Tuesday, April 15, 2008


Candidate on a High Horse
"...Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them."


dcat said...

Nonsense. Plain and simple. Isn't Obama's wife from the South Side of Chicago? Didn't he work as a community organizer in that city? I don't think his formulation was accurate, inasmuch as it was not fully thought through, but I'll place my working class background bona fides against anyone at Big Tent, for example, and I'll tell you: The bitterness thing? It's largely true.

But hearing about condescension from George Will is a glorious example of clueless irony. This is the sort of non-story we'll hear about forever because Hillary will play it up and then the GOP will do so. That's politics, but I'm not certain the Republicans want to play this game against a black candidate. It could well backfire. (Those common men known as the Keating Five are calling and they want to say "hello.")


Anonymous said...

Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Michelle "never been proud of America" Obama.
I don't care what he says about middle America. The company he keeps tells me he is a despicable man.

Anonymous said...


Jeff said...

I always find it a bit puzzling that many folks don't merely disagree with their political opponents but must decide they are "despicable." No matter who is nominated, the conservative and liberal attack machines will give "hate fodder" to the ideologues. I would hope that you, Paul, might be a bit savvier than to devour what is fed. You don't have to vote for Obama or even like him--but why do you need to hate him? Can't you disagree, even vehemently, without punctuating it with hate? I mean, at least wait until he actually enacts something.

Anonymous said...

Obama hangs out with people who hate America and I'm the one full of hate for calling him despicable. Great. But I'll retract despicable and replace it with dangerous.

Jeff said...

Obama is a mainstream liberal. McCain was endorsed by a high-profile evangelical who spewed hate against Catholics and non-Christians--what does that say about McCain? Absolutely nothing. Do you really think that Michelle Obama "hates" America? Why the desire/necessity of attributing the worst motives to your political rivals? Can't you just disagree with him? Let the Daily Kos and Limbaugh clones follow the hyperbolic invective--thinking people understand that any American election is between two patriotic parties and individuals with competing ideas. That is all. We liberals don't hate America. In fact, if you believe that representative democracies produce candidates and standard-bearers who resemble their followers--look at the real live Democrats you know, actually know, and if you can honestly say your Democratic friends, co-workers, and colleagues "hate America" then maybe your assertions can be true. The Republicans I know are honest well-intentioned folk---with different ideas than me--that's all. Grant us the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Obama is the most liberal Senator in that body; not exactly mainstream.
McCain being endorsed by preacher so-and-so (no name provided, so I don't know what to call him) is not the same as Obama attending Wright's church, being married by Wright and having his kids baptized by Wright.

No less than Hillary Clinton herself expressed frustration at the Moveon.org bunch dominating the caucuses- with the goal of getting Obama the nomination.

None of this was an attack on you, Jeff, but your party's primaries and caucuses have produced a candidate that is friends with people who hate America.
Wright- God Damn America!
Ayers- sorry he didn't plant more bombs
Davis- member of CPUSA
Where am I wrong?

Global Poverty Act, raising capital gains taxes in the name of fairness, failure to condemn Carter for negotiating with Hamas. This is liberalism?
Why can't I just eat my waffle?


dcat said...

Paul --
I do not know what is more alarming-- that you believe the nonsense you spew or that you don't. The Wright stuff has been takan so out of context as to be ridiculous, but how is Obama supporting him worse than McCain accepting Falwell's embrace? (Quiz: Falwell did or did not blame certain Americans for 9/11.) How is Obama's vague connection with Ayers worse than McCain's connection with 60's leftists who he has forgiven more recently? How is Davis' connections with CPUSA worse than McCain's connections with the Keating 5?

Oh -- and the "most liberal Senator in the body" has pretty conclusively been shown to be based on shoddy methodology.

Here is the reality: the average Big tenter is disinclined to believe in Obama (or Hillary). But take away the name and the party and the average Big Tenter would have been disinclined to support what George Bush has done.

But what I worry about, not just at Big tent but elsewhere in the political dialogue, is a msear campaign aimed at Obama that will dance around the real reason for opposition to him.

Obama is not a Marxist or a radical. Disagree with him if you would like. But be honest about it. If you think Obama is a Marxist, you are an idiot who does not grasp either Marxism or American politics. I'm assuming this does not refer to anyone who reads this website, but nonetheless, it holds true.


Anonymous said...


"I do not know what is more alarming-- that you believe the nonsense you spew or that you don't."

Yes, I believe the things that I
say/write (I don't SPEW anything, asshole); sorry it alarms you that someone disagrees with you.

"The Wright stuff has been takan so out of context as to be ridiculous"

So...quoting someone verbatim and playing video of them is now 'taking things out of context.' Your defense of Wright is downright Orwellian.

"How is Obama's vague connection with Ayers worse than McCain's connection with 60's leftists who he has forgiven more recently?"
Here's how: (I'll go slow so you can comprehend.)
Vague? Vague?!!! You HONESTLY think Obama's connection to Ayers is vague? What does it tell you that, in the debate last week, he wouldn't disavow his relationship with Ayers, but actually had the Audacity (pun intended) to compare his friendship with Ayers to his relationship to Tom Coburn? Shame on him.

