If you read only the MSM, you wouldn't know that the Obama from the first half of the essay even exists. Many of his followers just take it on faith that the transcendent post-partisan Obama is the one that would govern. His opponents' concerns come out of his track record.

If he is elected--as seems likely--I hope my fellow conservatives will give him a fair shot at demonstrating that he is who he portrays himself as being. Clinton made a serious error in stronly suggesting that he'd include Republicans in his cabinet, and then failing to do so during his first administration. Bush ought to have done so after 9/11, and he didn't. That may be the second biggest mistake of his administration in retropect.

We'll know during the transition how he plans on staffing his administration. If he's willing to govern from the center, I'm willing to give him a chance. So let's assume that he is being upfront about what he plans on doing. If he isn't, he'll pay a price. If he is being upfront, then there's no point in wringing our hands today.

Finally again, by contrast, McCain represents something on the order of an Eisenhower

Oh, my god. What a slur on the memory of Eisenhower.

Can anyone imagine the Grand Alliance with McCain in Eisenhower's shoes?

Other than "old" and "Republican," what similarity is there between McCain and Eisenhower?

It is soooooo depressing for those of us who actually know a little history, to have to see Bush compared to Churchill, or McCain to Eisenhower. What next -- Sarah Palin and Margaret Thatcher?

I suspect that Obama will appoint some Republicans in his cabinet. Chuck Hagel certainly is a possibility.

Michael,

I have absolutely no idea why Obama's books have any relevance to legislation he has written.

flyerhawk,

They don't have "relevance" to his legislation as such, they rather serve as context. Again, what legislator, in the entire country, writes two autobiographies without having written any noteworthy legislation whatsoever? And what does that reflect in the first place, other than self-regard, self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, etc.?

It's largely a rhetorical question to help accent and throw some light on that context, on that self-regard. Though if there are any other legislators in that mold, I'd be interested in knowing of them. I doubt there are any at all. That type of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement is rather stunning, especially so when the "blank slate" phenomenon is taken into account.

And Anderson,

You're going to have to do something other than sniff and sneer vacantly and dismissively. McCain very likely would be in an Eisenhower styled mold. Not a duplicate, but Eisenhower serves as a relevant touchstone and he's certainly better than a "blank slate" whose devotees project so much "belief" and "hope" into, absent virtually any evidence to help support those beliefs and hopes.

If he is elected--as seems likely--I hope my fellow conservatives will give him a fair shot at demonstrating that he is who he portrays himself as being. Clinton made a serious error in stronly suggesting that he'd include Republicans in his cabinet, and then failing to do so during his first administration. Bush ought to have done so after 9/11, and he didn't. That may be the second biggest mistake of his administration in retropect.

Norman Mineta? Or was Bush required to add additional Democrats to his cabinet after 9/11?

After all, if the polls are correct and he only wins by 5 percentage points instead of a landslide, he will have to take into account the fact that half of the country is willing to vote against his ideology even after 8 years of a Republican failure.

Didnt Bush declare a much smaller margin of victory to be a "mandate" from the American people?

Barak Obama has revealed a significant portion of himself in two book-length memoirs, the first of which was Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Unfortunately, his prose style is so prolix and complex that I, like probably most readers, found it impossible to read far into either book. I also suspect that most people who claim to have read either or both of Obama's books either stopped early on or wound up performing a perfunctory skim.

Steve Sailer is the first pertson I've run across who presents proof positive that he's actually read through this book. If you want a vague idea of what we may be looking forward to, check it out. A free download is available at

Steve Sailer's Analysis of Barak Obama's first memoir

It should scare the hell out of most normal persons who are not on the far left of America's political spectrum.

If he is a good politician, and I'm pretty sure we're seeing that he is, there are an infinity of Obamas. It's a hallmark of adaptability. Not only questioning "the real" Obama (that doesn't exist), Mr. Bernstein generously grants an expansion to two (two!) Obamas that amount to a rhetorical reduction from an extreme position (one "real" Obama) to a slightly less extreme one (maybe there's another Obama). This is incredibly naive and perhaps a conceit on the author's part to assert that everybody interacts with everyone else with unitary identities. I'm pretty sure everybody over the age of 12 knows this isn't the case.

There is no evidence-none--ZERO--that Obama is even moderately intelligent let alone "extraordinarily" intelligent.

This is really absurd. While I dont agree with those who call him a genius, graduating magna cum laude from HLS is ample proof of extraordinary intelligence.

Well I did that too, hawkins. Wasn't that tough really. Want to elect me president now? Oh wait, I guess I don't qualify for affirmative action.

Well I did that too, hawkins. Wasn't that tough really. Want to elect me president now? Oh wait, I guess I don't qualify for affirmative action.

I dont claim extraordinary intelligence qualifies someone to be President. Apparently you think it does for some reason. Why else would you use that as your argument that he shouldnt be President?

