mpmcgraw wrote:Actually you just did dignify that with a response.

That's gold Jerry. GOLD.

BuddyGroom wrote:America is being dumbed-down, and the conservatives are leading the charge.

And this is a dumb statement.

Mountainphan wrote:

BuddyGroom wrote:America is being dumbed-down, and the conservatives are leading the charge.

And this is a dumb statement.

Especially considering that the Dems have a candidate who is running on the important policy issues of "hope" and "change." It took Hillary a long time to figure out running on experience and understanding the issues was a little too complicated for America.

what do you guys think about this article?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/po ... Z%2046KZeQ

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Be careful before you brand me some ivy league NYC leftwing liberal Democrat who thinks he knows what's best for all.

Um.

All due respect.

As an Ivy League-educated, NYC Democrat, I'm pretty much dead certain that you are vastly, vastly more prescriptive and arrogant in your pronouncements about "if only people knew what's good for them than ANYONE, left right or center, on this board.

It's that arrogance, generally backed up by an absence of specifics or supporting arguments, that's made you something of a joke here.

Did you just call me a joke? Wow.

I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response.

Well, let's see. In one sentence, you insulted where I live--a place I love and am proud of--where I went to college, and my political philosophy. And you did it with a stereotype so hackneyed that the most brain-dead right-winger probably wouldn't have bothered with it. My initial response included a two-word filtered suggestion, which I deleted because it would be embarrassing to violate the TOS as a mod, but please consider it implied.

Philly the Kid wrote:I was asked to site more sources and have been. Sorry they aren't the same pablum laden trough you feed from.

People like you frustrate me more than any of the Lax's or Vox's of the world ... cause you are scared to call things as they really are. Prefer to think the system is designed well, just a few kinks in the armour. Giving McCain credit. It's Dems like you that make me want to support 3rd parties.

As the man once said... there you go again.

Mightn't it be just the TEENSIEST bit arrogant and "knows what's best for all" to assume that I'm "scared to call things as they really are"--or even, for that matter, to think you KNOW how things really are? Take issue with my beliefs all you want, but don't ever think I didn't come by them honestly.

The irony here is that, politically speaking, I *was* you. When I was a teenager, anything I read in the Utne Reader was unquestioned truth, any pronouncement by whatever radical politician was moving and beautiful and real, every extremist was an idealist and every rebel a martyr-to-be. I at 17 would have bought any conspiracy you were selling.

I thought I had this licked when I got to college--that same Ivy League school you mindlessly smeared--and saw how pointless, dumb and frankly counterproductive it usually was in practice (and got arrested for my troubles)... but I did suffer an unfortunate recurrence in 2000, when I made the embarrassing mistake of voting for Ralph Nader.

(Since this seems to be cyclical, it might mean that for the 2010 elections, I'll be voting straight Marijuana Freedom Party ticket... but given that Yvette Clarke is my congresswoman, I probably would have done that anyway.)

Why did I modify my beliefs? Because through a great deal of investigation, observation, argument and refinement, I came to believe that, yes, capitalism is the most excellent economic system humans have come up with, and that representative democracy is equally excellent as a system of political organization. Accepting this means also accepting that neither is perfect: sometimes capitalism will lead to excesses and mistakes, and representative democracy might lead to outcomes I personally find deplorable. But so long as the system preserves its capacity for self-correction, you take the bad with the good.

You, on the other hand, seem to seek out only views that confirm your preconceived beliefs--Amy Goodman, United for Peace and Justice, the 9/11 Truthers. It must beat any high to know, just know, that you're right and everyone else is wrong--and it must be particularly satisfying not to have to worry that any of your quarter-baked ideas might ever be put into practice, showing just how boneheaded and vacuous they are.

So, yeah: you're a joke.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Pointless or not, "in the moment or not", you can deny what you read here all you want. Folks are downright irrational about Palin.

These attitudes absolutely matter, but the fact that you don't recognize it bodes well.

I guess you think the vehement tone is "irrational" (or, since the web is tonally neutral, what you're no doubt gleefully imagining as the tone).

Would it help if we could somehow channel George Will's even keel in pointing out that she's an(other) arrogant, incurious mediocrity picked without any regard to what it could mean for the country? And that her selection, along with the substance-free and dishonest campaign he's running, makes a mockery of McCain's "Country First" brand?

What I don't see is you, or anyone else, defending either of them. Just pointing at the scoreboard and offering snark.

