comment #1

MarkVH says ...

Wells, you're cute when you're angry.

Do you really expect people to take you seriously with this kind of post?

Nobody respond. PLEASE. Don't humor him.

comment #2

MathewM says ...

I think it's that democrates don't so much really want Hillary in the white house as they want Bill there. A lot of people like or love Bill Clinton, simple as that. I also think he's earned points with Republicans over the past eight years for befriending Bush Sr.

Regarding Obama, in some parts of the country yeah it's the race card. However I think most people haven't really latched onto him in general. He still hasn't opened himself in the way that a candidate needs to. Also I think people aren't quite sure where he stands politically aside from Iraq.

comment #3

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Mark VH: Thank you for helping to prove my point. Cheers.

comment #4

malibugigolo says ...

Latin low thread count Gigolo to Wells:

What have you heard about Love in the Time of Cholera?

comment #5

MathewM says ...

Just to add that I think the reason black voters haven't latched onto Obama is because he doesn't cater to the Jesse Jackson's of the country (a good thing in my book). It might also have to do with him being only half african american. There might be some racial stigma attached to his mother being white.

comment #6

bents75 says ...

Mathew - What do you mean by "opened himself in the way that a candidate needs to"? What way is that?

I simply can't fathom this approach people seem to have where they need to know what kind of person a candidate is deep down and personally. I'm sure it's open to debate, but from a historical point of view this country elected a hell of lot better candidates the first hundred years than it has in the last hundred- and that's because in the day of train car campaigning so few people ever saw them so it was all about the issues. People complained the same thing about Kerry - "wahh, but I still don't know what kind of person he is." Who gives a sh*t whether he likes chocolate ice cream or vanilla?

If the guy is more intelligent than the current Chimp in office, as he clearly is by leagues, then he's already a better person for the job.

This country experimented with the beer swilling president for the last 8 years - I think the complete failure that it has been should prove to most American's that they are horrible judges of character and they need to look at the facts rather than trust their BS gut impressions.

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

"she doesn't turn me on and she never will"

Wasn't that Bill's problem, too?

comment #8

BNick says ...

I don't think Democratic Primary voters are racist. I just think they needed a compelling reason to pick Obama over Hillary, and he hasn't given them one yet.

Maybe they'll dive for "electability" at the last minute like they did in 2004 for Kerry. But then maybe they'll remember that didn't work out too well for them.

comment #9

AH says ...

This is why you need experience: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/sept2007/barackobama.htm

comment #10

le corbeau says ...

So a Manhattan-based columnist told a Hollywood blogger than people in the middle of the country are all ignorant hicks (and worse yet, they make bigoted generalizations about others), and this is supposed to represent knowledge and insight about America? About as much as Paris telling Nicole how tackily dressed the girls at the mall in Reseda were.

Obama has had a tremendous reception all over the country, contrary to such provincial self-congratulation from the coasts. The problem is, when you see Hillary next to him in a debate, she's far better briefed, she's far better prepared, she seems ready-- and he seems like a charismatic first-term senator out of his depth.

At least he makes the truly odious and preening John Edwards seem like yesterday's first-term senator, now that is a service to our country.

comment #11

NYCBusybody says ...

Republican Party operatives sure must love posts like this by Wells. They've single-handedly turned most of America's hatred of Manhattanite arrogance into an actionable political trend - voting Republican. Read "Applebee's America"...people DO vote on feeling rather than issues, most of the time, and when Middle Americans are constanly called "rubes and crackers" by intensely creepy, sub-intellectual (though, as all men of his ilk are, highly pseudo-intellectual), they take out their anger by voting for guys they'd rather have a beer with than weenie, French-seeming Northeasterners like Kerry.

It'll happen again in '08. Why else would there be such a passion in many conservative circles for Fred Thompson? There's obviously no "there" there, but he's a symbol. Just like city-effeminates respond to symbols like rainbow flags and $2,000,000 lofts decorated to look "real", the actual real people in this country like cowboys and pickup trucks. They're the smart ones. They just don't need to tell everyone (as the posts following this certainly will).

comment #12

Zimmergirl says ...

I don't think it's a good thing for Barack for you to dub him the "Brokeback Mountain" of the presidential race, LOL. Hilary certainly is no Crash.

Either way, I have to agree with NYBusybody. I don't think it will be Fred (good god, I hope not) but I do think it will be Rudy G. Heard it summed up nicely on NPR yesterday: he's the protector. Like it or not, we're still at war and do dems really think that this country is going to choose this particular time to elect a black man or a woman for the first time? I doubt it. The conservatives are probably joyful as hell that it's down to Clinton and Obama. John Edwards is the one they should really fear but at this rate, he doesn't appear to have a shot.

comment #13

NYCBusybody says ...

Wells to HE posters: No biggie, but as of this morning NYC Busybody has a great future ahead of him on other forums. I've made it clear that anybody can say anything about anything, including attacks on my views, choices and errors. The one thing that doesn't fly are harsh personal attacks with a diseased emotional taint. He's crossed it for the last time here, and I wish him all the best.

comment #14

JapAdapters says ...

I've been telling my wife this for the last two years: there's no way in hell a black man named Obama gets elected President in the USA circa 2008. It's just not going to happen in these times, and I honestly think anyone who thinks it could just isn't being honest with themselves about where we are as a country right now.

Maybe in my lifetime, but only if there's some serious changes beforehand.

comment #15

bents75 says ...

You probably are right Busybody, and that's exactly why this country is doomed and that America's stance as we know it is going to come crumbling down within a generation.

But hey, I guess us intellectuals ran a pretty good game for about 224 years. Good luck from here...I think your pickup truck might carry you for a few decades.

It's hard to claim the high ground when the majority of 6 1/2 billion people think we're all a bunch of @ssholes.

comment #16

JapAdapters says ...

Yeah, but how many of those 6 1/2 billion are French?

If you're going to argue with NYC you have to get your facts and cliches straight.

comment #17

MathewM says ...

Here's something mull over: IMO if Obama were a Republican he'd have a better shot than he has now. Granted he wouldn't be the Obama that Jeff loves but my point is that Republicans aren't all redneck rubes. If someone like Colin Powell or Condi Rice ran back in 2000 they would of been probably ahead of Bush in most polls.

comment #18

Dave says ...

Jeff wrote:

"Clinton, the lesser candidate, is fated, I fear, to beat Obama because of a subliminal factor that voters won't admit to, much less talk about, just as Crash, the lesser film, beat Brokeback Mountain because of a more-or-less unmentionable prejudice among older Academy voters that I've previously called "geezer homophobia" (i.e., a primal revulsion at the idea of the ridin' and ropin' American cowboy -- an iconic figure if there ever was one -- being cast in an effeminate light by modernist p.c. liberalism)."

Jeff, I think you're mixing metaphors. If Obama were *gay*, that might be accurate. But he's black, so he's actually *just like Crash*-- i.e., some voters WANT to like him, because liking him, just like in liking Crash, makes those voters feel better about themselves. "See, I support a black candidate, I'm enlightened!"

Trouble is, of course, is that Obama is running against a woman, and anyone who is shallow enough to use race as a qualification (or *dis*-qualification) for the presidency is liable to be outnumbered by those using gender instead (the "You go girl!" caucus).

Now, speaking as a conservative GOP voter (which automatically makes me suspect to you, I know), perhaps I'm not entitled to have an opinion on the Democratic slate. But I use the simple test of "if there has to be a Democrat in the White House, which one is the most acceptable to me," Obama fails. Not because he's black, but because he's inexperienced. Worse, he doesn't seem to understand that he's inexperienced-- he comes off as wholly unaware that he's playing in a very serious game.

Now, that wouldn't be a shortfall if Obama had some amazing, game-changing ideas, or impressive rhetorical talent. But does he? Other than "Get out of Iraq, because Iraq is bad," what exactly is Obama for? No platform, combined with no previously demonstrated leadership, actually makes him-- to me, rube GOP voter-- a scary prospect in the White House.