Hoosier,

I generally agree with your posts (across the board) but I think your argument that Bush43 should have appointed more Democrats misses the mark.

According to Wikipedia, more Democrats have served under President Bush than Republicans who served under President Clinton--and if you include the relatively minor appoints, more than Presidents Clinton and Bush41 combined.

I would note that the Bush43 list includes four former Democratic members of Congress--three of whom are still serving in sub-Cabinet level positions.

Yes, I guess we can expect a lot more of that in the future, Reason? "No one who disagrees with me could possibly be intelligent or moral." Is this the new "fairness" doctrine?

Ugh,

Center and center-right voters don't look up to Reagan in a personality cult styled manner, much less any other conservative leader. It's no coincidence that the most noteworthy personality cults of the 20th century were all of the Left or within the Left's social/political genealogy (e.g., a Mussolini would fall within the latter grouping). The center and center-right occasionally admire their political leaders in a too unguarded fashion - but not in the manner or mold of a personality cult styled blank slate together with the worship and ideological projection that typically accompanies such political cults.

Btw Anderson,

John McCain is the one who has called for an alliance of democracies - a requisite first step in displacing some of the deeply entrenched malignancies as reflected in the U.N. and other tranzi institutions. Hence your sniff concerning Eisenhower and the Grand Alliance is hugely - and ironically - misplaced.

Likewise, why elect, at this moment in history, an unseasoned Obama who would further entrench those transnational malignancies? The U.N., during Eisenhower's era, was a viable and conscionable institution. Much less so today where too many counter-productive malignancies are in fact on evidence in that transnational institution. Durban and Durban II are merely two examples, their failures in addressing genocide in Sudan is an example, their numerous sex scandals serve as examples, the Oil for Bribes scandal as another example of deeply entrenched, counter-productive malignancies at the U.N.

Thus the deeply telling, deeply ironic nature of your query concerning Eisenhower, the Grand Alliance, etc.

Thanks Reason? I'll let you choose for me. I don't want to hijack this thread so this will be my last post. But what I have said I shall maintain. And I if you would like to challenge me to a intelligence test I will meet you any time, anywhere, weapons of your choice! :-) Now pace!

Center and center-right voters don't look up to Reagan in a personality cult styled manner, much less any other conservative leader.

I'm not sure of the qualification you're making here.

If it's that centrist voters don't buy into personality cults, I'd be inclined to agree.

However, the second half of your paragraph seems to imply that personality cults are functions of leftist leaders only. I don't agree with that.

To the extent a "personality cult" exists around Obama it's no more extensive than that which evolved around Reagan, particularly after his presidency.

I'm also slightly confused by the implication that politics in America consist of "center right, center, and left." Even while fully believing America has the better policies on many ideas, American politics would be Far right in relation to most other first world countries.

Didnt Bush declare a much smaller margin of victory to be a "mandate" from the American people

Winning candidates always CLAIM a mandate. However, if the politician overreaches, then there is a backlash (which, with the exception of 1998, is why the election in year 6 in a two-term President's term is usually very good for the opposition party).

If he is elected--as seems likely--I hope my fellow conservatives will give him a fair shot at demonstrating that he is who he portrays himself as being.

In the community where I live, South Los Angeles, which is largely black, the big hope--the one most talked about--is not that the opposition will lend Obama some good will, but that they won't have him assassinated. These people have heard the words that were spoken at GOP rallies over the past few months.

One might have cause to wonder whether it is too much to expect any good will from those Republicans who even now are depicting Obama as a lying, ignorant, incoherent, empty-headed, foppish, elitist, socialist, terrorist-loving, friend to communists, America-hating Muslim, Arab, inexperienced, two-faced, hypocritical, inarticulate, flowery-mouthed wimp who has atrocious judgment and who has never accomplished anything meaningful in his life yet had the audacity to author a memoir and an autobiography that should never have been written.

Visitor Again,

As opposed to how Democrats portray John McCain? (see any random JBG post about McCain to get the latest DNC talking point).

Again, what legislator, in the entire country, writes two autobiographies without having written any noteworthy legislation whatsoever?

You need to examine Obama's legislative record. He has authored a number of noteworthy pieces of legislation. Ror example, as a state legislator he authored (and more impressively got passed with wide bi-partisan support) the law passed by any state requiring videotaping of criminal confessions. He also passed Illinois' first earned income tax credit and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years. He teamed with Lugar in the Senate for the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Initiative. I could go on and on because Obama has a legislative record that encompasses hundreds and hundreds of pieces of legislation during the course of his career on both the state and federal levels.

The idea that BHO is "serene under pressure" is a complete myth. He's never really been challenged, and when he was he didn't respond too well.

For an example, see the last debate. After McCain called him on his associations, he spent 20 or so seconds of his reply stammering out a response while he was thinking what to say.

If anyone wants to put that to the test, push this plan to go to BHO's appearances and ask him to call for the release of the Khalidi tape.

