMV of course.
But let’s stop pretending that he’s a Manchurian Candidate representing the “way way out in left field” position, OK? These are simplistic, prejudicial and ultimately completely unsupportable conjectures.
He wants to raise the capital gains tax rate, even if it actually reduces government revenues, for no reason other than “fairness” (i.e., he thinks that people who have capital gains profits are wealthy, and should have more of their wealth taken from them).
And then there’s this:
He doesn’t want her to get her money from philanthropists–it’s important to him that it come from the State. And the notion that, if you work, you shouldn’t be poor, is pure labor theory of value. If she’s poor, and she doesn’t want to be, then clearly she’s not “doing the right thing.” It may be that she’s not capable of “doing the right thing,” but you can’t expect to not be poor simply by working, if the work you’re doing has insufficient societal value.
#19 It is also worth questioning the judgement of someone who believes that the following passage provides evidence of anything other than the writer’s deep seated antipathy towards Obama:
bq. Sen. Obama has written a 442 page autobiography in which he took great pains to indicate that (A) He cares about his own feelings a vast amount. (B) He cares about one segment of the population far more than he cares about the rest.
#27
You need a primer on the relationship between “taxes and government revenue.”:http://www.cbpp.org/press-points.htm
Sepp #23 —
> You getting ad revenues from [Sailer’s] site or something?
Heh. I disagree with him often enough, but only quote him here when I think he’s being perceptive. Funny how that works.
> [proving] that their words of the present will be acted upon in the future… is an unattainable standard.
Agreed. Thus, rather than focusing only on candidates’ present words, we look to their histories, as well. What did McCain, Clinton, Obama say and do 2, 5, 10, 15 years ago?
> What seems to worry some people the most is that [Obama’s] “community” does not match theirs.
That’s one concern. Example of another type: most advocates of socialized medicine for the U.S. see the entire country as the community of concern; we agree there. But that agreement doesn’t mean that we concur that socialized medicine is the best policy, or even a good one (sorry, hr).
> The success of his campaign so far, however, indicates that these people are an out-of-touch-with-Mainstream America minority.
Sepp, see comment #43 “here.”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/long_time_coming.php#c43
Kevin Donoghue #26 —
> If some statement in Obama’s autobiography implies that he held far-left views when he wrote it, let’s see what he actually wrote, not a -Steve Sailer- paraphrase.
Good idea. In fact, I struck “Steve Sailer” from your sentence to make it even better. As we know, it’s a logical fallacy to conflate the questioner with the question, even when one or both displease us.
Rather than suggesting that Sailer quote directly from Obama’s writing “even more than he already has,”:http://isteve.blogspot.com/search?q=%22Dreams+from+my+father%22 how about if other reporters–Left, Right, and Center–follow his example? Obama is running for President, y’know.
#27
You’re only seeing what you want to see.
bq. He doesn’t want her to get her money from philanthropists–it’s important to him that it come from the State.
That’s not what the passage you quoted says. He says it isn’t enough to get support only from private sources. This is clearly true; if it weren’t we’d have no poverty.
#29
And you need a “primer”:http://savuth.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/static-comparative-static-and-dynamic-studies-in-economics/ on the problems with relying on “static analysis”:http://mises.org/story/64 (and not just as it applies to tax revenues).
But let’s not derail the thread every time you see a point you disagree with.
bq. Agreed. Thus, rather than focusing only on candidates’ present words, we look to their histories, as well. What did McCain, Clinton, Obama say and do 2, 5, 10, 15 years ago?
Sure, you can look into their histories all you want, but recognize that 1) this only provides limited utility, especially if your source material is filtered (a la Sailer) or you are intentionally selective, and 2) “Past performance history does not provide the same probability of predictability of future performance”.
As a test of your hypothesis and methodology, tell me whether you think it is likely that John McCain will lie to the American Public in the future or not?
You need a primer on the relationship between taxes and government revenue.
No, I don’t. When capital gains rates are reduced, revenues go up, because people will stop delaying the transaction. Raising rates reduces the number of transactions, because (what a shock) it increases transaction costs, thus reducing tax intake. People really do respond to cost signals, honest.
But it doesn’t matter whether or not increasing rates reduces revenues, because Obama himself said in the debate that it didn’t matter. He was going to do it regardless. Raising government income was irrelevant to his motives.
That’s not what the passage you quoted says.
It certainly implies it.
He says it isn’t enough to get support only from private sources.
He doesn’t say that at all. We can all read the quote, Sepp.
He says that she should get the twenty dollars from the government, not from generous private sources. It’s still only twenty dollars either way.
This is clearly true; if it weren’t we’d have no poverty.
It’s not “clearly true” at all. If there were fewer government welfare programs, and less taxation on wealthy people, there would be more philanthropy. Basically, a lot of people don’t bother to donate to charities because they’ve been told that it’s the job of the state to take care of the poor. I know that I don’t.
If I were wealthier, and didn’t have so much taken from my paycheck for entitlements, and hadn’t been told by statists that helping the poor isn’t my job, then I’d be contributing a lot more to (more effective than welfare) means of helping the poor.
bq. No, I don’t. When capital gains rates are reduced, revenues go up, because people will stop delaying the transaction.
But since this is only temporary, and lower cap gains taxes cause federal receipts to go down “in the long run”:http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr.html then they end up doing the opposite of what you’re claiming.
Perhaps that’s the goal, though? Grover Norqvist and “starve the beast”?
Also sounds like the “surge is working” and “gas tax holiday” mentality.
bq. Raising government income was irrelevant to his motives.
Of course it isn’t, you’re just piling stupid on top of silly now.
bq. It certainly implies it.
Like I said, you see what you want to see. Just want to make sure you’re aware of the fact that others might not.
bq. Basically, a lot of people don’t bother to donate to charities because they’ve been told that it’s the job of the state to take care of the poor. I know that I don’t. If I were wealthier…
This is not something to brag about or use as an illustration of some vague notion of economic theory, especially when your written views suggest another possible explanation: personal greed and selfishness.
Sepp, you write:
Well, this is kind of a silly question
I enquired as to Senator Obama’s track record in what seems to matter to A.L.
A.L.’s major claim was:
And so what matters is what it is that Obama’s call to politics is about. It’s not an explicit call to transform America in a specific way; it’s a call for us to all talk to each other.
A.L. went on:
[Senator Obama] wants to be elected, and once he is, he wants us all to talk.