I voted for Dubya twice, but I never loved the guy, for the same reason: the WH isn't a training ground for wannabe-leaders. I doubt I'll ever vote Democrat for president for ideological reasons, but in the case of Bush, even I saw that he'd be in over his head. My hope was that his team would be competent enough to do the right thing. They weren't, unfortunately.

So, you want to repeat that mistake with Obama just because he's an attractive black candidate, be my guest. But my guess is, if it was merely racism at work, John Edwards would be doing better, because he's pretty much the same candidate as Obama (similarly inexperienced, no resume other than "running for POTUS", all talk and no substance), only Edwards is white.

I agree with you Jeff, Hillary! will be your nominee-- I just don't agree with your reasons.

comment #19

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Mgmax: For many people in this country, racial considerations, to put it mildly, cut right down to the primal bone, and I'm a little amazed that you're actually trying to dismiss this view as suspect or unfounded....please. Hilary being "better prepared" is another way of saying she's heavily scripted, which obviously implies guarded, cautious and calculating. And this, you're saying, is what people prefer over the obviously more settled & grounded, intellectually confident and open-to-fresh-thought Obama. How encouraging! Now excuse me while I search around for a hole to get sick in.

comment #20

SHR says ...

Obama's poll numbers have stayed very steady at around 20%. I would be amazed if you felt that 80% of the voting population is racist, but that is what you are implying. Obama, unfortunately, is not really catching on because he seems less able and experienced than Hillary---factor in the racism if you must, but it is not the defining criteria at present. It is Obama's inability to be specific on the issues.

comment #21

christian says ...

after listening to kucinich, the only actual democrat running, on the entire 3 hours of ed schulz yesterday, it's depressing to hear corporatist candidate hillary say absolutely nothing of import or meaning, and then hear this acclaim for her "experience" -- she's the only candidate to have been boo'd in every debate for her inane rhetoric. "lobbyists are people too." yes, like the big pharma companies funding her. and nuclear energy? why mrs. experience is "agnostic" on it. she forgot that the terrorists had also probably targeted three mile island on 9/11.

hillary sucks. obama is bland. the "liberal" media elite has spoken for hillary. democracy is dead. good day sir.

comment #22

JoeJustice says ...

Stick to move talk Wells. Seriously.

Q: How did Brokeback make the Cowboy "effeminate"? Are you simply stating that homosexuality is inherently effeminate, because if you are, I'd enjoy some intelligent elaboration beyond your knee-jerk reaction that anything not-100% masculine is "gay" (and especially because I would disagree, as a rule).

Your homo hangups are becoming legendary.

Ah, I need me some behind-the-scenes Ledger pics...

comment #23

MathewM says ...

Jeff, Obama is half white. He "acts" white. He looks like your typical ivy-league, corporate spokesperson. Can't you put 2 and 2 together? Black voters aren't even swarming to him yet you still see it as a racist white thing. Jeez, based on this and your pervy letter to Mangold I question how rational opinion you have on anything.

comment #24

pm123 says ...

"Dave":

I don't understand your reasoning - Obama isn't qualified because he has no experience, yet you voted for Bush? Bush had far LESS experience when he ran for president! Of course the conclusion one draws from the horrific job he's done is that one should NEVER vote for the inexperienced candidate, and that rules Obama out...

comment #25

George Prager says ...

I do hate rich Jews. I love poor Jews.

There's a denominator in there somewhere.

Posted by: NYCBusybody [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 12, 2007 02:38 PM

comment #26

Nan says ...

This analysis is so silly.

Nobody would be talking about Barack Obama if he weren't black. The only reason he has come this far is because he is black.

This guy was in the state legislature just two years ago. He has no national experience. He is not ready to be president.

He gave an OK speech at the Democratic conventional two years ago. That's it. That's his entire qualification.

If he weren't black nobody would have noticed him. He wouldn't have been ahead of far more qualified candidates like Joe Biden. And there is something cultish about his supporters like Jeff Wells. It has turned into a personality cult.

comment #27

George Prager says ...

Shorter Nan: Duuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!

comment #28

Nan says ...

"Rudy G. Heard it summed up nicely on NPR yesterday: he's the protector."

That that to the NYC firefighters, rescue workers. He sure wasn't their protector. He built the emergency center in the World Trade Center and turned it into his private love nest to bring his mistress. The guy has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs, national security or military matters. He was a freakin' mayor. He can't even tell the difference between Sunni and Shiite. In NY Hillary is leading him over 20 percent and once the rest of the country gets to know his record it will be the same nationwide.

comment #29

George Prager says ...

Nan recovers!

comment #30

T. S. Idiot says ...

"Go outside the big cities, the columnist said, and America is a nation of rubes and crackers."

Come to Manhattan on St. Paddy's Day to see the world's largest collection of truly frightening white people, most probably neither Irish nor Catholic.

I still say a nobody will emerge as the nominee of at least one party. The favorites a year before the general election rarely become the candidates.

comment #31

Dave says ...

"[O]bviously more settled & grounded, intellectually confident and open-to-fresh-thought Obama."

Jeff, we know you love Obama. But that statement shows why you're not understanding what the non-Obama crowd is saying.

They say, "Not ready, not polished, no substance." They look at Obama and see a candidate who steps over his words, is intellectually confident *without much to back it up* (his ideas are just as lazy and stale as every other candidate this season, Right or Left).

You say instead, "Rubes! Racism!"

Now, obviously, there are some voters out there who will never vote for a black man. Just as there are people who will never for a woman. They may not be an insignificant portion of the electorate.

But do they really make up THAT large a slice, Jeff? Don't forget, these are *Democratic primary voters* we're talking of here.

The most liberal and most Left of the party, the most likely to subscribe to the self-congratulatory strain of identity politics that says, "I support black people and women and drive a Prius, I'm progressive!" These voters are literally *aching* for a serious minority candidate, a black version of RFK who can ride in and rescue their souls.

Even with the deck stacked such as this, these Democratic primary voters have looked at Barack Obama and came to the conclusion that he's not worthy of their support. Is that racism, Jeff? Or is that simply an honest disagreement about which candidate is the best for your party, and our country, in 2007?

Your own party-- these are your rubes and racists, Jeff. Not us Rethuglicans, who would never dream of nominating a black man or woman (except, you know, when we do-- but since they're not Democrats, they *must* be Uncle Thoms-- anyway, that's another story).

Seriously, isn't it possible that people just don't like what they see? Especially in a serious time like this, when the *last* President who used the White House for on-the-job-training didn't work out to well. After the W. experience, Democratic primary voters would presumably be the *least* likely to support a candidate with no record, no leadership experience, and no serious appeal *other than the fact* that he is a relative novelty.

Jeff, my short answer belief is that Obama is just too new. Had he stayed in the Senate longer, in 2012 or 2016 he might be an amazing candidate. But 2008 isn't his year.

Nothing racist about that. Then again, I'm not a racist rube Democratic primary voter ;-).

comment #32

Dave says ...

pm123, RE: Bush.

My reasoning then was simple-- in 2000, we were not at war, so I set the bar lower. Still, in the primaries I voted for John McCain-- not because I had a problem with Bush, I just wasn't impressed.

In 2004, we were at war, and Kerry was Kerry. I make no apologies for being a conservative GOP voter, so it would take a special situation for me to choose a Democrat over a Republican. Bush would have had to been a lot worse in 2004, and Kerry would have to have been. . . well, there's no way I would have voted for Kerry. Not even now, not after the last few fun years of Bush.

As for 2008, I have no clue who I am voting for. It likely won't be a Democrat because I disagree with all of them on the war, but no one on the GOP side thrills me-- I like bits and pieces of each candidate, but there's no one I see as the "complete package."

Got a better slate than the Dems this year, though.

comment #33

George Prager says ...

Dave, the LaserJet on the fifth floor needs a new cartridge.

comment #34

le corbeau says ...

"Wells to Mgmax: For many people in this country, racial considerations, to put it mildly, cut right down to the primal bone, and I'm a little amazed that you're actually trying to dismiss this view as suspect or unfounded....please."