As I predicted, no one else wants to do something very effective and that would show a completely different side to BHO than the one that's been presented to us by his campaign and the MSM.

One might have cause to wonder whether it is too much to expect any good will from those Republicans who even now are depicting Obama as a lying, ignorant, incoherent, empty-headed, foppish, elitist, socialist, terrorist-loving, friend to communists, America-hating Muslim, Arab, inexperienced, two-faced, hypocritical, inarticulate, flowery-mouthed wimp who has atrocious judgment and who has never accomplished anything meaningful in his life yet had the audacity to author a memoir and an autobiography that should never have been written.

I can see you work in my office.

Anderson,

We're not comparing John McCain as prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton with Eisenhower as commander during WWII - we're comparing Eisenhower's tenure as president with a prospective McCain presidency. The remainder of your criticism is nothing more than a vacant sneer and arrogation: all too predictable agitprop, misdirection and flim flam.

McCain's call for an alliance of democracies is in fact indicative and substantive - and since we're discussing a prospective or hoped for McCain presidency, those are the relevant benchmarks, the relevant indicators - and they're certainly better than worshipful blank slate projections into a cipher.

For an example, see the last debate. After McCain called him on his associations, he spent 20 or so seconds of his reply stammering out a response while he was thinking what to say.

24ahead, can you provide a clip or reference for this? My youtube search only brought up this clip where Obama was not flustered in the least:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abLh3b68IHc

Dave N, not ignoring you, just heading for lunch -- I will see what I can come up with after that.

Though I think the shouts of their audiences, as widely reported in the media, give a pretty clear indication what impression the GOP candidates are creating.

Drudge reports that reporters from the NY Post, Washington Times and the Dallas Morning News were ousted from the campaign plane replaced by reporters from the African-oriented Jet and Essence magazines.

Obama operatives also threatened TV stations that ran campaign ads they didn't like. These are troubling events as they indicate Obama is not shy about silencing opposition.

Sarcastro:

"Also, I would like to state that McCain as President will be like Neo from the Matrix."

Why not Ming from Planet Mongo? From Wikipedia:

The world [Mongo] is ruled by an usurper named Ming the Merciless, who makes the planet a terrible place to inhabit.

Surely this describes The Earth on the rein of McCain the Usurper.

A "high level source inside the campaign," the "tape" (is that stored with the Whitey tape in Roger Stone's freezer, or do you have the only copy?) and the assurances of a classy magna Harvard Law grad (I'm so glad a place was made for you there), are the last patriotic bulwarks against the majority of Americans that Obama has brainwashed(gosh, even some that are intelligent and successful!) with a cult of personality. Eventually we'll all wake up and realize that not only is he wrong about everything and a communist/terrorist/America-hating bastard, but he's actually stupid despite insidious appearances to the contrary. The three of you will be so pleased.

Michael B, I think there's a certain party in 1930s Germany that you may be overlooking in your compelling analysis of 20th century political cults of personality, even granting your generous, big tent assessment that Mussolini was left wing. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as I have the fine gentleman whose remarks are touched on in my first paragraph. In fact, why limit it to 20th century totalitarianism? Attila the Hun, in an earlier era, as we all know, was into spreading the wealth.

Obelisk: My apologies. I could have clarified that meant a Democrat in a significant national security role. My point-of-reference for such things is FDR appointing Stimson to the War Department when France fell.

flyerhawk:
I suspect that Obama will appoint some Republicans in his cabinet. Chuck Hagel certainly is a possibility.

I have a decent knowledge of Hagel, and once spent a bit of time with him. (One day, but that's more than I have with anyone else who "is somebody.") I'd strongly recommend to Obama, if he's reading this, that he not put Hagel in charge of running anything. It might turn into another Les Aspin type situation. Also, he goes through staff at an alarming rate, which is not a good sign; not at all good for morale of any organization that he runs. NSA would be a possibility, but definitely not DOD.

Anderson,

"Can anyone imagine the Grand Alliance with McCain in Eisenhower's shoes?"

Yes.


Ugh,

"a personality cult styled blank slate who desparately needs to be seasoned before taking the helm of anything

Oh you mean Obama. For a second there I thought you were talking about George W. Bush circa 2000."

Perhaps he was. All the more reason to be concerned with history repeating itself. I don't think the shoe fits in either case, but they're far from mutually exclusive.

And what does that reflect in the first place, other than self-regard, self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, etc.?

While it might reflct all those things, my guess is that it mostly reflects the willingness of a publisher to pay him a lot of money to write them.

If he is elected—as seems likely—I hope my fellow conservatives will give him a fair shot at demonstrating that he is who he portrays himself as being.

I intend to treat him with precisely the same degree of charity, respect, decency, and honesty as the left has with George W. Bush for the last eight years.

Anderson,

"I am not in fact a huge fan of Eisenhower as president -- I'd give him a B+ for foreign policy and a C on domestic -- but to compare him to John McCain is grotesque."