All you are doing is working a "hypocracy" angle with a lot of accusations of dishonesty and blah blah, it doesn't work because in order for your accusations to stick, you'd have to be coming from some honest broker standpoint for which you cannot. Substance free? Do you read yourself - compared to who? "Change" man?

Be partisan, be craaaazzzyyyy, but don't prented you don't have a chronic case of selective outrage just like the rest of us.

Mountainphan wrote:That's simply not true. Among other things, I recently linked an article from USA Today, which discusses her actions while in the Governor's office. As far as I know, not one of the Palin "critics" commented on it one way or the other.

I read it. With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), I didn't think there was a point in responding. You didn't convince me, in the sense that I don't think her ambiguous policy record in her short tenure with mostly consensus-grounded issues signifies very much about how she'd act as president, and I'm sure that if I suggest you take a look at this piece in today's NYT, about her tendencies toward score-settling, secrecy and cronyism as mayor and governor, I won't convince you--and probably you'll dismiss it by dismissing the source.

Mountainphan wrote:Instead, it seems all we get is a great deal of snark and hatred being tossed her way. That qualifies as "PDS" and not substantive debate. It's amazing how Obama's lack of experience gets a pass semmingly at will, but Palin gets the old "righteous indignation" at every turn. Why is that?

We can disagree about the distinction between Obama's record--community organizer (yes, that), Constitutional Law professor, state legislator, U.S. Senator--and Palin's (sportscaster, mayor of a small community, short-term governor of a small state). But I hope you'd at least grant me two things:

1) that Obama's record and views on a wide range of issues have been surfaced, dissected, and judged by most of the electorate, as Palin's have
not

2) that, like the results or not, millions of Democratic primary voters made the judgment that Obama was up for the job of the presidency--and one guy, give or take a Kristol or two, made that decision about Palin (and she wasn't his first choice)

Mountainphan wrote:I can understand if people disagree with her on the issues or question her experience, but the level of negativity found in so many of the comments are fever swampish, pure and simple. That's all well and good, but others may see that as over the top.

I disagree with her on the issues, I question her experience, and I think she's got no business even being in the national conversation, for reasons I put out there a few pages back. And yeah, I'm very worried that it's going to "work," something will happen to McCain, and we're going to have another Bush-type presidency with a "decisive" but incurious and somewhat mean-spirited semi-figurehead, with similarly sad consequences for the country we all love and in whose success we're all deeply invested. If you read that as "fever swampish," I guess there isn't much I can do about that.

What outrage? You seem to be the only one that actually gets worked up.

Sarah Palin is to American politics as Paris Hilton is to the American film industry. Someone somewhere thought it was a good idea, for reasons I cannot fathom, but in the end, the Hottie and the Nottie deservedly flopped.

TenuredVulture wrote:Sarah Palin is to American politics as Paris Hilton is to the American film industry. Someone somewhere thought it was a good idea, for reasons I cannot fathom, but in the end, the Hottie and the Nottie deservedly flopped.

Serious question: by what standard has Palin flopped? What indicators are there that she is harming McCain's chances of becoming president?

I think this is a resonable question on both sides - I suppose if asked I'd say it's too soon to tell. As someone (I think it was Mark Penn) pointed out, McCain is experiencing the expected post convention bump, and it appears that the Obama campaign was caught a bit flat footed on it. The history of Democrats leading big in the summer than losing the lead after the GOP convention is a reasonable comparison and something to be concerned about if you're a Democrat, but I think the suprise of the bump this time comes from a) Democrats who believed Obama was unbeatable and b) conservatives who believed Obama was unbeatable - both were reasonable conclusions that are (for a lot of people) turned on their head right now. All that said, there's no reason to believe McCain will stay on top.

If asked, I'd say we're very far from drawing a conclusion on whether Palin was an effective choice, and that the evidence as of today would suggest she's far from a flop. That she's a flop among folks who weren't going to vote for McCain anyway is immaterial (for example, Cheney meets every criteria that has formed to disqualify Palin, and no one liked him either).

If you just mean "for the good of America", well, that's a different argument and we'd both be approaching the view from different enough perspectives that we'd be better off just calling each other names.

Dick.

VoxOrion wrote:
Dick.

peckerhead

VoxOrion wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Sarah Palin is to American politics as Paris Hilton is to the American film industry. Someone somewhere thought it was a good idea, for reasons I cannot fathom, but in the end, the Hottie and the Nottie deservedly flopped.

Serious question: by what standard has Palin flopped? .

I'm making a prediction. Just like I predicted "The Hottie and the Nottie" would flop.