Who do you think bought his book after watching him on Oprah? How do you think he got to be such a rock star in the first place? I think you greatly underestimate the hunger in America for the "non-crazy black leader," as I have often called them here in Illinois on the rare occasions we get one. Yeah, there's some old racists out there. There's a lot of kinds of kooks out there believing in all kinds of crap on every side of the political spectrum. Doesn't mean the right candidate can't blow that all away; the fact remains, Obama is still finding his way there, and puzzles audiences at least as often as he dazzles them.

Yes, Hillary is scripted, but so is Obama (as those of us in Illinois know too well; occasionally the script comes in the form of orders from Mayor Daley, such as to endorse the brain-dead-- literally, he had a stroke-- John Stroger for Cook County Board President, which Obama did like any good obedient Illinois pol).

comment #35

Dave says ...

Then perhaps you should have changed it while you were next to it making copies, George.

comment #36

Ian Sinclair says ...

Hillary seems much more confident than Obama does, is more capable in debate and comes with a partner who is still immensely popular with a lot of people, including me. She is also a lot of fun on Letterman.

comment #37

George Prager says ...

My secretary's assistant is really bad at doing that stuff, Dave. The last time she tried she got ink all over herself. Just be a buddy and do it this one time? Thanks, Dude.

comment #38

bents75 says ...

Just once I'd like to hear a Republican admit that they f***ed up just as bad as Bush has just for voting for him. And those of you who voted for him twice, frankly, shouldn't have a vote next time let alone an opinion.

I mean, look what you did? You voted for a guy, twice, who along with his administration has been wrong about every single thing that he has done? And yet for some reason there's still a debate as to whether he is on the correct course going forward.

"Greeted as liberators" - check
the war will last weeks - check
oil will pay for the war - check
Weapons of mass destruction - check
"Mission Accomplished" - check
"Last Throes of the Insurgency" - check
...and the list goes on. Everything. Wrong.

With the exception of Ron Paul, every single Republican running is basically doing so on a platform that continues Bush's path. He was wrong about everything before - but now all of a sudden he'll be right?

And this is who you want to fight your so called war?

comment #39

le corbeau says ...

Terror attacks on US soil- check.
Economy wrecked by terror- check.

I guess not Everything. Wrong. After. All?

comment #40

BNick says ...

Ian,

Do you seriously believe that Hillary has ever had a single unscripted "funny" moment on Letterman? Seriously?

Like Dave, I'm a Republican and make no apologies for that fact. I support McCain but am resigned that the next president will be a Democrat. I don't see much substantive difference between Hil and Obama, but my preference is Obama, and one of the reasons I prefer him is that he's black. I think it would be a wonderful thing for the country, pure and simple.

And for what it's worth, most of the people who change printer cartridges in my office are Democrats.

comment #41

Zimmergirl says ...

Nan, I was talking about perception, not reality where Rudy G. is concerned. He's the only one who can win, unless Al Gore runs.

comment #42

Ian Sinclair says ...

BNick, I hear you, but you could say the same thing about a woman.

comment #43

George Prager says ...

Shorter Zimmergirl: LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!!!!!!

comment #44

Zimmergirl says ...

What does "changing printer cartridges" have to do with anything?

comment #45

Larry says ...

I keep thinking the Democrats are gonna win, but then I see the childish arguments that people like bents75 make and I see how the Dems are gonna hand it to to Repubs. Even if you accept bents' intellectually dishonest checklist, the question is what do we do now, and each Democratic candidate's answer is worse than the next.

Why is Barack in trouble? It seems like years ago when Wells first brought up how popular he was and I noted Hillary has the institutional strength which guarantees her victory unless he can really show something special, which he hasn't. His campaign attracts groupies--shallow people dazzled by bright shiny objects. Because that's all he is--different and new, not compelling substance-wise, but a candidate who runs as the non-Hillary. Being part-black has helped him a lot, but it can't put him over the top by itself.

Now how about a moratorium on all this silly speculation until there's actually been some, you know, voting?

comment #46

le corbeau says ...

Larry, if the Democrats lose, which they may very well despite the great setup they've been given, it will be because people like Bents75 think they're running against George W. Bush, who in fact is not going to be on the ballot in 2008, believe it or not.

comment #47

bents75 says ...

The economy may not be wrecked but it's pretty much shit anyway, so I dont' know where that claim comes from.

And there havent been more attacks because there havent been more attacks. They wouldn't have happened anyway unless you want to credit the several unconstitutional programs Bush has put into place.

He hasn't secured the border, he's inflamed the hatred of America in half the world with his misplaced war and the other half with his "America is the only thing that matters" rhetoric, and he's worn the military and the reserve down to a nub which couldn't respond to a new situation if it wanted to.

He's sacrificed more than you can comprehend for the illusion of safety - which he wields like a double edged sword every chance he can get by pointing out with fear mongering that we're never safe anyway.

Not to mention the first attack on us soil happened on his watch. Blame whoever you want for the cause but it still doesn't change that.

comment #48

George Prager says ...

Forget all this politics crap. Name this film:

"After we see the film we're going to eat the film. It'll be buffet style...so just help yourself... there's potato salad and my wife made coffee..."

comment #49

bents75 says ...

Larry, what is dishonest about it?

Were those not claims that they made?

You're right, holding people accountable for their lies and bullshit claims is really childish.

comment #50

BNick says ...

Ian, I agree but I think given this country's long (and much more recent) history of struggling with race issues, it would be a more significant moment for the country to have a black man elected president than a white woman.

This is also partly due to the fact that, in this case, the white woman in question would have essentially ridden her husbands coattails to the presidency, which for me would make the accomplishment less significant. This is a whole other argument, though.

You know what's interesting? This year, the Democrats are behaving like Republicans and vice versa. Politically, I mean. Usually, Republicans fall in line behind the frontrunner and no one else can get any traction, and Democrats are all over the place. In this cycle we're seeing just the opposite. I attribute this mostly to the Clintons' tremendous power within the party and the fact that a lot of rich and powerful Democrats are simply afraid to cross them.

comment #51

Abbey Normal says ...

Obama, while a very smart man and smooth operator, is missing some kind of gravitas. He looks and sounds great, great ideas, great suits, etc. But he just doesn't seem like he's been around the block enough. Of course the black thing matters, but your attempt to pin his current standing in the polls primarily on race is misguided. It's about his bearing, which is too urban, too young and too green.

Clinton, on the other hand, projects a seasoned, even temperament that seems "presidential" in the way most voters (Rep or Dem) think of that word. Like her or hate her, most everyone thinks she's up to the task of handling the presidency. Hardly anybody, even her fiercest critics, question her competence level. People disagree with her ideas, but that's different.

Besides, if race is a factor against Obama, why isn't sex a factor against Clinton? Plenty of meatheads out there fear women with power, just like they fear the "darkies." Bigotry and sexism are two sides of the same coin, yet only Obama is being harmed by it? Hogwash. Clinton is the candidate with more general oomph, plain and simple and that's why she's going to get the nod.

comment #52

le corbeau says ...

The economy may not be wrecked but it's pretty much shit anyway, so I dont' know where that claim comes from.

I'd like to see you back up that claim, with reference to the stock market since 2001, unemployment rates which have been at near-historic lows, etc.

"And there havent been more attacks because there havent been more attacks. They wouldn't have happened anyway unless you want to credit the several unconstitutional programs Bush has put into place."

I could not say more succinctly why Democrats are not trusted with national security by so many Americans. Wishful thinking is not a foreign policy.

comment #53

le corbeau says ...

Not to mention the first attack on us soil happened on his watch.

Did you ever wonder why they called it the "second" bombing of the World Trade Center, Bents75?

comment #54

arch451 says ...

So if America elects the first female president, rather than recognizing that milestone, you are just going to call us a racist country?

Just because I won't vote for Obama doesn't mean I'm a racist.

comment #55

bents75 says ...

"Wishful thinking is not a foreign policy."

Yeah, and neither is going into a country that had nothing to do with you and "kicking ass" against millions of innocent people.