The Toryisation of the Left continues apace.

The second issue is not the wealth distribution issue but a larger question of how Obama addresses issues.

What I have noticed in reviewing his plans, his statements, and his voting record is that:

1) He seems to fight very clearly for civil liberties (MUCH needed after the last two administrations)

2) His proposals have a fair degree of institutional conservatism to them (no radical departures from the status quo, compared for example, to McCain's proposals). You may think this country is too liberal, but if conservatism is a constrained vision, you have to start where we are and back the current tradition to some extent.

3) He has a firm belief that tax cuts for the poor are fundamentally more productive than tax cuts for the wealthy. I suspect he may be right here, but of course the devil is always in the details. A lot of what we are arguing about is this issue.

McCain on the other hand has shown that he is extremely unilateral and that he does not seem to have a vision constrained by much other than his imagination. These approaches, regardless of right vs left suggest to me that he would also be a well-meaning failure or a total disaster, though I think he also has a potential (if he gets over some of the issues) to be a great president.

Obama operatives also threatened TV stations that ran campaign ads they didn't like. These are troubling events as they indicate Obama is not shy about silencing opposition.

I think there's an important point to be made here.

I argue against the idea of a pervasive liberal bias in the media, but everyone knows the Media isn't a neutral arbiter of facts. They're a bunch of individuals who's "Job" is to come up with stories to run that will sell. The vast majority of the time they take the information they've given, run with it, then do the research to get the "Democrat says X, Republicans disagree and say Y" political story format.

That means the media can be manipulated and even controlled. Control of the media and viewing the media not as a seperate third party, but as something to be targeted and controlled has been a key feature of at least the last 4-5 presidential political campaigns. The Clinton campaigns really were the first ones to use this effectively, but Bush mastered it. Kerry was downright awful at it. Obama's on par or better than Bush was, McCain's campaign is, I think, rather mediocre at it, but they've done much the same thing on occasion.

In short, I really don't find the fact that Obama's learned history's lessons about managing media perceptions of his campaign as convincing evidence of his policy views.

Dave N
Hoosier,

Or JFK appointing McNamara. Now THAT worked out well.

I take your irony, and I'll raise you: McNamara was a disaster, both in DOD and at the World Bank. To quote one of my students from this morning's lecture: "You really don't like McNamara at all, do you professor?"

Nor did McGeorge Bundy work out as National Security Advisor. Plus he bailed as soon as things started going badly in Vietnam.

The lesson in the McNamara/Bundy experience is to avoid appointing liberal Republicans.

I intend to treat him with precisely the same degree of charity, respect, decency, and honesty as the left has with George W. Bush for the last eight years.

OK. But I would like to be more of an adult than Rather, Stewart, O'Donnell (Rosie), O'Donnell (Norah), Matthews, and that guy from MSNBC who appears magically amid the smell of sulfur when one mentions his name.

So I'm asking myself "What would George Marshall have done if he were in my shoes?" Hard to go wrong that way.

As for picking Hegal, I don't think that would sooth many GOP brows. He's not very popular in the GOP. In fact, conservatives would view an Hegal appointment as an insult.

Of course, Obama probably would get the same reaction from conservatives if he appointed..... wait for it....

McCain.

Hawkins:

Didnt Bush declare a much smaller margin of victory to be a "mandate" from the American people

So are you now recommending that Obama follow Bush's example? Some "Change" you want.

Toby - how would Obama not have a mandate winning the vote 52.5-47.5? That is a mandate by any historical definition. Oh and most likely gets 370-400 electoral votes. That's a landslide. Republicans are running scared and it's so funny!!!!

I would also like to prematurely gloat at Obama's victory in the hopes that my hubris will drive Hoosier over the edge.

I can only assume there will be no comeuppance!

No Comeuppance!

I don't see it as an adult vs. non-adult issue. I view it through the lens of game theory: two-party politics is essentially an iterative prisoner's dilemna, and tit-for-tat is the most effective strategy under those circumstances. Anything else rewards the bad behavior of your opponent.

With some games, the only way to win is not to play.

With some games, the only way to win is not to play.

Thank you, Joshua.

Can anybody give me an idea of whether the discourse on The Volokh Conspiracy will improve after Tuesday? Cuz these days it's pretty retarded. The only thing missing is Bart de Palma.

Norman Bates, please reread my posting. I wrote "During the 110th Congress, while actively campaigning for President, he has sponsored 130 pieces of legislation, some of which have become law." Obama sponsored these pieces of legislation. You are right that cosponsoring legislation is not a lot of work, but these are bills that Senator Obama sponsored, which means that he and his staff researched the issue and wrote the bill, and he generated the bipartisan support required for passage. I also wrote "During the 109th Congress, in his first two years in the Senate, he sponsored [not cosponsored] 152 pieces of legislation, some of which have become law."