"How is Davis' connections with CPUSA worse than McCain's connections with the Keating 5?"

First, nice attempt at deflection; this is not about McCain. Even so, McCain's actions with the Keating 5 were reprehensible and I condemn him for that. And do you honestly want to compare McCain's role in Keating 5 to Davis' membership (not just connection) in an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the government. Obama was mentored by Davis and Wright; does that not throw up any RED flags in your mind??? (yeah, I went there, and I took pictures, too. Want to see them?)

"Here is the reality: the average Big tenter is disinclined to believe in Obama (or Hillary). But take away the name and the party and the average Big Tenter would have been disinclined to support what George Bush has done. "

The first good point you have made. We republicans do disagree with Bush on occasions when we think he is wrong. You are defending Obama on charges that are indefensible.

"But what I worry about, not just at Big tent but elsewhere in the political dialogue, is a msear campaign aimed at Obama that will dance around the real reason for opposition to him."

Oh, is this a cheap attempt at playing the race card? If it is, nice try. I, and many others, oppose Obama for numerous political reasons and support people such as Rice, Thomas, and Steele, for those same reasons. Race has nothing to do with this.

"If you think Obama is a Marxist, you are an idiot who does not grasp either Marxism or American politics."

Call me whatever you want, but he was mentored by a Marxist, goes to a Marxist's church and espouses Marxist policies. (raising the capital gains tax in the name of "fairness" just to name one.)The fact that he views the tax structure not as a means of collecting revenue, but as a means of achieving equity tells me a lot. In Obama's case, he is quacking like a duck,...

dcat said...

Paul --
Once again, it's clear you do not know what Marxism is. If you think raising the capital gains tax is Marxist, as opposed to simply a policy issue with which you disagree, then you are a fatuous thinker. If you think Obama was "trained" by a Marxist, then you apparently have no idea about Obama's career trajectory. Seriously. Obama was trained in college and law school. He was trained in his career. He was not trained by his pastor. Nor is he responsible for his pastor's views. It's that simple. He has disavowed Wright's statements. What more do you want?

But let's establish something, since you chose, of all areas, intelligence about which to to insult me: by any measure of intelligence, I am smarter than you. I am smarter than you by education level. I am smarter than you by professional accomplishment. I am smarter than you by virtue of accomplishing things in a world in which smart people accomplish things. I am smarter than you are by saying or writing the things that come out of my brain. Any measure. You name it, I'll play it. So "go slow" so that I comprehend at your peril. I have forgotten more than you know about politics or history. We are talking about politics, and I believe in some vague way we are both associated with the world of history. You may think I'm an "asshole," but I am an asshole who is much, much smarter than you are. I'll happily play ad hominem game with you all you want, but if the category is "who's brighter," you aren't winning. Sorry, bitch, let's compare vitas. Again, name the standard. You want to attack me personally, that's fine. Do it in a realm where you're a factor and not a midget. Brains ain't one of them, pee wee.

The rest of what you say really is just talking points that you can reiterate but not concoct as someone who reiterates but does not concoct everything that comes from your piehole and oozes from your keboard. Obama's connection with Ayers is virtually nil, you ARE taking Wright out of context, and you sound like a whining ninny. And one who STILL does not know what Marxism is. But keep yammering on, you genius fellow you. It is, if nothing else, entertaining to watch the monkeys throw their poo.


Anonymous said...

Here's some more poo (I'd rather be throwing it than have my head full of it like you):
Obama has yet to distance himself convincingly from these influences. He attended that church for 20 years; it's a part of him. Why was that shit being preached from the pulpit anyway? Where was the faith, hope, love, path to salvation, how to be a better Christian? Or maybe the churches I've attended were just weird for preaching that stuff instead of radical politics. And it wasn't taken out of context. Listen to (or read) all of the sermons; they're even worse than the cuts.

Davis was his mentor- Obama called him that in his book. And I didn't say "trained," I said "mentored."

And he still hasn't distanced himself from Ayers. That guy should be a social leper. Instead he's a university professor formulating education policy (God help us) and sitting on foundations with Obama.

Personally, I think you should demand a refund of all your tuition; they screwed you. All that education doesn't make you right on the issue at hand, or any issue for that matter. But you bragging about it does make you sound like an elitist dick; so you should feel right at home in the Obama camp.

Oh, and for the last time:
Raising the capital gains tax IN THE NAME OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY is Marxist. Raising capital gains taxes is just stupid.


dcat said...

More brilliant Paulisms. A man who doesn't understand Marx talking about Marxism, a man talking about religion who doesn't understand religiosity, a man who doesn't understand taxation talking about taxes. A perfect storm of idiocy.