And if unconstitutional programs are really what it takes, then I guess you're right Mgmax. we'll just continute to disagree on that one.

I have more interest in preserving American principles than I do allegedly protecting a minute fraction of people who may or may not become victims of an extremist group who's only geniune gripe is that we're in their backyard instead of our own.

Wishfull thinking is not a foreign policy, but neither is ignorance, self riteousness, and absolutism - which is exactly the sort of fascist nation this country is de-evolving into.

comment #56

Withnail says ...

Jeff,
You seem to be falling into the trap I write about here:
http://www.rabbireport.com/archives/2007/09/john-edwards-fo.htm
Now, I'm not saying Edwards has a big chance, but it's almost 14 months before the election, so let's give everyone possible a platform. A free exchange of ideas is what we want. Besides, as you mention about Obama, Edwards too trounces all GOP comers in national head-to-head polls.

Also, like a wise man said to me @ some party here @ TIFF, the press is waiting for Edwards to make a strong showing in Iowa so they can write the "Comeback Kid" story. It may not hold for more than a week, but it'll sell papers.

comment #57

christian says ...

again, hillary is full of shit and she projects no presidential gravitas to me nor the people i know who can't stand and won't vote for her. she's as divisive a figure in the dem party as anybody while the media services her since her husband helped them consolidate their power under the telecom act.

"Terror attacks on US soil- check.
Economy wrecked by terror- check."

9/11 was the greatest attack on america under bush's watch - check

Economy under bush - The news on income isn't good for Republicans. Bush's results are worse than those for any other two-term president since World War II except Dwight Eisenhower. Worse than under Richard Nixon, a period that was not a very good time for the economy. During four horrendous years for the economy, income grew faster under Jimmy Carter than it has since 2001. The only recent president who had a worse record on income growth was -- George H.W. Bush.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15253047/

i know the corporations in charge today laying off thousands of people while they ship jobs and companies overseas helps elite fatcats but does nothing to help workers. of course we can thank "liberal" clinton for nafta and the wto.

and mgmax, please recall (tho you don't want to) that pres bush stopped any attempt by gray davis to put a cap on the enron plundering in california with his lie #213 "i don't want to hurt california that's why i oppose price caps."

and guvn'r girlieman (another dem favorite - thanks spielberg!) dropped the 9 billion dollar lawsuit against bush's pals in enron.

america is falling apart under republican dominance and corruption -- goodbye bridges, farewell new orleans -- while bin laden does exactly what he promised: bleed america's economy.

and mr. anti-federal government mgmax, who pays for the billions going to iraq -- the opposite direction of bin laden who is safe and sound with our ALLIES in pakistan. yeah, we're safer now.

anyway.

comment #58

BNick says ...

"Wishfull thinking is not a foreign policy, but neither is ignorance, self riteousness, and absolutism - which is exactly the sort of fascist nation this country is de-evolving into."

Come on. Fascist? Really?

I assume you're talking about wiretapping and such. So if Congress passes a law that basically allows the executive branch to temporarily bypass warrants for international wiretapping (i.e. making what Bush seems to have done officially legal) then will we no longer be fascist?

How about "executive overreach"? We haven't seen many stories about people dragged from their homes and shot or placed into prison camps, have we? Wait, I know what you're going to say: "Not yet!"

comment #59

christian says ...

oh and the biggest difference between the attacks on the wtc in 95 was that the people that did it were caught under clinton and are in jail forever.

clinton didn't have the agony of being good friends with the saudi family of the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

comment #60

BNick says ...

Interesting stuff, Mark.

I think the problem Edwards has created for himself is that he needs to win Iowa just to meet expectations. If he loses Iowa, he's toast. If we wins Iowa, it's because he's spent so much time there in the last 4+ years. At least that's how it will play.

He basically did the same thing in South Carolina in 2004. He played it up to the point where he had to win it, he won it, and Kerry steamrolled him in every other state.

Plus it's well-known that Democratic primary voters are biased against white men. Just look at who's ahead in the polls!

(Just kidding about that last part!)

comment #61

le corbeau says ...

It's like the good old days with D.Z. again.

comment #62

Jay T. says ...

I liked Crash more than Brokeback Mountain... you know, that IS a possible opinion without being homophobic. And while I support Obama over Clinton, it is also equally possible to support Clinton over Obama without being racist. How ridiculous.

comment #63

christian says ...

"We haven't seen many stories about people dragged from their homes and shot or placed into prison camps, have we?"

only in the country we invaded illegaly: iraq.

and it has happened in our country in the past -- though to many here history pre-last week's "american idol" is like, totally old.

comment #64

Dave says ...

I like talking about movies, but as long as we're all having ourselves a friendly, charitable, good faith exchange of ideas about politics. . . ;-).

Christian, if I may ask you a question, how would you define invading a country "legally"? What criteria would have to be satisfied?

I know I'm focusing on a minor nit, but it's a very popular point used by those who are anti-war, and I'd like to understand the logic behind the statement.

comment #65

Stephe96 says ...

The Clintons rule over the Democrats like the Corleones. If you think Bill and Hillary would EVER let another Dem candidate get within 20 points of her, you're dreaming. All Bill has to do is simply pick up the phone and...presto! Another Obama hit piece in the NY Times or Newsweek.

comment #66

christian says ...

a good question, dave. easily answered.

- iraq had no wmd's - the justification for our going in. bush lied to the world and said inspectors were not given access -- completely untrue as hans blix and others pointed out WHEN THEY WERE PULLED OUT after finding NO WMD.

here's blix in 2003:

However Blix told British radio Thursday that Washington and London "over-interpreted" intelligence about Saddam's weapons.

Comparing the two countries to medieval witch-hunters, Blix said the British and U.S. governments convinced themselves Iraq posed a threat based on evidence that was later discredited -- including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

"In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky," Blix said.

A pre-war British dossier on Iraqi weapons "led the reader to the conclusions that are a little further reaching" than was the case, Blix said.

"What in a way stands accused is the culture of spin, the culture of hyping," he said.

"We know advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms that we don't quite believe in, but we expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility."

He added that the coalition should have allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to continue working. They were pulled out on March 18 after three months -- two days before the U.S.-led invasion.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/18/sprj.irq.blix.bush/index.html

- from the guardian 2003:

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

- on march 17, 2003, the us and uk withdrew their war resolution since they knew the un council would vote against it, arguing that two previous resolutions (687 and 1441) already gave them this right which it did not.

- BBC ANNOUNCER: I wanted to ask you that. Do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?

KOFI ANNAN: Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution.

BBC ANNOUNCER: You don't think there was legal authority for the war?

KOFI ANNAN: I have made it… I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council… with the UN charter.

BBC ANNOUNCER: It was illegal?

KOFI ANNAN: Yes, if you wish.

BBC ANNOUNCER: It was illegal?

KOFI ANNAN: Yes, I've indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter from my point, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal.

the prosecution rests, your honor. for now.

comment #67

Walter Sobchak says ...

Good point, Stephe96.

Speaking of which.... just where is that "Path to 9/11" DVD? I thought it was due for release. Hmmm.

It must have "disappeared", like the resounding boos for Hillary at the 9/11 memorial concert. Boos? What boos? What are you talking about? That never happened. Just keep moving....(don't worry, we'll edit them out in post for the home video release, Hill)

comment #68

Midwest Doug says ...

Jeff, it's simply way too soon to call. The polls that matter are among likely voters in the early primary states. Anything else is noise.

That said, there is truth in the journalist's claim. There is latent racism among some voters, and sexism, and all sorts of isms. There are legitimate reasons not to vote for a candidate, of course, and those get mingled with the 'less legitimate' ones.

People want to simplify their life. It was a major revolution in political science some 50 years ago when the National Election Studies showed that most people did not thoughtfully weigh the two candidates against each other -- they just voted based on party identification.

Why do people vote along party lines? Because party id is a shorthand for a bunch of views, and most voters don't want to try to evaluate every candidate. Even presidential ones. Race-based and sex-based cues also get tossed into these intellectual shorthands, as do evaluations of appearance, etc.