I'll be shocked if Obama does not appoint both Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel to significant leadership positions in his administration.

Brett,

"I intend to treat him with precisely the same degree of charity, respect, decency, and honesty as the left has with George W. Bush for the last eight years."

I'd think anyone who values such things would act in such a way as to reflect those values.

I am generally a strong advocate for Ike. But you have nailed the fundamental flaw in his and Dulles's policies in the developing world.

Hence my B+ instead of an A. I rather doubt that a Democrat would've been much more sensible, but Eisenhower's stature was such that he could have stood against the notion that America was entitled to bump off annoying governments. The same character that made him such an effective "diplomat general" in Europe, made him insufficiently willing to take controversial stands as president (Little Rock is the exception that proves the rule).

-- And yes, Hoosier, if you've got the McCain-Eisenhower Comparison ready to trot out, bring it on!

Guest12345, in the first place, your own source blames Greenspan and not Clinton for a bubble. In the second place, give Clinton credit for some things. Just as it took Nixon to go to China, it took a centrist liberal Democrat, Clinton, to end generations of welfare dependency and replace the existing welfare system with a new one with lifetime benefit limits and improved incentives for welfare to work. These and other things achieved by President Clinton despite having to work with a Republican-controlled Congress for most of his administration, and despite being hamstrung for months by the silliest impeachment case in American history, amount to significant leadership in helping the economy grow and creating jobs at a significantly faster rate than population growth, which is the opposite of what his successor has achieved.

born to, raised in the company of, educated and promoted by people who view the United States as a pariah nation that must be destroyed in order to "save" it

His mother said that where, exactly?

KEEP ON being complete jerks, people. It makes it unnecessary to trouble ourselves to figure out anything else you say.

eyesay, I wasn't blaming Clinton. I was pointing out that there was a bubble during that time frame and when it popped, it destroyed seven trillion dollars. Clinton got the run-up, Bush got the collapse. The cite of tax policy as being relevant to growth and prosperity during a bubble is all I was answering.

Meanwhile, former Reagan Chief of Staff Kenneth Duberstein has endorsed Obama.

ginsocal wrote:

He was born to, raised in the company of, educated and promoted by people who view the United States as a pariah nation that must be destroyed in order to "save" it. Any other less strident view of him is self-delusion.

I've always wondered something which I think ginsocal can answer: how does someone manage to comment on a blog like this from a padded room in a straitjacket? Do the orderlies take dictation? How does foaming at the mouth affect all of this?

Sarcastro, come back! We need you now...

Uh, Arkady, it has nothing to do with "party." It has EVERYTHING to do with "country." Any action which effectively stymies the implementation of the Cult of Obama is beneficial to the country.

Historically, nationalism has been the vehicle for right-wing fascism. I'm not throwing around 'fascism' like Palin does 'socialism,' it's the hallmark of right-wing extremism and it's a (if not the) central tenet of the McCain-Palin ticket. "Country First."

nyu:

then you get the story on Drudge today about him booting from his campaign every paper that endorsed McCain

The plane is crowded. Despite that fact, Fox is still on the plane, even though their bias is legendary. McCain has also booted people. As arkady and others have explained. Get a grip.

michael b:

What legislator, in the entire country, writes two autobiographies without having written any noteworthy legislation?

Your opinion of what's "noteworthy" might not be universal.

Information about Obama's legislative record is here. Summary information on the 800 bills he sponsored is here. More about that here.

By the way, it's quite ironic that you describe Obama as a "blank slate" while also noting he wrote two books about himself. And he wrote them by himself. No co-author, a la McCain.

The "blank slate" accusation is baloney. Try reading his 33-page Blueprint for Change (pdf), or the other extensive material he's posted at his site.

wfjag:

Obama has no record

See above.

bates:

Steve Sailer

You're citing "a leading promoter of racist pseudoscience." This doesn't help your credibility.

michael:

the most noteworthy personality cults of the 20th century were all of the Left

Right. That's why we've seen people teaching their kids to worship Bush. And erecting Mao-style billboards glorifying him. And writing books describing him as "The Messiah: The Chosen One."

All that happened because Bush is "of the Left." Thanks for clearing that up.

the Oil for Bribes scandal as another example of deeply entrenched, counter-productive malignancies at the U.N.

I guess you must be thinking of the Oil-for-Food scandal that Bush helped facilitate:

the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them ... the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together ... The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions ... On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.

visitor:

One might have cause to wonder whether it is too much to expect any good will from those Republicans who even now are depicting Obama as a lying, ignorant, incoherent, empty-headed, foppish, elitist, socialist, terrorist-loving, friend to communists, America-hating Muslim, Arab, inexperienced, two-faced, hypocritical, inarticulate, flowery-mouthed wimp

You forgot this: "the baby-murdering Muslim."

sarcastro:

Also, Khalidi tape! This guy is dangerous! Like, super-villain dangerous! He hornswaggled McCain out of like 44K!