A.L. finally emphasized that core issues around Reverend Wright had as cause:
Well, because we don’t all talk. Because members of the church talk to each other, people on Daily Kos only talk to each other, we on Winds only talk to each other.
It is abundantly clear to me that what matters to A.L. is open discussion across divides. Hence, I enquired as to whether or not the area that Senator Obama currently represents and within which he began his political career was now noted for having more open dialogue across divides than prior to his political career.
Here is the debate transcript:
IOW, he doesn’t care about the revenue effects–that’s now what’s important to him. Redistribution is, even if total wealth is reduced.
This is not something to brag about or use as an illustration of some vague notion of economic theory, especially when your written views suggest another possible explanation: personal greed and selfishness.
It’s not a vague notion at all. It’s real-world behavior. And when the government is taking half of my income with the rationale that they’re using it to take care of the poor and needy, it’s hardly “greedy” or “selfish” to want to spend the rest of it on myself and my family. Unless you think that anyone who doesn’t just take a vow of poverty is “greedy” and “selfish.”
But then, maybe you do. Tell me, how much would I have to pauperize myself for others before you’ll stop calling me “greedy” and “selfish”? I have the feeling that I’m arguing with another vague Marxist sympathizer, like Obama.
Didn’t see this earlier.
_Is Illinois now noted for having more open dialogue across divides than prior to Senator Obama’s political career?_
No, the state is in a civil war. No blame or credit to Obama. He has never held significant power within the state political system to make any difference.
AMac: “As we know, it’s a logical fallacy to conflate the questioner with the question, even when one or both displease us.”
It’s a geometrical fallacy to conclude that if point O is to the left of point S then point O must also be to the left of point A. You provide links to show that Steve Sailer perceives Obama as a leftist. So what? You haven’t established that he is too far left for AL to support him (though I have little doubt that he is, in fact). But surely it’s a given that AL is to the left of SS? So while I’m pretty sure AL wll eventually vote for McCain, I can’t find anything written by Obama in your link that AL would be likely to quote as justification for that choice. Obviously Sailer’s own commentary is irrelevant for this purpose.
“Rather than suggesting that Sailer quote directly from Obama’s writing even more than he already has, how about if other reporters–Left, Right, and Center–follow his example? Obama is running for President, y’know.”
I do know that, thank you. How about if YOU quote directly from Obama’s writing so that we can all see just what it is that shocks you so?
And what exactly is wrong with Federal Revenues going down?
Furthermore, whats wrong with being “Greedy” or “Selfish” Why does the left only demonize those sins that revolve around wealth?
Increased borrowing, would be my first guess.
PD Shaw (#40):
Thanks for your answer/report.
Kevin Donoghue #41 —
> How about if YOU quote directly from Obama’s writing so that we can all see just what it is that shocks you so?
Good point, not that I guarantee to be shocked. I’ll read from “Dreams From My Father,” and report back on how it strikes me. It’ll take a while, though.
I don’t expect lots of pithy quotes. Neither do I expect to be the first to find evidence countering the notion that its author was “an unreconstructed lefty (on the American spectrum–a paleoliberal or a bit further left)” (Mickey Kaus). There seems to be good evidence that “Barak Obama Sr.’s ideals were at the leftmost end of the ’60s Kenyan spectrum.”:http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html
AMac,
I look forward to your take on “Dreams From My Father”. hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has been urging all her readers to get the book. Since I’m not American I reckon I’m excused. As to 1960s Kenya, well, the past is a foreign country and 1960s Kenya is very foreign indeed. There’s really no telling what sort of politics I would have been into if I had been there and old enough to get involved.
Maybe you don’t need a primer, you just need more clarity in explaining the situation.
When capital gains taxes are lowered, there may (depending on the exact numbers) be a short-term surge in revenue as a large backlog of transactions that are desirable only when the capital gains tax was between old_rate and new_rate<old_date are executed.
Evidence suggests that afterwards, the steady-state revenue stream is less than before the tax cut. This is surely true in the limiting case; consider what happens when taxes are cut to 0.00001 percent.
Let me add that supporting equality in tax rates is not, at least not necessarily, tied to redistribution of wealth.
Trying again… [ guessing at the formatting you want — M.F. ]
bq. When capital gains taxes are lowered, there may (depending on the exact numbers) be a short-term surge in revenue as a large backlog of transactions that are desirable only when the capital gains tax was between old_rate and new_rate/old_date are executed.
But in addition to that, the more you tax, the more seldom transactions will occur, and the fewer revenues. As I already wrote, you are increasing transaction costs with increased tax rates. Obviously in the limiting cases, on either end (zero percent tax rate, or one hundred percent tax rate) there will be zero revenue for the government (though for different reasons). There is some optimal tax rate that maximizes revenue. But Obama doesn’t seem to care about that. He’s more interested in “fairness.” Whatever that means.
OK, now to close off the italians. [ Thanks, that worked. — M.F. ] In the previous post, first and third grafs were mine, middle one was Andrew’s.
At Obsidian Wings’ archives, Hilzoy recommended that voters read “Dreams From My Father” (2/2/07). Some of Sailer’s and “Hilzoy’s”:http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/02/obama.html characterization of the book are similar. Hilzoy:
bq. It’s not just that [Obama]’s smart, and a beautiful writer (this book could be a novel), and unnervingly perceptive, and capable of putting himself in other people’s shoes to a degree that’s downright alarming. It’s not even just that he has a voice that is absolutely his own — and those of you who have tried to write will know that that’s saying a great deal.
I’d like to continue quoting, because I think in trying to summarize Dreams, Hilzoy is getting at some of the same points that A.L. broached in the body of this post.
Obama may not have succeeded in achieving the synthesis that Hilzoy describes. Even if he has, non-blacks may not find him to be the best candidate for President to represent their aspirations and concerns. As commenter Coldtype forcefully pointed out in the prior thread, some blacks of the Hard Left find Obama unacceptable to the extent that Obama’s efforts are successful.
If I’m critical of Obama the Presidential candidate, I respect him as a person, for undertaking and writing about this difficult journey.