So much for the merits of the case. This is what we get from Paul, who cannot argue the issues on the merits so he resorts to the sorts of vague character smears that people who know nothing love to substitute for argumantation. Too bad -- an argument on the merits would be interesting. An insistence on Marxism is idiocy. I expect more, and yet from Paul know less is forthcoming.


dcat said...

Paul --
Again, for all of the vitriol, (Yours and mine) all I ask is that you support or oppose the candidates on their merits. I can engage in the ugliness as much as the next guy, but I do hate it.

You oppose capital gains taxes, which is not actually even vaguely a major issue in this campaign. And there are legitimate reasons to oppose that tax. As there are legit reasons to support it. Why couch it in terms of Marxism? Why be so afraid to engage issues on their merits?

I may be wrong, but I thought that some time ago you not only opposed, but actively loathed McCain's candidacy. But he is the nominee of your party, a party the general views of which you actively support. And so now you support him. I've no problem with that. I loathe what Hillary has done these last few weeks and yet because I am a Democrat will support her if she somehow emerges as the democratic winner. We're partisans. And that is not bad.

What is bad is the vitriol. Vitriol you spew and that which I spew. But the isue I have is that your vitriol is factually wrong, and thus worse than mine. Oppose Obama. But to call him a Marxist in your knee-jerk way is not only ugly, but demonstrably wrong. Why not be fair? I suppose the idea of a capital gains tax. I may be wrong in terms of economic policy, I may be right. But I'm not a Marxist for thinking what I think. Nor does it make me an "elitist," the new fatuous tag of those who can't think that well.

Argue on the merits, Paul. That you cannot redounds on you, not me. After all, you have called me a "dick" and an "asshole," and yet on the issues at hand I do know much, much more than do you. Much as I find it cute to be lectured to by a high school teacher I do actually value people who know stuff. You are not that person.


Anonymous said...

Do you HONESTLY think I don’t know about Marxism, religion and taxes? Do you HONESTLY think that I could stand in front of 6 classes a day and teach about history, politics and economics without knowing the subjects? It’s not idiocy; it’s just that you won’t allow anything you disagree with to penetrate the fantasy world you’ve created and live in.

It probably won’t do any good to repeat myself, but here goes:
Obama is a Marxist by my definition. His church (A church he chose to join either for political expediency or because he agrees with the doctrine. Pick one) embraces Black Liberation Theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism#Marxist_theology), which is based on Liberation Theology. LT was created as a Trojan horse to introduce Marxism to South America because it was meeting with resistance from Catholics. His pastor is a racist nutjob who gives lifetime achievement awards to Louis Farrakhan. (For Obama or his supporters to cry racism is a “glorious example of clueless irony.”) His speeches and policies are loaded with class warfare (I chose the capital gains tax as an example, but I can add the windfall profits tax to that, as well). I’m sure I’ve left some things out, but all these puzzle pieces fit together so well as to form an unattractive picture of Obama. Oh, and he threw his grandmother under the bus as well. Great character, that Obama. Oh, and his wife isn’t proud of her country. Man, I keep finding puzzle pieces.

And how about this gem: "The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think 'true patriotism', which is 'speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security'. I decided I won't wear 'that pin' on my chest," he said in the interview. "Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people 'what I believe will make this country great', and hopefully that will be a testament to my 'patriotism'.”
Nice definition of patriotism, buddy. So Obama believes that the government makes to country, not the other way around. You’re trying to become president of the United States for crying out loud, just wear the f***ing pin!!
Oh, he’s wearing it again, now that he thinks he has the nomination sewn up and is headed for the general campaign.
More here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6502.html

As for religion, I understand that issue perfectly well. The church you attend/join speaks VOLUMES about your beliefs, character, and judgment. Is there any more to know?

This will be the third time I write this statement on taxes: using taxes to generate revenue is perfectly acceptable; using it “for the purpose of fairness” is Marxist. (Obama’s words, not mine)

I’m well informed on these issues and I’ll debate them any time. Obama is wrong on all of them.
Bomb Pakistan, but meet with Hamas, Iran
Nuclear disarmament
Windfall profits tax on oil companies/pharmaceutical companies
Nationalized health care
Raising capital gains tax (part of the economy, so, yes, it IS a big issue)
Cap and trade (carbon as currency)
Propping up home prices

But this whole post and comment thread was about Obama’s character and elitism, so I commented on those things.

I oppose McCain on several issues, but I never actively loathed his campaign. I think he’s basically a good man with a solid record and tons of experience and I agree with him on most issues (a stark contrast to Obama). I just happen to disagree with him on global warming, drilling in ANWAR and immigration; and those are issues I feel strongly about.

By the way, back to your original comment:
And how does being a community organizer or coming from the South side of Chicago insulate you from being an elitist? And what the hell does Keating Five have to do with any of it???

PS- When did we add 7 more states to the union?

Anonymous said...

typo correction:
"So Obama believes that the government makes THE country, not the other way around."

Anonymous said...

For Obama or his supporters to cry racism is a “glorious example of clueless irony.”

I take this back and apologize for it.