Minor correction. The amount was $448,873.

brett:

I intend to treat him with precisely the same degree of charity, respect, decency, and honesty as the left has with George W. Bush for the last eight years.

"The left" was part of the group that gave Bush 90% approval ratings, right around the time he invaded Afghanistan. That does indeed indicate plenty of "respect."

hoosier:

Gee. 90%? Are you sure?

Yes. Look it up.

Was there some sort of important event that drove the approval ratings that high? Or are Democrats just really swell folks?

Both.

eh:

Historically, nationalism has been the vehicle for right-wing fascism.

I think it's worth repeating what John Cole has said about "the new Christian Nationalist party:"

the narrowing of the Republican party down to the vicious, ignorant, bitter core of Palin acolytes and Rovian hacks is a good thing, and the Christian Nationalists that will take over the party will be more than willing to throw aside the McClellans, the Powells, the Buckleys, and everyone who they deem has shown insufficient fealty to the cause. We should support that. The more we can marginalize the rancid remains of the GOP into a discredited Palin wing, the neo-cons with their hillbilly yokel Christian right front, the better.

You can be guaranteed that on Nov. 5th the level of vitriol will go up 100x what it is now. You will long for these days.

Jukeboxgrad:

When I posted about Hoosier's reference to ocelots, I did not recall specifically whose clothes he was speculating said animals might be inhabiting. The substance I was referring to was him being willing to agree that Obama was "very smart" but not willing to cede that he was a "legal genius," which seemed like a reasonable position to me.

FWIW, I generally quite enjoy your posts, and do not wish any mammal in your clothes that you would not want there.

Joseph Slater

When I posted about Hoosier's reference to ocelots, I did not recall specifically whose clothes he was speculating said animals might be inhabiting. (Emphasis added)

Don't let jbg's methods infect your almost ostentatiously reasonable mind, my friend. You are twisting my words: It was only one ocelot.

Anderson,

"KEEP ON being complete jerks, people. It makes it unnecessary to trouble ourselves to figure out anything else you say."

Would it help if I used smaller words?

You're giving Clinton the blame for the deflation of the bubble, but you're not giving him credit for the inflation of the bubble. That makes no sense whatsoever. You're trying to have it both ways.

I'm not giving anyone blame. I'm just saying that I see people write that Clinton had all this economic growth and it just didn't really happen that way. The chart labeled Equivalent Data From the International Monetary Fund, shows that Clinton was 1-2% better than GWB, and worse the Reagan. You want to talk some fantastic and amazing growth and prosperity I'm going to need to see something particularily outstanding, not middle of the pack.

dave:

Jukebox does his usual dissembling. Editing others comments

It's called "quoting." It represents a middle ground between two extremes: pasting in your entire comment (a very silly thing to do), or not pasting in anything at all. And those are the only three choices. So you should explain why those other two choices are superior to what you call "editing."

taking comments out of context

An example would be nice. Can you present an example of me doing so?

Here's what I mean by an example of "taking comments out of context." Imagine, if you will, someone making a statement like this:

A prominent politician yesterday referred to Barack Obama as "this black boy."

And then imagine discovering that the original passage said this:

I think it already has sent a wave of approbation and admiration in many countries around the world, just knowing that this black boy who grew up with just a loving mother and grandparents -- and that was about all he had to start with -- does now have a chance to become the nominee of the Democratic Party for president.

(Emphasis added.) The word "boy" is appropriate because the speaker is making a reference to, oddly enough, Obama's actual boyhood. At the time he "grew up," Obama was indeed a "boy."

Now that's what I call "taking comments out of context." But you already know that, right? Because the person who committed this egregious act of "taking comments out of context" was you. As I explained here. So it's no surprise that you would raise the subject of "taking comments out of context," since it's obviously an area of special expertise for you.

None of those people is head of the White House Office of Faith and Community Initiatives.

You're being incoherent. I have no idea what you're getting at. The subtopic was Ds appointed by Bush, and Rs appointed by Clinton. John DiIulio was indeed Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He was a D appointed by Bush. He is listed on the wiki page you kindly provided.

My point, which you have not addressed, is that while Bush looks good when you look at the quantity of Ds he appointed (as compared with Clinton), he looks bad when you take into account the fact that Clinton appointed Rs to important jobs. Bush appointed Ds to relatively unimportant jobs. Your original post obfuscated this important fact, and you're still obfuscating.

your smears of both John McCain and Sarah Palin have been nothing short of disgusting

In your typical style, you are showing this many examples: zero. Do you have any proof? Let's see it. What are you waiting for? There's no time like the present.

As usual, your claims are pure wind.

dave:

you smeared John McCain's entire military career--arguing that McCain's career is solely due to the fact of his parentage and nothing else

You don't dare quote my exact words, because I never said "solely," or anything synonymous with that. I've said that it was probably a major factor. That's a very logical assertion, and I've backed it with proof.

just links of dubious validity

Really? Tell us exactly what I've cited that's "dubious." In my post here, I cited Timberg, McCain's biographer. Are you really claiming he's "dubious?" Please clarify if that's really what you're saying, because I can show you plenty of proof that he's anything but "dubious."