This does not necessarily mean that most voters are irrational, or rubes, or hicks. It means that they're using past experience to make efficient decisions. Now, if someone straight up disqualifies Obama because he's black or Hillary because she's a woman, I would say they're backward-thinking losers. And even if they're only 5% of the electorate, that's a critical 5% to win. The solution for Clinton or Obama or whomever is to mobilize favorable turnout.

comment #69

christian says ...

walter, are you talking about...a conspiracy?

ohmigod! alert abcdisney! put their national 24/7 army of republican talk radio attack dogs to work!

the truth must get out!

wake up america!

comment #70

Stephe96 says ...

Speaking about 'disappeared,' it appears that fugitive Democratic fund-raiser Norman Hsu was very nearly Vince Foster'd on a train bound to Chicago. Suicide notes supposedly written by Hsu were sent out to various media outlets, but he was stopped before he was murd---I mean, before he killed himself. Now that he's singing I'd say you could measure his life-expectancy with a stopwatch.

comment #71

christian says ...

and of course it's wonderful to watch repubs foam at the mouth over people accusing bush of lying but it's perfectly okay to proclaim the clintons as mob killers.

comment #72

Josh Massey says ...

"Now, if someone straight up disqualifies Obama because he's black or Hillary because she's a woman, I would say they're backward-thinking losers."

I would also argue that if someone qualifies Obama because he's black or Hillary because she's a woman is also backward-thinking. And I see a lot of that happening.

comment #73

Dave says ...

Christian, thank you for your answer.

If I may comment, however, your answer does not have anything to do with the *legality* of the war. Your interpretation of the situation (shared by many) can certainly support the conclusion that it was an *unjustified* war, but that would be different than an illegal one, if under U.S. constitional law there can even be such a thing.

Congress can declare war. Congress can also substituted an authorization for military action for a declaration of war. Congress can also fund-- or choose not to fund-- military operations in execution of a military campaign.

In the case of Iraq, Congress has done these things, and continues to do these things.

Given that, how is the war "illegal"? Immoral, perhaps. Unjustified, perhaps. Stupid, perhaps. But the law-- at least U.S. law, which is what's most relevant to the discussion-- would be hard-pressed to call this war "illegal."

(I know I'm focusing in on a tree in a forest, and not a particularly relevant one at that. But as I admit, it's a nit).

Anyway, thanks again for your answer.

comment #74

Stephe96 says ...

I'm always amused that every online liberal knew, just KNEW, that Bush was "lying" about WMD in Iraq back in 2002...but he somehow managed to 'trick' Dem brainiacs such as Hillary, Edwards and Kerry into authorizing the war. I mean, if a dope like Bush can bamboozle Hillary, just imagine what Osama or Kim Jong might get her to do! Ted Kennedy certainly wasn't fooled by Bush's lies. He wisely voted AGAINST giving Bush the authority to go to war.

comment #75

f.bush says ...

Jeffery, I really like your column because I like your sensibilities when it comes to film and politics but you are way, way off base and have crossed the line to offensive. It soesn't matter what I think because I live in state that isn't going to have a primary till May 2008, but I would venture to guess that most voters haven't made up their minds because it's freakin September 2007. If I support John Edwards over Obama does that make a racist rube?

comment #76

f.bush says ...

Actually, what I think is I would like to support someone who could actually win the election and not see a Republican douche bag win again.

comment #77

christian says ...

hey stephe96, i knew george bush was a corrupt patholgical liar since i lived under his governorship in texas -- as did many folk.

i never thought of hillarykerryedwards as "brainiacs" but they were clearly under pressure to do whatever king george demanded in the dark days after 9/11 as anybody with half a brain can remember. you were too busy washing down your freedom fries with kool-aid.

kucinich and 20 other dems (plus one repub) voted against giving bush his war, so that's where i was at then -- and protesting -- while your party was calling us traitors for not believing in one of the most obvious liars since tricky dick -- not that you would have the foresight for truth being embedded in bush for so long.

comment #78

Craig Kennedy says ...

What's so great about Obama? Jeff says he's intelligent, eloquent and attractive. So what? Are we voting for Mr. America here? I agree he's no worse a choice than Hillary or Edwards, but that's not something to campaign on. Chalk it up to the racist boogeyman instead of looking for a real candidate if you want, but don't come crying to me when the Democrats lose an election that was handed to them on a silver platter.

comment #79

le corbeau says ...

i never thought of hillarykerryedwards as "brainiacs" but they were clearly under pressure to do whatever king george demanded in the dark days after 9/11 as anybody with half a brain can remember. you were too busy washing down your freedom fries with kool-aid.

Now that you're presenting your POV calmly and objectively, it's winning me over.

comment #80

Stephe96 says ...

Christian,

Why in the world would Hillary, Kerry and Edwards be "under pressure" to do whatever Bush wanted? They could've easily have voted against the war. Why did Kennedy, Kucinich et al. not feel the same pressure?

comment #81

bents75 says ...

Stephe96,
He already answered your question. It's because anyone who didn't vote in favor of going after WMD's (which weren't there) were branded as being weak and ineffective on national security.

That doesn't excuse them for not standing up to it.

But it's the same lame card the administration pulls out now where any dissenting voice whatsoever is tarred and feathered by Bush's crony underlings (and Fox News) and are cast as either not "supporting the troops" or being unpatriotic.

For an administration which allegedly fights an enemy that "hates us because of our freedom" they sure love to wipe their @ss with the Constitution of the United States. Especially that part about freedom of speech.

comment #82

Stephe96 says ...

Bents75,

You know, I heard liberals say all the time that they are called "unpatriotic" by Bush and his cronies. Got any examples? I follow the news fairly closely and I can't recall anybody being branded as "unpatriotic" for opposing this war.

comment #83

Walter Sobchak says ...

Look out, World! The conservatives have taken over and are dominating........... AM TALK RADIO!

My God, what next?

By the way, christian, did you catch your boy Kucinich commiting treason on Syrian TV the other day? What a little weenie... (Dennis, not you, christian... though you oft sound like one)

"I'm tired of being told I'm unpatriotic or somehow less of an American just because I trashed our country and its policies while sucking up to a country that sponsors terrorism and is actively working against us in the middle east...I mean really"

comment #84

Stephe96 says ...

Oh, and by the way, isn't the right to call each other 'unpatriotic' ALSO covered under the 1st Amendment?

comment #85

christian says ...

stephe96, do you remember that bill maher was fired fron his show because of his comments?

and did you see the leaked nbc memo stating that phil donohue had to go (despite excellent ratings) because of his anti-war positions? here's a portion. read it and learn:

"...a difficult public face for NBC in time of war. He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives."

that memo came from the liberal media who were drumbeating war 24/7 -- but your faulty selective memory omits that. i also recorded hours of tv coverage in this period so i would have the evidence of my country being propagandized into a bullshit war.

and rush limbaugh, the president's "good friend" daily called the war protestors "anti-american" and had bush/cheney on to validate his opine.

here's some more examples (from FAIR):

- Veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett was fired by NBC as a result of an interview that he gave to Iraqi TV in which he said that war planners had "misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces" and that there was "a growing challenge to President Bush about the conduct of the war." After initially defending Arnett, NBC released a statement saying that "it was wrong for Mr. Arnett to grant an interview to state-controlled Iraqi TV--especially at a time of war--and it was wrong for him to discuss his personal observations and opinions in that interview."

- Brent Flynn, a reporter for the Lewisville (Texas) Leader, was told he could no longer write a column for the paper in which he had expressed anti-war views. "I was told that because I had attended an anti-war rally, I had violated the newspaper's ethics policy that prohibits members of the editorial staff from participating in any political activity other than voting," Flynn wrote in a note on his personal website. "I am convinced that if my column was supportive of the war and it was a pro-war rally that I attended, they would not have dared to cancel my column.... The fact that the column was cancelled just days before the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq raises serious questions about the motives for the cancellation." Although Flynn was ostensibly sanctioned for compromising the paper's "objectivity," he continues to serve as a news reporter for the paper, while losing the part of his job where he was expected to express opinions.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1825

in other words, stephe96, you're wrong. again.

comment #86

christian says ...