Gotcha.

I also think (maybe I'll write a blog about it) there's going to be a real Bradley effect with Palin. But it won't be based on gender, it'll be based on people realizing (I hope before it's too late) that she's really not ready to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.

dajafi wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Philly the Kid wrote:Be careful before you brand me some ivy league NYC leftwing liberal Democrat who thinks he knows what's best for all.

Um.

All due respect.

As an Ivy League-educated, NYC Democrat, I'm pretty much dead certain that you are vastly, vastly more prescriptive and arrogant in your pronouncements about "if only people knew what's good for them than ANYONE, left right or center, on this board.

It's that arrogance, generally backed up by an absence of specifics or supporting arguments, that's made you something of a joke here.

Did you just call me a joke? Wow.

I'm not even gonna dignify that with a response.

Well, let's see. In one sentence, you insulted where I live--a place I love and am proud of--where I went to college, and my political philosophy. And you did it with a stereotype so hackneyed that the most brain-dead right-winger probably wouldn't have bothered with it. My initial response included a two-word filtered suggestion, which I deleted because it would be embarrassing to violate the TOS as a mod, but please consider it implied.

Philly the Kid wrote:I was asked to site more sources and have been. Sorry they aren't the same pablum laden trough you feed from.

People like you frustrate me more than any of the Lax's or Vox's of the world ... cause you are scared to call things as they really are. Prefer to think the system is designed well, just a few kinks in the armour. Giving McCain credit. It's Dems like you that make me want to support 3rd parties.

As the man once said... there you go again.

Mightn't it be just the TEENSIEST bit arrogant and "knows what's best for all" to assume that I'm "scared to call things as they really are"--or even, for that matter, to think you KNOW how things really are? Take issue with my beliefs all you want, but don't ever think I didn't come by them honestly.

The irony here is that, politically speaking, I *was* you. When I was a teenager, anything I read in the Utne Reader was unquestioned truth, any pronouncement by whatever radical politician was moving and beautiful and real, every extremist was an idealist and every rebel a martyr-to-be. I at 17 would have bought any conspiracy you were selling.

I thought I had this licked when I got to college--that same Ivy League school you mindlessly smeared--and saw how pointless, dumb and frankly counterproductive it usually was in practice (and got arrested for my troubles)... but I did suffer an unfortunate recurrence in 2000, when I made the embarrassing mistake of voting for Ralph Nader.

(Since this seems to be cyclical, it might mean that for the 2010 elections, I'll be voting straight Marijuana Freedom Party ticket... but given that Yvette Clarke is my congresswoman, I probably would have done that anyway.)

Why did I modify my beliefs? Because through a great deal of investigation, observation, argument and refinement, I came to believe that, yes, capitalism is the most excellent economic system humans have come up with, and that representative democracy is equally excellent as a system of political organization. Accepting this means also accepting that neither is perfect: sometimes capitalism will lead to excesses and mistakes, and representative democracy might lead to outcomes I personally find deplorable. But so long as the system preserves its capacity for self-correction, you take the bad with the good.

You, on the other hand, seem to seek out only views that confirm your preconceived beliefs--Amy Goodman, United for Peace and Justice, the 9/11 Truthers. It must beat any high to know, just know, that you're right and everyone else is wrong--and it must be particularly satisfying not to have to worry that any of your quarter-baked ideas might ever be put into practice, showing just how boneheaded and vacuous they are.

So, yeah: you're a joke.

First of all, I didn't insult you at all. Lax was implying that I was "like" a so-called "northeasterh elitist", and I strongly suggested that though he thought he know me and my range of experience, he did not. I wasn't acutally insulting NYers who I enjoy and briefly was one, nor the Ivy League where both my mother and sister hold PhDs and many of my friends have attended.

I'm glad you think the Utne Reader was the far left. Hardly, and that you've evolved. Sadly, neither the form of democracy you hail as the best thing going, nor true capitalism actually exist. Sorry if I think we can do better. Like actually implement a democracy that isn't bought off by corporate power, or actual capitalism as opposed to the inside govt jobs and bail outs -- the real 'welfare' state, not to mention absolute corruption.

Amy Goodman is a fine journalist and god bless her efforts and the many others I work hard to keep up with , or I might actually believe the thing s you seem to believe. Sorry if NPR and the NY Times don't cut it for me. Excuse me if I'd like to hear more than imbedded reporters and interviews with the usual ex govt and other insiders ... everyone has a bias, i don't agree with everything I hear or read or believe it, but I'm sure proud of being aggressive about going after alternative sources of information and have learned a great deal hearing interviews on the ground in haiti and palestine and elsehwere.