Hilzoy:
bq. One of the things that struck me when I was living in Israel was this: that many of the Arabs I spoke to seemed to have felt as though they had to make a choice between modernity and the West, on the one hand, and their own culture on the other. Some had chosen modernity… Others made the opposite choice: they denounced the modern world and retreated into a [fantasy] version of their culture… I thought that both choices were in some way wrong: that both involved throwing away things that were of real value…
bq. … the alternative [to making this either/or choice] is extremely difficult. In order to deal honestly with this sort of situation, you have to pick your way through the wreckage, sorting out what is useful to you and what is not; what you want to preserve and what you want to discard. This takes enormous self-confidence under any circumstances… Having the self-assurance to [construct a solution that is wholly your own in the face of the overwhelming temptation to think that your every move is a declaration of allegiance] is more than I would expect of anyone, especially when there are people around who are your people, who have genuinely suffered, and about whom it must be very tempting to think: and can I betray them again?
bq. … [this also] requires … a kind of radical honesty. Letting yourself slip into easy, prefabricated ways of thinking dooms the whole enterprise, and the only way to keep going is to keep asking yourself, at every juncture: is this way of thinking accurate? Does it, in fact, do justice to its object? Has something been omitted, or falsified? …
bq. The main thing I want to say about Obama’s book, or at least the four chapters I have read is: this is what he’s doing. He’s trying to pick his way through the minefield, and construct a way of understanding what it means to be him, and in particular what it means to be African-American, that is genuinely his own, and in which nothing of value is discarded.
In a later post, Hiloy writes sympathetically, eloquently, and at length about Obama’s decision to join Rev. Wright’s church “(3/14/08)”:http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/03/obama-and-wri-1.html (Though this has been somewhat overtaken by the events of the past week.)
The GOP can totally marginalize the Democrats, if the GOP succeeds at just one of three things :
1) Blacks vote 90/10 in favor of Democrats. The 10% that vote GOP are either immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa, who hate being lumped in with African Americans, or the rare but prominent black conservatives. If the GOP gets just 15 more points of the black vote to make it 75/25, Dems are in big trouble. OH becomes a comfortable red state while MI, PA, IL, MD, etc. become swing states.
Just 15 more points.
2) CA was a Republican state as recently as 1988. It moved Democrat only because of the large influx of Mexicans. This is bad news for the GOP, as there hardly a single Hispanic Republican politician in CA. Name one. It is criminally incompetent of the GOP to not groom exciting young Hispanics in CA. They must do this in order to turn CA back to a swing, or even a red state. A Hispanic Reagan, or even a Hispanic Arnold, would do it.
3) Jews vote 75/25 for Dems, even though Israel itself is now strongly pro-McCain and anti-Obama. The elements that are most hostile to Jews are also core Democrat constituents. Jews still vote Dems mainly for historial legacy reasons. It is time for this to change, and for the GOP to market its pro-Israel, pro-business cred substantially, and grant Lieberman a prime keynote and the RNConvention. Jews are small in number, but a powerful group that matches GOP values.
4) This is happening already, but as strong GOP states have much lower taxes than deep-blue states, population shift continues to happen. GOP State Goverments should accelerate this. AZ and NV are already siphoning off tons of wealth and population from CA, simply due to dramatically lower taxes. NH, a swing state, does this to other New England States to a lesser degree. Other GOP states should do more of this to accelerate this process, thus gaining more and more EV’s each decade.
If the GOP succeeds at just 1 or 2 of the above 4 strategies, they will force the Democrats into electoral oblivion UNTIL the Democrats return back to pre-1968 ideologies, and purge the absurd leftist that have infested the party presently.
[Duplicate post. Deleted. –NM]
Jim Rockford said :
“Rev. Wright DOES in all likelihood represent the views of most Blacks. ”
Well…. 50-60% for sure.
GK, four times zero is zero.
How, for example, are Republicans going to improve their showing in the black community while holding onto a large share of the white bigot vote? Running Lynn Swann and Michael Steele fooled no one.
How, for example, are Republicans going to improve their showing in the Latino community when people like Tom Tancredo are taken seriously? Pete Wilson won re-election on the basis of Latino-bashing in California. Now his successors get to live with the consequences. Cry me a ríio.
I can’t imagine how Jews match GOP values. You think we want to pray to Jesus in the public schools? Where did you came up with the idea McCain is far more popular than Obama in Israel? Can we have a link? (I also like the way American Jews can’t be accused of dual loyalty, but at the same time are supposed to vote according to the preferences of the Israeli right and extreme-right!)
And, GK, in case you didn’t notice, the effect of population influx into those formerly red states is to turn them blue. Apparently the beliefs of the people are more important than the soil. Nevada is in play this year. The Dems are almost sure to pick up at least one AZ House seat and are close to 50-50 on taking Domenico’s Senate seat. New Hampshire has been a GOP disaster lately, including losing a 2006 Congressional election to a netroots left-liberal. Polls show Dems picking up the remaining Senate seat this fall.
The Republicans in 2006 were the first party in history not to flip a single House, Senate, or Governor. And 2008 looks just as bad! Instead of looking for the pony, concentrate on why the party is so thoroughly rejected by large swaths of the electorate.
Lazarus,
All your silly points were soundly thrashed before. You are a glutton for punishment, but let me summarize.
1) What about JC Watts? The fact that Colin Powell and Condi Rice got to higher posts than the Democrats ever permitted blacks to get to? Consider the actual facts.
Plus, we have already established that the white bigot vote is soundly in the Democratic Camp. The Democrats have a former Kleagle as their seniormost Senator. George Wallace ran as a Democrat as recently as 1976. You can’t admit this, but it is true.
The pattern of Democrat racism against India and Indians (my group) is also well-established.
2) Hispanics already vote about 40-44% for the GOP. However, those are mostly Cubans, while Mexicans vote Democrat. Moving a few Mexicans over is not so hard – they vote in droves when a chance to oppose gay marriage is on the ballot.
3) Israel is rooting for McCain, while Arabs are rooting for Obama. Need I say more. Most of Obama’s core supporters are very anti-Semitic groups (Muslims, leftists, black supremacists like Wright, etc).
Plus, the GOP is pro-business, which also is favorable to high-income groups. “It is a well-known fact that the GOP gets a strong majority of the middle and upper-class vote, while Dems only get a majority of those who earn under $30K a year.”:http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/a_take_on_the_l.html
concentrate on why the party is so thoroughly rejected by large swaths of the electorate.
er…I don’t know what planet you come from, but on Earth, the GOP has won 7 of the last 10 Presidential elections. Democrats have not won 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN attempts, while the GOP did this 4 times over that period (1980, 84, 88, 2004). It is clear which party is in a better position with the center.