"Look out, World! The conservatives have taken over and are dominating........... AM TALK RADIO!"

and fox news. and nbc. and cbs. and abc. i.e., the media that you righties persist in calling liberal.

if kucinich is a traitor for starting a dialogue with syria, then bush should be tried for treason for lying to america about wmd's -- and fox news' beloved ollie north should be in jail for trading weapons to our mortal enemy, iran. instead, ollie gets paid to blast libs for being traitors on a nightly basis.

america, fuck yeah!

comment #87

Pelham123 says ...

Stephe96 are you serious? You didn't see a single instance of the Democrats having their patriotism questioned because of being against the war? That's ALL the Bush Administration did (& still do). Branding the Democrats as weak, anti-military and (Christ!) "anti-American" is part of the reasoning behind the Iraq war -- providing America with a "war president" in an effort to insure the Republican's a majority for several generations. Looks like both worked out really well. Thanks Karl! Thanks Dubya!

comment #88

christian says ...

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding to our attackers."

- karl rove

comment #89

George Prager says ...

And in other news:

Thompson: No opinion on Schiavo case

By BRENDAN FARRINGTON, Associated Press Writer

THE VILLAGES, Fla. - Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson said Thursday he doesn't know enough about efforts by President Bush and Congress to keep Terri Schiavo alive to have an opinion on the right-to-die case that stirred national debate.

Thompson was asked in an interview for Bay News 9's "Political Connections" program if he thought Congress' intervention to save the life of the brain-dead woman two years ago was appropriate.

"I can't pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best," Thompson said. "That's going back in history. I don't remember the details of it."

DUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

comment #90

George Prager says ...

"I am not questioning his patriotism, I am questioning his judgement."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/9/30/173930/792

comment #91

Walter Sobchak says ...

christian..... you're joking, right?

Bill Maher got canned by ABC because of nervous, ad sales-conscious network execs, not by the Bush administration... (and by the way, at the time Maher was defended by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and George Will...

and the Donahue thing was also a network decision... suits at the networks don't like controversy... it gives them the willies... you did notice that Limbaugh lost his ESPN gig, right?
and as far as MSNBC goes, I'd think that Kos-spewing, self-important gasbag Olbermann more than makes up for the loss of Donahue, don't you?

Your Arnett example is from the FIRST Gulf War...

in short, none of these examples have anything to do with the White House....

and pelham123, you failed to give any examples....

this is such a tired old saw... "I'm tired of being told that by disagreeing with this administration I'm unpatriotic or somehow less of an American!" (crowd goes wild..... who cares if it's true or not)

And even if it DID happen... what a bunch of whiny cry-babies...
waaaaaa, they called me "unpatriotic"! waaaaaa!

if someone called me less of an American or unpatriotic I'd say "fuck you, too, dick head.....whatever"

and yeah, GeorgePrager... I'll check out that link and give it some deep thought... in the meantime, you'll find equally fair and balanced political comment here:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

comment #92

George Prager says ...

Wow! Sobchack is the new D.Z.!

comment #93

Walter Sobchak says ...

Wow! Prager is the new NYBusyBody!

comment #94

christian says ...

yes you're right, walter. network suits don't like controversy - especially if a network like nbc is funded by a company like ge that makes weapons of war. the suits also respond well to pressure from the bush white house to get in line for war, america. so the point remains. thanks for the backup.

and i know you're not so bush-blind as to pretend there wasn't a calculated national propaganda effort on the part of the administration to go to war, yes?

and what exactly happened to the dixie chicks when they expressed their mild displeasure of bush? recall that? death threats and censorship.

even anti-war folk on faux-liberal npr were grilled for their obvious lack of patriotism. come over some night walter and i'll show you the endless war football shows that ran through the country. it was the most frightening thing i've ever seen in the mass media.

and what were you doing at that time? questioning those questioning the lies? my guess is you were nodding your head at fox, saying, "bring it. bring it." because that's what team bush wanted.

now back to your regularly scheduled spin.

comment #95

George Prager says ...

Wow! Sobchak is the new Prager!

comment #96

Stephe96 says ...

Christian,

Well, Walter already made a bunch of my points here. The folks you're citing were fired by their employers. So what? Those employers enjoy the right to get rid of anyone they wish. Nobody in government stopped them from expressing their views. Were the Dixie Chicks refused permission to perform after their remarks? Was AirAmerica taken off the air by the government? Did anyone try to block Michael Moore's movies from being shown anywhere? Freedom of speech works both ways here. But can you show me a single example of a prominent Republican exercising their 1st Amendment right and calling anyone 'unpatriotic?'

comment #97

christian says ...

stephe96, you're playing a mental shell game that you lost long ago.

prager just posted a wonderful litany of republicans from cheney on down who blanket their attack on the patriotism, by first saying "i'm not questioning their patriotism..."

and if rush limbaugh calls anti-war protestors "un-american" which he did many times and then welcomes bush and cheney on his show to receive their warm praise, that is a de facto approval of his statements -- just like how bush used karl rove to attack his perceived enemies, then shrugs and says, "i didn't say that."

back to sleep.

comment #98

Pelham123 says ...

From the Washington Post:
Max Cleland, a decorated veteran and triple amputee, was attacked by his Republican opponent, Rep. Saxby Chambliss, "for breaking his oath to protect and defend the Constitution."

comment #99

dawgzilla67 says ...

I'm liberal, non-white and from Illinois and I still haven't been sold on Obama yet. His response to (or more accurately, evasion of) the Anthony Rezko connection sparks some serious "he's as full of s--- as the rest of the folks in Washington". It's put a serious crimp in my ability to completely trust him.

I also haven't heard that much from him about what his domestic policies are, either. He's very good at pointing out the obvious fact that the policies of the current administration have caused serious damage to the country but what does he plan to do about repairing our infrastructure? What does he plan to do about the hemhorraging of decent wage jobs from the workplace? How does he plan to handle rebuilding our weakened military?

The guy has charisma, he's against the war (though he has a convenient out that Hillary doesn't have since he wasn't in office when the war vote came up) and I want to wholeheartedly support the guy, but he hasn't yet convinced me he's the right person for the job.

I also doubt seriously that the war will end with the next president -- too many fat cats with too much influence in DC are making way too much money for that to really happen. Trust me on this, our troops will still be in Irag come 2012.
Maybe even 2016.

And the mention of the Dixie Chicks in the earlier post brings up something I've been wondering about -- where is the outrage over Ted Nugent brandishing a machine gun onstage and saying "suck on this, Obama!" Isn't that way more hostile than anything the Dixie Chicks said?

comment #100

Walter Sobchak says ...

I LOVE when the DIxie Chicks are brought up....

the POOR, POOR Dixie Chicks.... life has really sucked for them since Natalie's remarks, hasn't it?

Sure, they've expanded their fan base, become darlings of Hollywood, heroic martyrs to the left, beloved by the media, subjects of a fawning, award-winning documentary...

But hey, some unemployed brick layer called them commies on the Sean Hannity radio show, so I see your point.....

poor girls

and Prager is the new Prager.... (stop this before you blow my mind)

comment #101

Stephe96 says ...

Christian,

In other words, you can't find any examples, huh? I didn't think so. So Republicans question Dem judgement on the war? What's wrong with that? Is that all of a sudden "over the line?"

comment #102

Walter Sobchak says ...

We busted through 100 comments.....

I'd like to thank everyone who helped make this possible....

and almost completely D.Z.-free, no less!

comment #103

dawgzilla67 says ...