I also cited an article about McCain's numerous plane crashes. The article is well-sourced. Let me know if that's what you're calling "dubious."

Here's what's "dubious:" you.

As for Sarah Palin, you have trashed her for the audacity of taking her special needs child on the campaign trail

I have trashed her for turning a 3-day old infant into a political prop. Who presents a 3-day old infant to press photographers and reporters? I'll tell you who: someone who is looking for the obvious adoring 'pro-life' headlines that such a stunt would generate, and did generate. And there are many other examples of her using her kids as props.

helped spread the Andrew Sullivan canards

Go find what I actually said, and quote it. I dare you.

more recently had the utterly incomprehensible argument that Sarah Palin is a socialist because she supports the royalty checks that Alaska residents get for the exploitation of a resource OWNED by the people of the state of Alaska

What is socialism if not the idea that resources are owned collectively "by the people of the state?" And that's exactly the word she used: "collectively."

The situation is summed up pretty nicely here:

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

And speaking of Karl the Marxist, which pinko came up with the idea the government should own all that land, and all that oil? Doesn't Palin believe in free markets, and private ownership? Why would anyone think the government can manage that land more efficiently than a private company would? If it's OK for the government to own all that land, why not just let the government own all the land in the whole state? What's the difference? Because it's a good idea to "share in the wealth," right?

guest:

I'm not giving anyone blame.

You said this:

Fiscal policy during the Clinton years resulted in seven trillion dollars in wealth destruction

Sure sounds like blame to me.

"The rest of you are simply pretending to be obtuse."

No, no. Sorry if you got that impression. It's just that when you wrote "people," we thought that you meant *us*.

Jukeboxgrad probably gets paid by the post, David. If you restrict his posting, he won't be able to put food on the table. We evil-hearted libertarians will have to watch the little guy starve.

sol vason: If you are right about Obama, and if we elect him anyway, then there really is no point in us having a country of our own anyway. We are not fit for self-government.

Since I can't accept the conclusion, I'm not accepting the premise.

jukeboxgrad:

"The left" was part of the group that gave Bush 90% approval ratings, right around the time he invaded Afghanistan. That does indeed indicate plenty of "respect."

That's nice. I said "for the last eight years", not "for the last four months of 2001, when 9/11 temporarily shook Democrats out of their Bush Derangement Syndrome".

LM,

"(BTW, can conservatives catch Bush Derangement Syndrome?)"

A lot of conservatives disagree with Bush, but disagreement is not derangement. BDS refers to opinions grounded in premises either outlandish on their face or at least highly unlikely. If I opposed Bush because I was afraid he was going to eat Earth, that's BDS.

LM,

"Have you ever seen Bush and Galactus in the same room?"

My theory is that Bush is the one the Phoenix Force has selected to take into the next universe, so that after he exhausts all the poor, defenseless peoples of this universe, he can slake his unquenchable bloodlust in a whole new one.

David Bernstein: " If you don't restrain yourself, I'll have to ban you""

Banning Jukeboxgrad" ?!??!!! Because he posts TOO MUCH?! Yes, we have too much civil discussion on a topic -- gotta put our foot down and totally ban a commentator. Sure we like a few posts, but if we actually have to read too many, well, that's just beyond the pale. sheesh.

Good lord. I don't always agree with him (but I usually do), but his posts are always civil, even when people are not civil to him. Moroever, he almost backs up his points with links for support, something almost no one else ever does. You should be happy and proud that your blog has attracted such commentator.

Your blog as a button so that if I don't like a particular blogger, I can refuse to read him. If any other person has complained about his posts, they can easily block him. Or even better, they can just skip over him.

Yes, of course. the problem in America is that we have WAY too many people who are knowledgeable about the issues and take the time to educate us on it. Those who do should know that they are NOT welcome on a blog that purports to be a place where people can see what the other side is thinking. God forbid we should encourage civil discourse.

David, if you don't like his numerous posts, click the button. If this blog is just a vanity project for you, then by all means, ban all those whom you dislike. But if you have this blog obstensibly as an open forum for discussion on various issues, then you have to take what comes. You have a clear policy regarding civility. If you want to create a new policy regarding number of posts, you should at least have the decency to create it and publish it.

In the mean time, let a thousand flowers bloom.

What percentage of graduates of Harvard Law graduate magna or summa cum laude? Is graduating with honors from Harvard Law as common as graduating with honors from Harvard with an undergraduate degree, where about 90% of the students graduate with honors? (See http://www.admissionsboards.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=71)

Right, so 5 percentage points means more than I thought. I'll hold my breath and submit the same argument replacing the 5 with a 1. Is this realistic? I hope so, because Obama with a mandate could be frightening ... especially with a Dem Congress - If he actually believes what he is saying on the campaign trail in the final stretch. But maybe I'm just "making a virtue out of selfishness."