All this was already presented before, you just don’t like the facts. Lazarus has more than just jumped the shark, he has actually jumped the sea-cucumber.
bq. Israel is rooting for McCain, while Arabs are rooting for Obama.
And where does this Pearl of Wisdom come from? Care to provide some supporting data?
You make it sound like everyone in Israel believe the same thing as you do. How arrogant and ignorant, not to mention insulting to Israel.
GK, congrats on a copy-and-paste from your earlier unsupported post.
Evidence that Israelis prefer McCain? Not provided.
For some reason, African-Americans aren’t that excited by J.C. Watts (too bad there aren’t any current GOP black Congressmen, eh?), Colin Powell, and Condi Rice as pioneers for the Republican Party. You can ask them why, I suppose.
On Hispanic voting, in 2006 the Republicans got 29 percent of the Latino vote. Thank Tom Tancredo, I guess. Gays turn out to be less important than hateful bigotry, I guess.
You are busy posting statistics about how well Richard Nixon did. I’m posting statistics about 2006 and 2008. (Look for the Republicans to lose two more by-elections for Congress in the next few days, LA-06 and MS-01.)
Current GOP politicians are scared silly. Notice how many are retiring, seeing life in a small minority party through the windshield. Get a grip, GK.
So, you’re saying that one of the biggest underpinnings of Obama’s campaign is a deliberately-promoted fantasy. Or, in simpler terms, a lie…
bq. “To think that someone not like that is going to successfully run for office – a Mike Bloomberg who didn’t have to trade away scruples – is just a fantasy.”
We go on to:
bq. “That project involved both a politics of ‘a right not to give a damn,’ as Joe describes it and a politics of being deeply passionate and attached to the American Project and the freedoms and covenant that come with it.”
Too bad Michelle Obama possesses neither of these things, and has demonstrated both gaps in public. As I’ve said, it was possible to make a speech very like hers that reached in this direction. She didn’t make it. And her own past history (“proud of my country for the first time…”) strongly suggests that she didn’t say it because she doesn’t believe it.
Whereupon my colleague says something that I think is the dumbest thing he has ever written on Winds:
bq. “And so what matters is what it is that Obama’s call to politics is about. It’s not an explicit call to transform America in a specific way; it’s a call for us to all talk to each other.”
No, it isn’t. That’s a lie too – by now, an increasingly obvious one.
Calling Rev. Wright your spiritual mentor, and appointing him to an important campaign committee, is not talk. Having an unreptentant terrorist raise money for you is not talk. There’s a difference between talking to Ahmedinejad, and putting him in charge of the Pentagon. Obama has crossed that line, and refused to apologize for it.
Having crossed that line, and having made it clear that his promises as a reformer are a (“fantasy,” let’s say, to be polite…) it makes complete sense to believe that a man who hands positions of responsibility to haters and unrepentant terrorists, i.e. the type of people who utterly repudiate this concept of civil discourse, is ALSO lying about a politics of respect and talking to one another.
Unless you’re trying to lie to yourself, there’s no reason to believe anything else. His actions are consistent, and they all point in a common direction.
Indeed, as Michelle Obama demonstrates in a speech on his behalf, his politics is about being talked AT by True Believers(TM), which includes purveyors of race hate and violence.
Anyone who believes that’s an approach to anything other than very savage ideological conflict, please call me about a bridge…
Bill Ayers kicked in all of $200, as I understand it. Obama didn’t solicit Ayers to raise money. This is all hot air.
I truly wish that the Democratic party today mirrored the views of Armed Liberal. I would strongly consider voting for them, if that were the case.
But they do not mirror his views. After 3 years of reading WoC, it appears to me that AL himself has not accepted this, and is in some degree of denial.
There are only 3 Democrats/Liberals/Leftists who I believe are fully, unapologetically on our side in the War on Terror.
1) Joe Lieberman
2) Christopher Hitchens
3) Armed Liberal.
This is NOT what the Democratic Party today represents, despite the fact that Radical Islam is a direct opponent of all the values that liberals supposedly care about (women’s rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, civil liberties, premarital sex, etc. etc.)
#52 from GK:
bq. The GOP can totally marginalize the Democrats, if the GOP succeeds at just one of three things …
I think the GOP is in terrible shape demographically, and this is why: The Incredible Shrinking Republican Base (link).
David Blue,
Actually, the opposite is true. “Read this from the Wall Street Journal.”:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277
I actually support abortion – why get in the way of liberals ensuring that fewer new liberals are born?
2008 will have a net 1 million fewer liberal voters vs. conservative voters, even relative to 2004.
The 2001 census moved 7 Electoral Votes from blue to red states. The 2011 census will do the same.
I like reading the Wall St. Journal, but dueling links (RealClearPolitics (#62) vs. WSJ Op-Ed (#63)): not even close.
The US population is changing. Those groups with people who tend to identify more with Democrats and their policies are growing larger, while groups with members who trend Republican are stagnating or shrinking in size. RCP points out one important instance of this.
The WSJ author argues, aha! If Democrats could and did set abortion policy to tilt elections their way 20 years hence, then the country would eventually vote more Democratic. Yes, that may well be true, but so what.
AMac,
You didn’t understand the WSJ article. It says that abortions that have already happened between 1971 and 2008 will damage Democrat’s chances for decades to come. The abortions done between 1971 and 1990 have already cost the Democrats several million 2008 voters, about 3 million fewer Democrats than Republicans.
Republicans reproduce more than Democrats. Blacks and Hispanics may vote Democrat (Hispanics by not too big a margin), but the low fertility of white Democrats more than negates that.
7 Electoral votes went from Blue states to Red states after the 2001 census. That is a fact, look it up. 7 more will go after 2011.
“Northwestern disinvites Jeremiah Wright and rescinds honorary degree.”:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-revwright_northwestern_02may02,0,3856728.story
It appears that Wright’s tactical and strategic usefulness is undergoing reassessment. Perhaps if they build a giant wooden badger …
Re: #66 from Glen Wishard…
What a pleasant link to read! 🙂
bq. “It appears that Wright’s tactical and strategic usefulness is undergoing reassessment.”
I think you have it exactly right.
bq. “Perhaps if they build a giant wooden badger …”
?
> You didn’t understand the WSJ article.
Oh.
The op-ed’s thesis seems pretty simple. Plus, you explain it pretty well.
