pudge's Journal: Terrorist Fist Jab

Granted, it is ridiculous to refer to what Obama did as a "terrorist fist jab." But on the other hand, that makes more sense than referring to a potential McCain presidency as a "third Bush term."

Maybe a more fair comparison, and certainly a more important one, would be that Obama's potential eight years in office would be a "sixth Castro decade." Or maybe, a bit scarier, a "second Carter term." Well, no, I take it back, those aren't fair comparisons to "third Bush term," because they are far more meaningful and accurate.

It's funny to me how people will be so selective in what utter nonsense they find offensive. I find about 80 percent of Obama's policies to be far more offensive than any junior-high namecalling you could dream up. But those are things that actually matter, so therefore we should not care about them, I suppose.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

be careful

[Bill Dog]

Better be careful there, I think it might be "hate speech" to voice disagreement on substantive issues. Or soon to be. I think you're only allowed to go off on frivolous things. So for example policy criticisms are off-limits (could lead to democracy, or worse). Remember during the GOP campaign when Mitt or someone would reveal some of the Liberal stances of McCain and Huckabee? They both declared that to be "going negative" and "attack ads" and "smear campaigns". Just a short hop from "hate speech", really

Re:

[pudge]

Better be careful there, I think it might be "hate speech" to voice disagreement on substantive issues. Or soon to be.

:-) I was saying the other day that I would "almost love the chance" to be charged with a crime for gambling online. Key word is "almost." But I *would* love the chance to be charged with a crime for any kind of "hate speech" or dissent, if such laws come about. Such laws need to be fought, and the two best ways -- neither exclusive of the other -- to fight them are in the legislature, and in the courts. It would be an honor to fight that battle.

Remember during the GOP campaign when Mitt or someone would reveal some of the Liberal stances of McCain and Huckabee? They both declared that to be "going negative" and "attack ads" and "smear campaigns". Just a short hop from "hate speech", really.

Well, it wasn't implied to be THAT bad. But Mitt's cam

Re:

[StalinsNotDead]

the punditocracy declared it a loser because he looked old and his backdrop was green.

It's sadly reminiscent of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book where the B Ark Golganfrinchams(sp?) are researching the development of the wheel, and Arthur is flabbergasted that they can't get such a simple concept out of the committee. And one of the marketing people says something to the effect of "Oh yeah? What color should it be?"

BTW

[Bill Dog]

What really is the major objection(s) to the Left's referring to a McCain presidency as a third Bush term? (Beside being brain-dead over-simplistic.) I would imagine most of the Left's ire towards Bush is a result of the Iraq war, and I believe McCain is pretty much "stay the course" on that. He claims he's pro-life, will appoint the kind of judges Bush appointed, claims he's for Bush's tax cuts now. He's for stalling on sealing the borders, like Bush. Small differences on one side don't look like much dif

Re:

[pudge]

What really is the major objection(s) to the Left's referring to a McCain presidency as a third Bush term? (Beside being brain-dead over-simplistic.)

Not just simplistic, but lying. The simplisticness of it is the root of the deception: any issue you disagree with Bush about will be imparted to McCain.

I would imagine most of the Left's ire towards Bush is a result of the Iraq war, and I believe McCain is pretty much "stay the course" on that.

Yes, but only because in the 7th year of Bush's presidency, he finally changed to McCain's course. If we were still on the same course as the first four years of the war in Iraq, then he would NOT be wanting to stay the course. Remember, McCain's views on Iraq all along were never significantly different from Hillary's until recently, and in the beginn

Re:

[Bill Dog]

because they know they can't really make a decent list,

But it's likely on quality not quantity that Liberals are basing their "McCain will be Bush III" impression. Think about the Reverend Wright issue -- Libs tried to defend (actually distract -- they know they can never successfully defend) by saying the guy's been preaching for 20+ years and Conservatives are cherry-picking just a handful of sermons. They'd be right, if it was a quantity issue to those concerned about it, but it's not -- it's the magnitu

Re:

[pudge]

But it's likely on quality not quantity that Liberals are basing their "McCain will be Bush III" impression.

Yes, but there's not even much quality there. McCain opposed the things that led to failure in Iraq. McCain is in favor of keeping the tax cuts, but right now to get rid of them WOULD hurt the economy. Etc. They won't even engage on the issues, because they know there isn't quantity OR quality. It's easier just to leave it undefined and then hope that people will attribute to McCain whatever they hate about Bush.

So even if the list of positions that McCain and Bush share is small, if the top 1 or 3 are honestly of overwhelming importance to Libs, then to them they are basically the same, and they're being truthful wrt to themselves and their brethren, no?

But they are not saying this to Democratic voters, they are trying to win independents, s

Question for the Obama supporters

[multimed]

Assuming you support him because of his positions on issues and qualifications, can you name one area where he has some sort of advantage over Russ Feingold? Go through the checklist of their positions & they're almost identical. Then move on to experience and achievements... Feingold has served in the senate for 3 terms, Obama less than one. Feingold has authored or co-sponsored a ton more legislation than Obama. Obama is supposedly a uniter and will user in a new way of doing things. But other th

Re:

[ces]

Well I would have supported Feingold. There is only one problem, he wasn't running.

Of the actual choices on the Democratic side, I felt Obama was the best bet, especially once Edwards dropped out.

Re:

[multimed]

Well I would have supported Feingold. There is only one problem, he wasn't running.

It didn't seem like it was entirely his decision though - the party wanted Clinton & Obama and it was get out of the way or get mowed down. Of course the fact that he cited his divorce & not wanting to have all of that become public fodder is rather amusing. Though I haven't really seen anything to suggest his divorces were particularly ugly (he seems sincere wanting to protect the privacy of his family), the fact

Re:

[ces]

You are making the mistaken assumption the Democrats are an organized political party. ;-)

That said, what kind of support/interest you can generate does have an effect on if you go into a presidential race as a serious candidate.

Some people will only run if they think they have a real chance of winning.

Clearly some people were very much talked out of running in 2008, most notably Gov. Mark Warner and to a lesser extent Sen. John Kerry.

I don't think "the party" as such was putting pressure on potential canid

Re:

[ces]

Oh and one more thing, I think Feingold really didn't want to put himself through the process of getting the nomination then running in the general.