LM,

"I've assumed that was Heather Mills, but I'll give your theory some thought."

Ever seen Mills and Palin in the same room together? Call Oliver Stone!

db:

Jukebox, please try to limit yourself to a reasonable number of comments per post. You have 25 on this one. That's beyond excessive. If you don't restrain yourself, I'll have to ban you.

I definitely want to follow the rules, but it's hard to tell what they are. The last time you threatened to ban me, I demonstrated that some other people had done things much worse than what I had allegedly done. And had not been banned, or even threatened, as far as I can tell. (It turns out that The Ace was eventually banned, but by someone other than you.)

Now you're raising a complaint about my 24 comments in this thread (it was 24, not 25). Those comments are 15% of the total. But I notice that TJIT posted 21 comments here (31% of the total). A.W. posted 16 comments here (19% of the total). cboldt posted 33 comments here (18% of the total). Gary Anderson posted 33 comments here (17% of the total). And he posted 17 comments here (17% of the total). And he posted 20 comments here (16% of the total). In threads here and here, Mac posted about 16% of the comments. He posted 18 comments here. He posted 23 comments here. A. Zarkov posted 16% of the comments here. Perkins posted 15% of the comments here, and 14% of the comments here. Bruce Hayden posted 15% of the comments here. Ralph Phelan posted 26 comments here. Gaius Marius posted 19 comments here. He posted 25 comments here. William Oliver posted 21 comments here. ejo posted 14% of the comments here. Hoosier posted 23 comments here. He posted 20 comments here. He posted 21 comments here. Richard Aubrey posted 13% of the comments here. SIG357 posted 37 comments here. The Ace posted 23 comments here. And Michael B posted 10% of the comments here.

I'm guessing that you've never done an analysis like this, and so I figured you might find it interesting. In my analysis, I ignore short threads, for fairly obvious statistical reasons. All the threads I've mentioned have at least 60 comments, and most of them have over 100. I've also ignored all threads that aren't yours. I also ignored threads prior to 2008.

This data shows that it's not unusual for one poster to post 20-30 comments, or sometimes more. It's also not unusual for one poster to post 10-20% of the comments in a long thread. However, it is unusual for someone to do this and then be threatened by you. As far as I can tell, you have never threatened to ban any of the people I just mentioned. As far as I can tell, you've only threatened banning four times (in 2008). Two of those threats were directed at me (one in this thread and one that I cited above). Recently you threatened to temporarily ban anyone who mentioned what happened here. And here you threatened someone in connection with their remarks about Israel.

Here's one thing TJIT, A.W., cboldt, Gary Anderson, Mac, A. Zarkov, Perkins, Bruce Hayden, Ralph Phelan, Gaius Marius, William Oliver, ejo, Hoosier, Richard Aubrey, SIG357, The Ace, and Michael B. have in common: they have all done roughly the same kind of allegedly "excessive" posting that you have just complained about. Here's something else they have in common: as far as I can tell, you've never threatened to ban them. Here's something else they have in common: their political views are roughly congruent with yours.

DailyKos has a policy statement that indicates, explicitly and bluntly, that the purpose of the site is to get Democrats elected. Here you obviously have no comparable policy statement. However, in light of the data I've compiled, I wonder if you should consider adding such a statement, strictly as a practical matter. It would create a less perplexing situation for a commenter like me.

One could even argue that adding such a statement would also bring VC up to the ethical level of DailyKos, with regard to being transparent about one's agenda.

If you have a problem with the content of my posts, it would be helpful to hear you say that. But if the problem is one of quantity (absolute or relative), then it's hard to understand why you haven't threatened to ban the other 17 people I mentioned.

Here's another interesting statistic: in over 90% of your threads, I haven't posted at all.

brett:

absolute human garbage

Speaking of civility. Your timing is impeccable. David, please note that here you threatened to ban me for saying this:

The ad is effective only with people who are simple-minded, ignorant, and easily-fooled. In other words, the ad is effective mostly with people who were going to vote GOP anyway.

And later I showed data to support my assertion.

If I had to choose between living in village A, the one filled with "absolute human garbage," as compared with living in village B, the one filled with the "simple-minded, ignorant, and easily-fooled," I think I would reluctantly choose B. In which village would you feel more comfortable?

randy:

You should be happy and proud that your blog has attracted such commentator.

Thank you for your kind words.

Because you think W wasn't able to destroy his presidency all by himself? I guess that's were we disagree.

The fact that Bush has been a lousy president doesn't excuse the behavior of his political opponents.

And, considering the fact that so many loyal Republicans nominally-Republican political opportunists have endorsed Obama, I guess that little tent of good decent human beings is really quite small.

Fixed that for you.