Katzman in #59
bq. Calling Rev. Wright your spiritual mentor, and appointing him to an important campaign committee, is not talk. Having an unreptentant terrorist raise money for you is not talk. There’s a difference between talking to Ahmedinejad, and putting him in charge of the Pentagon. Obama has crossed that line, and refused to apologize for it.
Do you really think such obvious slight of hand will go unnoticed? This is a deeply paranoid and prejudicial comment that has, as AJL pointed out, little real basis in reality.
Don’t like the shvartze much I guess, eh Joe? The hatred shows through your thin attempt at trying to reason it into this thread.
Don’t like the shvartze much I guess, eh Joe? The hatred shows through your thin attempt at trying to reason it into this thread.
Ah, the typical vicious leftist tactic. Accuse your opponent of racism. That way you don’t have to actually address the arguments.
I guess because of the sea-cucumber remark I’ll pile on GK, even if it’s overkill.
The WSJ (and GK) are operating from a strange essentialist theory of voting. For example, GK made it clear that when people move from blue states to red states, they should adopt the voting patterns of their new homes. Something in the soil? What makes this statement remarkable is that there’s strong empirical evidence that it goes the other way around: Democrats are doing better in NV, AZ, CO, ID and other states that are growing from people leaving, say, CA.
Then there’s the WSJ article, which like many of the WSJ’s op-ed pieces is innumerate propaganda. (It assumes that all young people join the political party of their parents, that people do not change party registration over time, and that 100 percent of aborted fetuses would, had they been carried to term, have registered and voted. Those are the major errors I found on one reading, which was enough.) The facts are that the GOP has become increasingly unpopular among young voters. (Maybe the GOP views on abortion, homosexuality, and outrageous bedroom hypocrisy turned off more sexually active young voters than the alleged abortion shortfall.)
Today is special election day in Louisiana. One open seat, which belonged to the Republicans for many years, is expected to flip.
When GK drives his car, does he notice that the bridge is out ahead, or does he use the WSJ as a map?
#59
Has very resemblance to reality – exaggeration and paranoia.
Guilt by association
overestimates influence of those associations
exaggerates the condemnation
Confuses views of obama with views of myriad supporters.
Confuses 40 years in the past with present
Assumes maximal guilt of obama’s associations
As far as calling other’s posts bad, you need to look at your own.
#69:
bq. Don’t like the shvartze much I guess, eh Joe? The hatred shows through your thin attempt at trying to reason it into this thread.
Whoah! Nice shootin’, Tex! /sarcasm
I’m laughing through the tears here. Your apparent (or put-upon?) hatred of what you think is his hatred is almost comically off target. And the Borscht Belt Yiddish dig–that’s deep, where did you learn that from? Your antisemitic Granny? See, it’s really easy to be shallow when you only -have- whip out a four-inch tool to dig with.
Sepp, he might be wrong about how deep the rabbit hole goes. Jumping from that to your claim is not only bogus and uncivil, it makes me question just how possible it is to take your posting here in aggregate as anything but a long dose of shaggy-dog trolling.
And if that’s the punchline, I’m not sure we can book you through another week. So to speak. Please do better.
“I’ve had a conversation with Coldtype. And you, sir, are no Coldtype.”
Blake Sobiloff (#12) –
Blake, if you think Regan was an entirely wholesome politician who never rewarded his donors and political supporters…go read ‘Dark Victory’ about his relationship with MCA’s Jules Stein and some land deals which make Obama look like a Boy Scout.
I’ll say it clearly – it is very damn hard to rise beyond a City Council level and not make backroom deals which verge on the corrupt, if they are not actually corrupt. I personally know about a dozen elected officials, and only know one – Debra Bowen – who I would say with concrete assurance doesn’t make deals like that.
Joe (#59), –
Joe there are so many things wrong with this argument. First, the first point you make manes no sense. I’m claiming that the myth of The Man On The White Horse who will swoop into Presidential politics with clean hands, brilliant ideas – and be able to realize those ideas and keep his hands clean while serving – is a voter’s wet dream.
And to suggest that Michelle’s politics are the measure of what Barak will do is as mistaken as to suggest that Hillary’s politics in 1992 mattered as much as Bill’s did. No they didn’t then, and no they don;t now.
Let’s go back to Reagan for a sec. He was a great President – why? In no small part because he managed to reignite the belief – the myth, the lie – of American greatness and the American aspiration to be ‘the city on the hill’ for the rest of the world. Mythmaking is arguably more important for a President than almost any other skill, and if I have to take a President who can build great myths for us to live by, but whose policy choices are flawed, against a president who has great policy skills but wears cardigan sweaters and tells us all how we’re suffering from a malaise – I’ll take the mythmaker every day.
Why? Because we have a whole edifice of government that makes it very hard for any one President to do deep damage to our institutions.
We are in deep need of some new myths here in America. We need new myths among ourselves – to reunite us and remind of of why we are so lucky to be here – and we need new myths to counter the evil myths that have gained strength abroad.
Joe, nothing Obama has said suggests that he’s anywhere near putting anyone except mainstream Democratic defense officials in charge of the Pentagon. And I’ll point out that I have spoken out here – strongly – in favor of talking to Iran. (Note that I don’t think Obama and I would be saying the same things, exactly) But when you look under the hood of his policy proposals – when Suzanne Power admits that they won’t rush for the exits in Iraq – they are for more moderate and palatable than you give them credit for.
I’d strongly encourage you to take a step back, take a breath and look coolly at what’s really there. Barack has absolutely associated with some political idiots. So had McCain, and so has Hillary. So have I, and I’ll bet, if we sat and talked about it, so have you.
The question is – what influence do they have over him? What did he take away from meeting them and learning from them?
Those are legitimate questions, and we ought to be drilling Obama for answers to them.
A.L.
AL:
If you want to reassure us about the harmlessness of Michele Obama, maybe comparing her to Hillary Clinton is not the best approach.
It’s also not comforting to suggest that the Obamas’ relationship is Clinton-like. Bill Clinton never had a thought in his life that Hillary didn’t have first, except for the thoughts that happen in his pants.
Now you’ve got me imagining that the Obama-Clintons have a 20 year plan to gather enough souls to beat out God and Satan for rulership of the universe. And if that idea gets around, Bob Beckel and Chris Matthews are going to be telling everybody that there’s no way God can get enough souls to catch up to Barack Obama.
I consider myself a sort of superdelegate of soul, so I guess Howard Dean is going to be bugging me to switch.