My backing includes but is not limited to:

Noam Chomsky
Sy Hersch
Howard Zinn
Michael Parenti
Naomi Klein
Edward Said

and countless others. These people are not lunatics. The fact that smart, reasonable people can draw some different conclusions about the motives of Bush-Cheney, dare to question the official story of 911, or question whether or not Iraq was an illegal invasion of a country with a despot, largely propped up by our own machinations. (I don't think they build a lot of tanks in Iraq) and a goal of Bush-Cheney apriori of them taking office, or that many Dems of my persuasion believe that Bush actually lost the last two elections ... doesn't make any of us whacko or a "joke".

So stay nice n comfy in your discourse believing the system pretty much works, despite the propoganda machine that has for example created and delivered us now Palin -- great for you.

I admit I've been hyperbolic at times, and can come off a bit cokcy -- gee whiz, it's a sport chat board with a lot of drunk posting, and 20-somethings that think they know it all already not to mention the outrageous things paraded out in threads like this one all day long -- I've been willing to be called out by you on occasion for style and content but this one was basically an attack or so-called retaliation for something I never aimed your way -- as though I'm the first guy to come on strong or be a bit sarcastic.

Whatever Jeff...

95% of the outrageous stuff posted in this thread is you making ridiculous theories based on nothing and telling us to prove you wrong, 3% of it is jersey saying "i just wanna win man" which I argue he should be bannished to guam and have all his voting priviledges revoked for saying and the other 2% is me complaining in hyperbolic terms about whatever I have come across that has pissed me off that day.

So in summary, ITS YOU.

Chomsky is kind of a nut. Brilliant linguist, but he's out of his depth in politics. He once said it would be great if political conversation could be as sophisticated as the sports talk you hear on radio call-in shows.

dajafi wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:That's simply not true. Among other things, I recently linked an article from USA Today, which discusses her actions while in the Governor's office. As far as I know, not one of the Palin "critics" commented on it one way or the other.

I read it. With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), I didn't think there was a point in responding. You didn't convince me, in the sense that I don't think her ambiguous policy record in her short tenure with mostly consensus-grounded issues signifies very much about how she'd act as president, and I'm sure that if I suggest you take a look at this piece in today's NYT, about her tendencies toward score-settling, secrecy and cronyism as mayor and governor, I won't convince you--and probably you'll dismiss it by dismissing the source.

The woman has been in office for two years as Governor and had an 80% approval rating among her constituents. As the article I linked expresses, she has admiration from both sides of the political aisle. The problem with the NYT piece is it comes across as an exercise in dirt-throwing. Has the NYT taken the same approach to examine Obama? I haven't seen it.

At least the USA Today piece made an attempt to have balanced coverage.

dajafi wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:Instead, it seems all we get is a great deal of snark and hatred being tossed her way. That qualifies as "PDS" and not substantive debate. It's amazing how Obama's lack of experience gets a pass semmingly at will, but Palin gets the old "righteous indignation" at every turn. Why is that?

We can disagree about the distinction between Obama's record--community organizer (yes, that), Constitutional Law professor, state legislator, U.S. Senator--and Palin's (sportscaster, mayor of a small community, short-term governor of a small state). But I hope you'd at least grant me two things:

1) that Obama's record and views on a wide range of issues have been surfaced, dissected, and judged by most of the electorate, as Palin's have
not

2) that, like the results or not, millions of Democratic primary voters made the judgment that Obama was up for the job of the presidency--and one guy, give or take a Kristol or two, made that decision about Palin (and she wasn't his first choice)

His record has been dissected by primary voters who chose to ride the wave of his personality and speech making 50.5/49.5 over Hillary Clinton. The more people have lookied into his rather thin record, the more he has slipped in the polls. I'd agree with you on Palin if she were running for President, but, alas, she is not.

dajafi wrote:

Mountainphan wrote:I can understand if people disagree with her on the issues or question her experience, but the level of negativity found in so many of the comments are fever swampish, pure and simple. That's all well and good, but others may see that as over the top.

I disagree with her on the issues, I question her experience, and I think she's got no business even being in the national conversation, for reasons I put out there a few pages back. And yeah, I'm very worried that it's going to "work," something will happen to McCain, and we're going to have another Bush-type presidency with a "decisive" but incurious and somewhat mean-spirited semi-figurehead, with similarly sad consequences for the country we all love and in whose success we're all deeply invested. If you read that as "fever swampish," I guess there isn't much I can do about that.