Walter, I think you're missing the point about the Dixie Chicks ... I agree that they are arguably better off now than they were before the controversy, but if their inocuous remarks were splashed all over the media that meant to leave them out to hang, then where's the (supposedly liberal) media outrage over Nugent's comments?

comment #104

christian says ...

and here's the sad man george w. invited to an inaugural party in texas and who played at rick perry's inauguration (in confederate flag shirt):

Decked out in full-on camouflage hunting gear, Nugent wielded two machine guns while raging, “Obama, he’s a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary,” he continued. “You might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch.” Nugent summed up his eloquent speech by screaming “freedom!”

http://political-thunder.blogspot.com/2007/08/ted-nugent-to-obama-suck-on-my-machine.html

and stephe96, again, you know one can be accused of something through word associations. which is the basis for getting america riled into iraq by bush invoking 9/11 and saddam repeatedly, thus the illusion shared by over 30 percent of the population that they were connected.

you can't rewrite history and pretend there wasn't a massive propaganda effort to go to war, made clear by the reversal of american opinion to the war as the bush administration flaws have blossomed. and it was the repubs who slimed a bronze star soldier named john kerry, so please. tell it to fox.

comment #105

Stephe96 says ...

Actually, it was about 60 highly decorated combat veterans who "slimed" Kerry. Take it up with them.

comment #106

Walter Sobchak says ...

I'm with ya, christian....

A couple of months ago Bush said that although he respects their opinions he differs with the House Democratic leadership on how to resolve the situation in Iraq....

Translation: "You are all treasonist, unpatriotic non-Americans and for disagreeing with me you will all be sent to Gitmo for "re-education" and torture."

a blind man can see that

comment #107

Pelham123 says ...

Oh yes, the diseased Ted "I shit my pants to avoid Vietnam" Nugent...he fits right in with all the other Right Wing draft dodgers of the Vietnam era like, Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, etc., etc. etc. The fact that Kerry's service in Vietnam was even an issue was because the Republicans were able to round up a bunch of highly partisan Vietnam-era vets to question Kerry's patriotism (there's that word again. Anyone sense a pattern?) And what a disgraceful act of sliming it was. Dubya couldn't do it because he wasn't in Vietnam and, besides, he usually gets someone else to knife his enemies.

comment #108

christian says ...

my last post. seriously, we rocked this thread.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

- George Bush

Now is that statement open to inspection?

And recall that the President's spokesperson Ari Fleischer said of Bill Maher's comment that Americans should "watch what they say and watch what they do." Thanks for the free speech warning.

comment #109

darb says ...

Look, the whole Clinton beating Obama thing just comes down to game theory. It's not that the people are too racist to support him, it's that they believe everyone else is too racist to support him. Since people think that no one else will support Obama, they go with their second choice, Clinton. It's another case of trying to anticipate the behavior of other people with imperfect information which leads to an inferior outcome.

And anyone who thinks that a Clinton race will be anything other than close grossly underestimates how polarizing that woman is. The right HATES her and will show up in droves to vote against her. An iguana running against her would carry 45% of the vote.

comment #110

Walter Sobchak says ...

That's mostly because she's a chick.... Let's face it, who wants some hysterical broad running the country?

Are you with me? Can I get an "amen"?

(trying to milk this for a few more responses)

comment #111

Rich S. says ...

Every time I read one of these incredibly vitriolic back-and-forths, I'm reminded of the Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street." It's one of Serling's best.

comment #112

George Prager says ...

Attacking Patriotism & Judgment: From Agnew to Dubya
by The Cunctator
Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 02:39:30 PM PDT
One of the most popular lines in the right-wing Republican playbook is
I am not questioning his patriotism, I'm questioning his judgment.

--Spiro T. Agnew, 1970

It's a brilliant ju-jitsu chop of language that deflects criticism of attacks on patriotism by setting up a false choice. The practitioners are, of course, questioning both the patriotism and the judgment of the Democrat in question. The initial attack is invariably of the form "The Democrat will do what our enemies want, and America will suffer."

In the last month, Zell Miller used the line in his RNC speech to attack the leaders of the Democratic Party, Dick Cheney has used it repeatedly to attack John Kerry, and Henry Hyde used it to attack Rep. Gary Ackerman.

The line was used to good effect by Reagan in 1984 and by Bush père in the Bush-Dukakis debate, but it came off poorly when he used it against Clinton in '92. It didn't resurface until the 2002 Senatorial races against Wellstone, Cleland, Carnahan, Alex Sanders, and Tim Johnson.

But it began with the great American patriot Spiro Agnew in 1970, stumping for--guess-who--Poppy Bush, who was running against Lloyd Bentsen for Senate. Agnew attacked the anti-Vietnam War stance of McGovern and Hatfield, adding the infamous line to soften his fiery stump speeches.

No publication quoting the line has mentioned Agnew since 1988; a few modern publications refer back to the Bush-Dukakis debate. Yet again our media has failed us.

The long record of the line's use is below, including the rare Democratic uses. Sources available online are linked. I'm not including the uses on the right-wing blogostan.

* The Cunctator's diary :: ::
*

--2003-2004: THE KERRY ATTACKS--

Dick Cheney, Henry Hyde, Zell Miller, George Allen, Marc Racicot, Michael Crowley, Tom DeLay, Hugh Hewitt

Update [2004-10-6 11:55:9 by The Cunctator]: October 5, 2004
Vice Presidential Debate
CHENEY: We've never criticized his patriotism. What we've questioned is his judgment.

September 29, 2004
Cheney Questions Kerry's Judgment on Iraq
Associated Press
"I never challenged his patriotism," Cheney said. "I challenge his judgment."

September 29, 2004
At House Hearing, Quips, Insults and Some Official Business
David Stout, New York Times
That was too much for Representative Henry J. Hyde, the Illinois Republican who heads the committee. He said that "calling the commander in chief a liar by every hour on the hour" was simply wrong, and was helpful to "the other side," by which he appeared to mean America's terrorist enemies.

Moments later, Representative Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said he and his colleagues were "sick and tired" of hearing their patriotism questioned whenever they exercised their responsibilities and rights, as citizens as well as members of Congress.

Mr. Hyde did not mollify Mr. Ackerman a bit. "Nobody questions your patriotism," Mr. Hyde said. "It's your judgment that's under question."

September 22, 2004
Cheney questions Kerry's ability to lead
He tells Michigan supporters country needs Bush at helm
Charlie Cain, Detroit News
"Based on John Kerry's record in the United States Senate, based on what he has said during the course of the campaign, I don't believe he would pursue a strategy as effective as the one the president has selected," Cheney said during a round-table discussions with a dozen hand-picked Republican supporters at a Lansing restaurant.

"I look at his record," Cheney added. "And it does not instill confidence ... I question his judgment."

September 20, 2004
Kerry Says Iraq War Raises Questions on Bush's Judgment
Maria Newman, The New York Times
Mr. Kerry also noted that Mr. Bush said recently that he had made "miscalculations" in Iraq.

"Miscalculations," Mr. Kerry said, with exaggerated surprise. "That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment and judgment is what we look for in a president."

September 8, 2004
In New Hampshire, Cheney questions Kerry's judgment
Rick Klein, Boston Globe (rklein@globe.com)
"He's gotten it wrong most of the time," Cheney said to about 150 supporters at the Radisson hotel in downtown Manchester, referring to Kerry's Senate record on national security and economic matters. "I don't question his patriotism. I question his judgment."

September 1, 2004
Zell Miller, Republican National Convention speech
"But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking."

August 17, 2004
MySanAntonio.Com Point 2 Point
John Kerry and his supporters cannot indefinitely hide behind the facade that every examination of his public record is an attack on Kerry's patriotism. John Kerry's patriotism and service to his country are not in question. His judgment and his honesty are.

May 17, 2004
David Callender, The Capital Times (Madison)
A top Republican lawmaker is defending Democratic U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold against charges he was unpatriotic for casting the lone vote in the Senate against the controversial Patriot Act.

U.S. Sen. George Allen, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, distanced himself from comments by Republican candidate Russ Darrow, who last month said Feingold's vote was "unpatriotic" and a publicity stunt.

"I would not use such a term," Allen, R-Va., said during a fund-raising visit on Wednesday to Madison and Milwaukee. "It's not the way I would characterize it. I would question his judgment, but not his patriotism."