One point I think AL has been trying to make about Obama and dialogue is that of the remaining Presidential contenders, he’s least about anathematizing his opponents. I can’t speak for DeGaulle, but Obama is trying to put out the message that he will listen to what you have to say, even as he is refusing to promise to do what you ask. I doubt if even Bush’s last few defenders are willing to say he shows much interest in listening to Democrats; he’s the Decider. (He’s decided to send his political party into the wilderness for decades.)
To tell you the truth, I’m not as pleased with this trait of Obama as AL is. I think it’s a real long shot that he’ll order John Yoo to be waterboarded as part of Gitmo-style tribunals for Americans accused, and therefore clearly guilty, of torture and other war crimes, which I was looking forward to.
Lazarus continues to stumble over the sea-cucumber (for the uninitiated, jumping the sea cucumber is the last remaining feat available to someone who long ago jumped the shark. Jimmy Carter is an example of someone who has jumped the sea cucumber).
Lazarus : The states that gained EVs after the 2001 census (TX, GA, NC, AZ, etc.) voted for Bush in 2004 by an even larger margin than in 2000. This demolishes your hope that states with growing population are becoming more blue.
If anything, California’s growth rate slowed dramatically as it become more left-wing. It will not even gain EVs in 2011, and barely gained anything in 2001.
Furthermore, groups that have the most abortions are the most Democrat voting. Black women are 40% of all abortions, and single urban white women the other 60%. Unless you think that the newborn black infants will grow up to vote for the GOP (which I don’t think they would), your own claim falls flat on its face (much as you did after tripping over the sea-cucumber).
The RCL piece assumes that only married white Christians vote for the GOP. That is false. A bigger determinant of GOP-voting is income. The GOP gains a solid majority among those earning over $50K, while Democrats have a solid majority only among those earning less than $30K. So unless the ratio of low-earners to middle and high earners is increasing (something Democrats are desperately attempting to do), the Democrat voter base is not.
At least you have stopped trying to defend the horrendous race record of the Democrats.
When did the GOP get values and whose are they? The repubican values are those of out and out racism and amnesia about race relations in this country. The Nixon strategy of the 70’s is alive and well.
The Nixon strategy, aka the Southern strategy, came about as a result of the Civil Rights legislation of the mid 60’s. Yellow dog democrats of the South turned to whomever was going to keep African Americans down by any means necessary. They had no intention of giving up their white skin privilege in the south. It later morphed into Reagan Democrats in the north when trade deals and the economic realities meant more African Americans were competing for the remaining middle class manufacturing jobs left in America. These working class whites continue to believe that they are entitled to jobs that they only had to compete w/ other working class whites for.
It is always easy to be proud of your country when you are the major benificiary of its largess. Try being told you are equal but are handcuffed by laws and economic policy and tell me how much pride you have. I see few of you w/ pride in the US just your own self agrandessing and sense of entitlement.
So let us have that discussion what are the posters of at Winds of Change so proud of. One rule being born here is not enough.
Robert, that’s such a tired, cliche view of the US and of the Republicans that you ought to be embarrassed bringing it out into public.
Yes, the GOP and Democrats have different views on race. Yes there are racists in the GOP. Yes – there are racists, including black racists in the Democratic Party. So before you go on about someone else’s mote, about dealing with the log in your own eye.
A.L.
Robert M,
So what causes a person of color, such as myself, votes for the GOP?
Why is Bobby Jindal in the GOP?
Why do Asians have higher average incomes than whites, if America is a racist country? Why are the two highest ethnic groups in America not whites, but Indians and Chinese?
So what causes a person of color, such as myself, votes for the GOP?
Well, obviously you (and Bobby Jindal) have a false consciousness.
Duhhh…haven’t your read your Marx? And his idiotic sycophants?
“More on how Obama or Hillary will struggle to get 50% of the vote”:http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/us-ideological.html
#74 from Armed Liberal:
This is the old myth, right? The one that Republicans want to revive, but that George W. Bush was so unable to articulate that Peggy Noonan implored him in vain to “Answer Chavez”.
#74 from Armed Liberal:
Obviously the new myths aren’t just the old myth restated. Equally obviously, they aren’t in the flood of commercially unsuccessful hate-America anti-war movies that Hollywood has been hurling at us.
Talk about the new myths that you want.
Can you see their outlines in what Barack Obama has done and said?
If not, what sources might you draw on for the new vision you feel is needed?
GK, I almost feel sorry for the wrongheadedness of your analysis.
Today, the GOP lost a Congressional seat in a district where (a) Bush beat Kerry by almost 20 points in 2004 and (b) the Dems appear not even to have bothered to challenge the Republican incumbent (who resigned from Congress) in 2006. If it makes you feel better, the margin of Democratic victory was smaller than the last pre-election polls.
A long time ago, I went to a talk at a mathematics conference given by a Sabremetrician… one of those guys who is addicted to baseball statistics. He went on for his full ten minutes about which of Team Strikeouts, Team Batting Average, Team Full Moon Percentage, etc. was the best predictor of the team’s final standing. After it was over I turned to my buddy next to me and said, “Why doesn’t he just correlate standing with the number of wins?”
You keep repeating this mantra of historical statistics going back to 1968 in complete obliviousness that from 2006 the tectonics are changing.
As an aside on the issue of racism, I just don’t understand your argument that the acceptance of Indians and Chinese means America can not be a racist country with respect to blacks. This is just a complete non-sequitur. It’s like saying the Nazis couldn’t be racists because they were OK with Japanese and Turks.
#19’s quote from Sailer is on the mark. Most people are at each other’s throats not because they don’t
understand each other , but exactly because they *DO*
understand each other all too well. Remember Strother Martin as the Warden in _Cool Hand Luke_? Remember his
statement to a half-dead Neumann(Luke) after Neumann/Luke tried to escape? “What we got is failure to communicate” he said as Luke is thrown down in front of his boots by the guards who recaptured him. The power of that scene lies in the fact that it is quite obvious that both men know(and by extension, we) very well that they know each other all too damn well–and Martin is rubbing it in. Oh, no no no, we on the right and Obama and all he represents, just like Strother and Luke, understand each other very well indeed. “Failure to communicate” is the least of our joint problems.