For the record, I don't consider you part of the "fever swamp", which is why I engage with you more than most. I appreciate your willingness to respond respectfully and always have.

I just don't understand the part where you get down to viewing her as "mean-spirited" or "arrogant" any more than any other politician. That part is baffling to me, but I don't pretend to be able to change anyone's opinion on the matter.

dajafi wrote:I hope you'd at least grant me two things:

1) that Obama's record and views on a wide range of issues have been surfaced, dissected, and judged by most of the electorate, as Palin's have
not

2) that, like the results or not, millions of Democratic primary voters made the judgment that Obama was up for the job of the presidency--and one guy, give or take a Kristol or two, made that decision about Palin (and she wasn't his first choice)

"Obama's record" is an oxymoron. He doesn't have one. He has spent three and a half years in the Senate and half that time he's been running for President. He's sponsored three significant pieces of legislation, all non-partisan, and the last one he slapped his name on when he came off the campaign trail.

His views on issues are well known, but people aren't interested in Palin's views on issues. No, they won't to know her private thoughts. Who cares about her record on abortion? What does she really think? Who cares that she hasn't done anything to instill her Christian beliefs into government? We know she's a religious whacko. Using that standard let's dredge up Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko, and William Ayers. Sarah Palin has been an elected official for ten years. Eventually someone might actually look at what kind of job she did.

Who made the decision that Joe Biden was up for the Presidency? When he's run for the office Democratic voters have given a resounding no. Yet Obama picked him anyway. He's only been approved by the voters from a state the size of... Alaska.

dajafi wrote:I disagree with her on the issues, I question her experience, and I think she's got no business even being in the national conversation, for reasons I put out there a few pages back. And yeah, I'm very worried that it's going to "work," something will happen to McCain, and we're going to have another Bush-type presidency with a "decisive" but incurious and somewhat mean-spirited semi-figurehead, with similarly sad consequences for the country we all love and in whose success we're all deeply invested. If you read that as "fever swampish," I guess there isn't much I can do about that.

I question if you have any idea what her record is on the issues. As near as I can see all Obama has over her is that we know where he stands and Democrats like him. Wow. Some qualifications. No one has ever questioned Sarah Palin's competence. Semi-figurehead? For whom? She's shown disdain for the Republican establishment and probably has never met these people you think will pull her strings.

She's not long on experience. But then neither is Obama. She has a long record, however. No, she doesn't have Washington experience. A few months ago Democrats thought that was a good thing. Bill Clinton had no Washington experience. That didn't seem to be a problem for Democrats.

MP, I've read a lot of Times articles that have taken a harsh view on Obama. They endorsed Hillary. They covered the Wright thing, they've detailed his changes of position, et cetera.

The Palin piece today had supporters of hers as well as critics. But even if you believe it's a hit piece, does the pattern it describes concern you at all? These people are democratically elected officials with limited powers, not sovereigns who can use their powers to settle scores.

His record has been dissected by primary voters who chose to ride the wave of his personality and speech making 50.5/49.5 over Hillary Clinton.

I think this is at least a little presumptuous... even if I probably would have made a similar statement about Bush, bearer of a famous name and with the good fortune to have held a limited-power, part-time governorship in a booming economy, eight years ago. In both cases, whatever the reasons, the partisans get to pick.

Otherwise, I can only speak for myself--or at least I try to only speak for myself--but what I initially liked about Obama wasn't his political persona (and that criticism is a little rich for a defender of Palin), but his record. I think it's a strong one, in terms of the issues he's engaged with and helped pass laws around, both in Illinois and the U.S. Senate. The other aspect of it was what struck me as a strong, thoughtful, principled but non-dogmatic approach to public policy. At the end of the day, I think he's an empiricist--as FDR was, and as Reagan at his best was for that matter. I've looked into his advisers, I think I have a sense of his decision-making process, and I believe he'd represent my values (you know: radical Muslim, America-hating...) very well in the presidency.

I don't pretend that he's perfect or that he's never flip-flopped for political expediency, or shown questionable judgment. But I found him vastly preferable to Clinton on those questions--whom, of course, all Republicans now totally love and respect :? --and McCain.

You're right that Palin isn't running for the presidency. But the truth is that the guy who is, would be the oldest guy ever to take the oath. He's got some health problems. Her temperament, record and qualifications are more relevant than they might be if it were, say, Romney at the top of the ticket.