TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Is Disco Stu really Stanley Fish?

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Is Disco Stu really Stanley Fish?

I wikipediaed him and still have no clue to what you are referring to. All I know is that he and his critiquers are disgustingly verbose.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Is Disco Stu really Stanley Fish?

I wikipediaed him and still have no clue to what you are referring to. All I know is that he and his critiquers are disgustingly verbose.

Well, one of his main points is that liberal principles are self-defeating and incoherent for the reason you identify in your post.

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Is Disco Stu really Stanley Fish?

I wikipediaed him and still have no clue to what you are referring to. All I know is that he and his critiquers are disgustingly verbose.

Well, one of his main points is that liberal principles are self-defeating and incoherent for the reason you identify in your post.

I never said it was self-defeating or incoherent.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Is Disco Stu really Stanley Fish?

I wikipediaed him and still have no clue to what you are referring to. All I know is that he and his critiquers are disgustingly verbose.

Well, one of his main points is that liberal principles are self-defeating and incoherent for the reason you identify in your post.

I never said it was self-defeating or incoherent.

No, that's what Fish says. Oh, Nevermind.

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:So Moveon.org endorsed Obama today, and already the Republicans are using this to smear Obama as a Dirty Libburl.

I'm no particular fan of MoveOn at this point, but here's my question: why is it that when some whacked-out lefty group makes an endorsement, the Republicans gleefully attack it, but when some rabid homophobes like Focus on the Family or psycho greed goons like the Club for Growth endorses someone, the Democrats never do the same?

I guess the answer could be that while the righty groups at least ostensibly support things that are unobjectionable in the abstract ("family values," low taxes), the lefties are in another category. But Moveon's agenda, as I understand it, is basically universal healthcare, worker rights and ending the war. Not exactly the Mumia people here.

My working theory is that it has to do with the Democrats', shall we say, labial nature--their failure to stand up loud and proud for their own values. But I'd be interested in other explanations.

Because I think liberals try to focus on getting everyone together while conservatives rally around pushing people apart. Most liberals don't agree with homophobia, but most will say that person has a right to be that way. It don't work the same way on the other side of the coin.

Is Disco Stu really Stanley Fish?

I wikipediaed him and still have no clue to what you are referring to. All I know is that he and his critiquers are disgustingly verbose.

Well, one of his main points is that liberal principles are self-defeating and incoherent for the reason you identify in your post.

I never said it was self-defeating or incoherent.

No, that's what Fish says. Oh, Nevermind.

I know, you asked if I was him. Since I didn't say that, then I really can;t be him.

dajafi wrote:I don't wish to alarm anybody--and I'm not sure it means anything--but a couple polls now have Obama with a slight national lead over Clinton.

Here and here

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

dajafi wrote:

No, that's what Fish says. Oh, Nevermind.

The record $3.1 trillion budget proposed by President Bush today would produce eyepopping federal deficits, despite his attempts to impose politically wrenching curbs on Medicare and eliminate scores of popular domestic programs.

The Pentagon would receive a $36 billion, 8 percent boost for the 2009 budget year beginning Oct. 1, even as programs aimed at the poor would be cut back or eliminated. Half of domestic Cabinet departments would see their budgets cut outright.

Slumping revenues and the cost of an economic rescue package will combine to produce a huge jump in the deficit to $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, the White House says, just shy of the record $413 billion set four years ago.

But even those figures are optimistic since they depend on rosy economic forecasts and leave out the full costs of the war in Iraq.

The White House predicts the economy will grow at a 2.7 percent clip this year, far higher than congressional and private economists expect, and the administration’s $70 billion figure for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply a placeholder until the next president takes office.

Bush proposes killing or cutting back sharply 151 programs to save $18 billion next year. Many of those cuts have been proposed and rejected by Congress before, such as moves to eliminate community services grants to nonprofit groups that help the poor, a food program aimed at low-income seniors and grants to help states keep illegal immigrants convicted of felonies in jail. Lawmakers will surely restore proposed cuts to clean water grants, funding for local law enforcement and homeland security grants to states and local governments.

Overall, Bush proposes a five-year freeze on domestic programs funded by Congress each year. For 2009, that means just a 1 percent boost in a universally supported food program for poor pregnant women and their children, despite rapidly rising food costs. Health research funded by the National Institutes of Health would be frozen, which is likely to mean fewer research grants.

The budget proposes eliminating the $283 million federal program to help people make their homes more energy efficient and would cut energy aid to poor households by $500 million, a 22 percent drop over this year’s spending. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., called scrapping the home weatherization program "completely wrong headed" at a time of high heating costs.

momadance wrote:Obama with 13 point lead in CA?