I really hate tagging on at the end of about 90 other posters, but here I am again. I could post an individual message on WoC, but frankly I don’t think I’ve got all that much to add. I’ve said my piece. I have a hope that someone will come along to act as a good role model for my niece, whose ethnicity is the same as Obama’s. I’d prefer that to be someone like Shelby Steele, although I’m sure she wouldn’t remember him even if I mentioned it, since she’s only about 12. A President would be a much more substancial role model. That’s admittedly wishful thinking, and I don’t plan to vote for Obama… but I still hope that AL’s right about him. Moreover, history is replete with people whose ideology alters significantly once they hold the reigns of power… and I think the current micro-containment strategy regarding Islamofascism really has no alternative. Moreover, I think it would be hard to do something at this point that scuttles the emergence of a kinda-liberal Iraq, but a too-rapid withdrawal couple to the wrong rhetorical devices could do a lot of damage.
I wouldn’t vote for Barack because I’m fed up with the higher education hegemony that spawned he and his wife. They aren’t tory-like elitists in the sense that they come from a long line of privilege, but they’re ideological elitists nonetheless, and they’ve been in the tank for that all of their lives. As a general rule Americans don’t understand this noblesse oblige ideology all that much, but if you scratch someone with royal blood in Europe you’ll find a “wet” or a “red tory.” And those who convert are no less convicted.
I think electing Obama would be a step back. I’m hoping it won’t be two or three. And I’m not sure we’re prepared to take a step forward yet, anyway. Changes in Academe will be incremental no matter who is elected.
In the mean time, just for grins, here’s an example of making presumptions that an inconvenient distraction could be got rid of by vaporizing it. There were a few surprises.
My best guess is that Demosophist (some plebeian salt-of-the-earth nickname, that) is aligned with Clinton and McCain, showing off their disdain for all those economic experts who are ridiculing the gas tax holiday. You would think after Bush shooting from the hip would have lost its appeal, but?!
Anyway, when we look at the candidates, we’ve got McCain who got into the Naval Academy on the strength of his name and has married into phenomenal wealth, traveling around on his wife’s private plane. And we’ve got Wellesley and Yale educated Hillary Clinton, whose family is also now tremendously wealthy. And we have Obama, child of a single parent, who seems to have come into serious money only in the past few years. And it’s Obama who is the elitist. Why? Because he isn’t downing shots with Hillary??
Here’s a little secret: GW Bush isn’t such a man of the people, either. He’s wealthy from birth and his ranch is more of a country home than the Ponderosa.
We don’t get a lot of proletarian Presidential candidates in this country, unless you want to vote for the Socialist Labor candidate who makes blue jeans. Some politicians seem to be better than others at confusing the issue, though.
#73
bq. Your apparent (or put-upon?) hatred of what you think is his hatred is almost comically off target.
There’s nothing hateful in my comment.
bq. Jumping from that to your claim is not only bogus and uncivil, it makes me question just how possible it is to take your posting here in aggregate as anything but a long dose of shaggy-dog trolling.
Well, I am by no means the only one who thinks this kind of crap “is about race:”:http://www.alternet.org/election08/84330/?page=entire
Behold the double standard: John McCain sought out the endorsement of John Hagee, the warmongering, Catholic-bashing Texas preacher, who said the people of New Orleans got what they deserved for their sins.
But no one suggests McCain shares Hagee’s delusions or thinks AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of a foreign head of state and asked God to remove Supreme Court justices, yet he remains a force in the Republican religious right.
After 9/11, Jerry Falwell said the attack was God’s judgment on America for having been driven out of our schools and the public square, but when McCain goes after the endorsement of the preacher he once condemned as an agent of intolerance, the press gives him a pass.
Jon Stewart recently played tape from the Nixon White House in which Billy Graham talks in the Oval Office about how he has friends who are Jewish, but he knows in his heart that they are undermining America.
This is crazy and wrong — white preachers are given leeway in politics that others aren’t.
Which means it is all about race, isn’t it?
The cucumber-jumper is descending into increasingly more paranoid gobbledygook.
Sure, one of the seats in Louisiana flipped. So what? No one even knows the name of that Democrat, and blue-dog democrats are an even bigger threat to left-wing fifth-columnists than conservatives are.
Lazarus is still in a stupor over the 2006 elections where Democrats managed to get 49 Senate seats (still not a majority). So what? Absolutely none of the left-wing shibboleths has passed, and the Dem congress has even lower approval than Bush.
The facts are :
1) Democrats have lost 7 of the last 10, and 5 of the last 7 elections. Only two Democrat Presidents in 40 years.
2) EVs move to deep red states, away from deep blue states, each decade, settling once and for all which group is growing. 7 EVs moved red after 2001, and another 6-9 will move red after 2011.
3) And as for Lazarus’s claim that the population increase in red states is due to blue voters, that is quickly refuted by looking at the 2000 vs. 2004 vote tallies, in the high growth states, for Bush. Bush WIDENED his margin in TX, AZ, GA, NC, FL, etc. Thus, the truth is quite the opposite of what the cucumber jumper wishes for.
Thus, Lazarus has tripped over the sea-cucumber, and fallen flat on his face.
“Read this superb piece from Ace of Spades on how leftism is build on the need to feel like an intellectual without making an effort”:http://ace.mu.nu/archives/179368.php
GK, a party is stronger when it wins. It’s really that simple. The fact that there have been only two Democratic Presidents in 40 years is very interesting, but it’s also a fixed point. How many years can you argue that the Democratic Party is doing badly when it keeps winning House seats? Let’s just suppose that Obama (or Clinton) wins in November, which looks more likely than not, and the Republicans lose more seats in both houses of Congress, which looks nearly certain. In the face of that sort of repudiation, are you going to haul out the same stale statistics, slightly updated? Only three Democratic Presidents? Your PR looks like something left over from the last days of the Whig Party.
The fastest growing state in the country is Nevada. Bush’s margin there shrank from 2000 to 2004. The third-fastest growing state is Idaho. Bush’s margin shrank there too. Tenth-fastest, Oregon, likewise. Leaving these out looks dishonest to me.
I looked at your “superb” link to Ace of Spades. I found it completely incoherent. I believe his central point is that the Left is unhinged in its dislike of one Jeff Goldstein because as an (ex-)academic, he should be a fellow Leftist. On the other hand, Ace of Spades also says that being a Leftist is a way people of little education can pretend to be smart. But on the third hand, Mr Spades ridicules intellectuals:
So, how did Jeff Goldstein, non-Chomskyite, finish his degree? (Wait! Looking closely at Goldstein’s website, it appears he may not have finished his degree, either, .) But I’m not writing about Goldstein. I’m writing about how Ace of Spades’ can’t seem to decide what he thinks about intellectuals, progressive or otherwise.
I think one of the strengths of the Internet is that it has allowed talented public intellectuals a new forum, while allowing non-academics a place to expound their beliefs and through some combination of competitive merit and luck get some following of their own. Your mileage may vary.
Anyway, Ace of Spades, in what I take to be typical ad hominem viciousness, wrote
I hold an advanced degree and I worked hard for it. As far as I can tell, your hero Mr Spade isn’t willing to make that commitment, and except for his one rather dubious example he’s disrespectful of people who did. So what is his talk about lack of effort? What effort did he put in? And what, GK, is your point?
It’s like saying the Nazis couldn’t be racists because they were OK with Japanese and Turks.
The Nazis were OK with Japanese and Turks? Who knew?
(Hint: the fact that they were willing to make a convenient political alliance doesn’t mean that they didn’t consider them inferior races).
There are many much-more-rational explanations for why American-born blacks do poorly in a way that Asians and other races, and even non-American-born blacks (Africans and -East- West Indians) do not, and the fact that there is this disparity between native-born and immigrant blacks would clearly indicate to a Martian observing the situation that the problem is not racism. But it’s a lot easier to blame whitey than to deal with your own cultural deficiencies (a tendency off of which Reverend Wright has made himself a very comfortable living).
[Corrected “East Indians” to “West…” –NM]
Katzman in #59
Calling Rev. Wright your spiritual mentor, and appointing him to an important campaign committee, is not talk. Having an unreptentant terrorist raise money for you is not talk. There’s a difference between talking to Ahmedinejad, and putting him in charge of the Pentagon. Obama has crossed that line, and refused to apologize for it.
A bit overwrought, don’t you think. Calm down.
Many Black Muslims who have traveled to Africa and the Middle East have not only discovered that everything they learned about “Islam” in Chicago is dead wrong, but that their racist Afrocentrism is nonsense, too.
The rotten culture that produced Wright would not survive extended contact with educated Kenyans and Nigerians, who have little or no Caucasian blood, speak perfect English, excel in all fields, and regard Wright’s faux-tribal dress as absurd, if not insulting.
#91 Rand Simberg :
….Africans and East Indians
I think you mean WEST Indians (Jamaicans, Trinidadians, Barbadians, Antiguans, etc.). East Indians are actually Caucasian by race, despite the brown skin.
Yes, I did mean West Indians.
_Yes, I did mean West Indians._
Reminds me of a Fawlty Towers quote I’d better not reproduce here.
Yes, I did mean West Indians
Of course, there are a lot of East Indians that are also West Indians. Guyana, Trinidad, etc. have a lot of people who came from India a century ago, but are now citizens of West Indian nations.
Anyone who follows cricket can name about half a dozen of these East Indian West Indians.
I touched up the original typo. I hope that will keep more people from piling-on poor Rand with the correction. 🙂
GK, a party is stronger when it wins. It’s really that simple.
Yes, and the GOP is 7-3 of the last 10, and 5-2 of the last 7 (a period that excludes Nixon).
Democratic Party is doing badly when it keeps winning House seats?
Because the WH is a far more desirable prize than House Seats, which nonetheless are being taken by blue-dogs, not leftists, moving the center of gravity of the whole House to the Right.
In fact, I would rather have the Governorship of CA than 10-20 house seats.
The GOP also retained Jindal’s house seat, which you were hoping you could get away without mentioning. This is known as stumbling over the sea-cucumber.
the Republicans lose more seats in both houses of Congress, which looks nearly certain.
True, but you are tacitly admitting that the WH is far from certain, which is my point.
The fastest growing state in the country is Nevada…..
So of the 10 fastest growing, only 3 fit your wish of Bush’s margin shrinking, while 7 had Bush’s margin growing. Again, the 7-3 GOP advantage eeriely presents itself.
I am happy with 7 out of 3. It appears you are to, so the status quo of GOP dominance apparently satisfies us both.
7 EVs moved to the GOP in 2001, and 6-9 more will move after 2011. You know this is true. Now be a man (proving Gov. Schwarzenegger wrong) and admit it.
So far, the first three of your points strengthen my argument, and weaken yours
On to Ace’s article :
I found it completely incoherent.
Exactly. Since you are not an intellectual, you merely fancy yourself as one.
As far as I can tell, your hero Mr Spade isn’t willing to make that commitment
Actually, he does, as stated in that article. Proof that you didn’t have the open mind to read the whole thing.
what I take to be typical ad hominem viciousness
It’s called humor, (much like the sea-cucumber meme). In fact, at the end of the article, he explains why leftists are incapable of humor.
Wikipedia image of Sea Cucumber
GK, when Republicans in Congress are replaced by Blue Dog Democrats, the Democratic Caucus moves to the Right but the center of the House shifts to the Left. That’s really not very hard to figure out.
That’s fallacy number One.
With McCain having a less than 50/50 chance, but still much better than Republican prospects in Congress, you state that the White House is so much more important than Congress. In that case, notwithstanding the 1994 Election, the Democrats were the preferred National Party from 1994 to 2000. I wasn’t even going to argue that.
That’s fallacy number Two.
You ignore clear evidence from 2006 and current polls that your demographic data are obsolete. Your recipe for crushing the Democrats included taking 15 points away from the Dem share of the African American vote. Instead, the Dems are taking away a significant share of traditional GOP votes in the Plains and Mountain West—the same sort of major shift you were hoping for but in reverse.
That’s fallacy number Three.
The Governor of California is not worth 20 House seats and his coat tails are small. (The CA State Legislature party breakdown, with Dems in control of both houses, was unchanged. The GOP lost one Federal House seat.) You don’t think the Dems would have traded Gray Davis for taking back the majority six years sooner? But if you want to talk about the subject, did you notice Democratic governors in MT, WY, AZ, and KS among other rather surprising places?
Number Four.
The biggest problem in your argument, though, will be exposed in November, when the GOP loses (including McCain). I suppose you can say that the Dems are still behind 5-3. No one else will be measuring that way.
The Democrats flip the House seat in one of the most conservative areas of the country.
Can GK explain again why electing this conservative Dem is bad news for the party? Over at dKos, we think it’s the cat’s meow.