April 17, 2004
Citing His Vietnam Service, Kerry Assails Cheney, Rove
Dan Balz, Washington Post
"I'm tired of these Republicans who spend so much time denigrating Democrats and other people's commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said at a rally on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh. "I'm tired of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and a bunch of people who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance. I went [to Vietnam]. I'm not going listen to them talk to me about patriotism." ...

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's attacks were misguided and outrageous. "Nobody has ever questioned his patriotism," Schmidt said. "What's in question is John Kerry's judgment. Yesterday, Osama bin Laden again threatened America and John Kerry said the terrorist threat was exaggerated. John Kerry voted for the Iraq war but voted against money for American troops in harm's way. What's at issue is John Kerry's troubling record."

April 4, 2004
RNC Chairman Marc Racicot
Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war. Critical analysis offered in the best interests of the country is part of a healthy democracy. But this use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment.

April 2, 2004
Former Sen. Max Cleland: How the disabled war veteran became the Democrats' mascot
Michael Crowley, Slate
Most famously, Chambliss ran a vicious ad on Cleland's homeland security votes featuring images of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. In the popular liberal mythology, the ad disgustingly questioned Cleland's patriotism. "To this day I am motivated by--and I will be throughout this campaign--the most craven moment I've ever seen in politics, when the Republican Party challenged this man's patriotism in the last campaign," John Kerry has said.

But that's not what happened. The ad, though sleazy in its use of Osama and Saddam, didn't question Cleland's patriotism. It questioned his political courage and judgment.

February 24, 2004
Editorial, Washington Times
Of course the president and his advocates are not questioning Mr. Kerry's patriotism or commitment to our national security. But they are questioning his judgment and wisdom as measured by his public words and votes over his public career.

February 24, 2004
Kerry's 19-year Senate record mixed on defense spending
Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press
"Every time we have brought to light his voting record, he has responded by saying we have attacked his patriotism," Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said in a conference call with reporters. "We have praised repeatedly his patriotism."

February 22, 2004
Bush campaign denies questioning Kerry's patriotism
Nedra Pickler, Associated Press
"Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said while campaigning in Georgia, one of 10 states choosing electoral delegates on March 2.

Kerry told a news conference he voted for the largest defense and intelligence budgets in American history, although sometimes he "voted for common sense to make changes."

In his reply letter Sunday, Racicot said, "Our campaign does not condone any effort to impugn your patriotism. Your letter claims that supporters of our campaign questioned your service and patriotism. In fact, that simply wasn't the case."

"Our campaign is not questioning your patriotism or military service, but your votes and statements on issues now facing our country," said Racicot, former governor of Montana. "Senator Chambliss addressed your Senate record of voting against the weapons systems that are winning the war on terror."

February 13, 2004
Kerry faces fight on security: For war hero, GOP looks at Senate voting record
Susan Milligan, Boston Globe
House majority leader Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, went out of his way in recent comments to reporters to cite a Kerry vote in the Senate against increased spending for intelligence gathering. "I'm not questioning his patriotism," DeLay said. "I'm questioning his judgment."

January 29, 2004
Judgement Call: John Kerry's patriotism isn't the issue--it's his judgement on the big decisions
Hugh Hewitt, The Daily Standard
The rhetorical harshness of a century ago wouldn't work in the United States of 2004, in part because people have come to confuse a challenge to an opponent's judgement with a challenge to their patriotism. Anti-McCarthyism is deeply ingrained and reasonable people give such appeals a wide berth....

A vote for Kerry is thus a vote for American paralysis. No one is going to question the patriotism of a highly decorated combat veteran. But his judgement is fair game, and his judgement is deeply flawed.

--2002: THE SENATE RACES--

Merle Black, Saxby Chambliss, Jim Talent, John Thune, Norm Coleman, Lindsay Graham, Ginny Wolfe

October 24, 2003
Democrats fear nasty Georgia-style Senate fight
ELLYN FERGUSON; Gannett News Service
Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Georgia, said money played a big role in the Georgia race, making it possible for Chambliss to run a number of radio and television spots.

Although the bin Laden-Hussein commercial got the most attention from outsiders, Black said Cleland lost because his opponent challenged his judgment not his patriotism.

July 28, 2003
Chambliss' charges, which Democrats said amounted to an attack on Cleland's patriotism, have been a bete noire for the Democratic Party ever since.
"I never questioned the patriotism of my opponent," Chambliss said. "I questioned his voting record and, as a response," the Georgia Republican continued, "he raised the issue of questioning patriotism."

October 24, 2002
Carnahan, Talent clash over patritism, support of president
David A Lieb, Associated Press
Mrs. Carnahan turned toward Talent, pointed at him and said: "I resent being told that I'm unpatriotic by my opponent."

Talent sat silently, reserving his response until he was questioned later about the most inaccurate statements made during the Senate campaign.

"The most inaccurate statement about me so far in the election is that I'm questioning somebody's patriotism, or even their motives, when I'm talking about their votes," Talent said.

He rattled off a list of seven votes on which he said Carnahan has opposed Bush's agenda, including drilling in Alaska, Bush's estate tax repeal and the confirmation of Republican former Sen. John Ashcroft as attorney general.

Carnahan insisted she has been 100 percent behind Bush's defense plan. Her campaign said her comments about patriotism also were prompted by images of Mrs. Carnahan and terrorists in the same television commercial.

October 15, 2002
Hussein's Long Shadow Over Electoral Politics
George F. Will, Washington Post

Because Democrats have deep divisions on national security issues, they are forced to say strange things, as Gephardt did last week when shown a television ad being used by the Republican Senate candidate in South Dakota, Rep. John Thune, against Sen. Tim Johnson.

Gephardt was asked to comment on this from the ad:

"Al Qaeda terrorists, Saddam Hussein -- enemies of America working to obtain nuclear weapons. Now, more than ever, our nation must have a missile defense system to shoot down missiles fired at America. Yet Tim Johnson's voted against a missile defense system 29 different times."

Gephardt, who is too intelligent to muster more than synthetic indignation about such things, worked himself up to say the ad is "immoral" because it says Johnson is "not patriotic."

But it doesn't. It questions Johnson's judgment, not his patriotism.

October 14, 2002
Battle For The Senate: Will the Republicans regain a majority in November? It may all depend on five critical races
Nancy Gibbs, Time Magazine
Candidates, like cat burglars, step more carefully when they are carrying a loaded gun. So when South Dakota's Republican Senate candidate John Thune challenges Tim Johnson for opposing missile defense, the TV ad shows an image of Saddam Hussein. "Is this a question of patriotism?" the ad asks. "No. It's a question of judgment." It's an artful but nervy charge to level at Johnson, who actually supports the use of force against Iraq and whose son Brooks is the only congressional son to serve in Afghanistan. Not one to waste a good sound bite, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman attacks incumbent Paul Wellstone for proposals like a seven-year freeze in defense spending. "It's not about Paul's patriotism," Coleman says. "It's his judgment that's wrong."

October 4, 2002
Iraqi debate goes local in campaign spots
Jill Lawrence, USA Today
Rep. John Thune, R-S.D., uses an image of Saddam Hussein to underscore his criticism of votes cast by Sen. Tim Johnson...

* The spot for Thune, challenging Johnson in one of the tightest races in the country, calls al-Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein "enemies of America" trying to obtain nuclear weapons. "Now more than ever, our nation must have a missile-defense system," the ad says. It goes on to say Johnson voted against such a system 29 times. "Is this a question of patriotism? No, it's a question of judgment."

September 29, 2002
Senate control likely hinges on Southern races
Tom Baxter, Atlanta Journal-Constitution tbaxter@ajc.com
In South Carolina, Republican Rep. Lindsey Graham is running an ad that calls attention to Democrat Alex Sanders' past opposition to making it a federal crime to burn the U.S. flag --- "the flag our soldiers carry into battle."

Stating nicely this campaign season's most well-used political nicety, the ad says: "Is this a question of patriotism? No, it's a question of judgment."

September 25, 2002
War looms over Minn. race, but no one can say how
Walter Shapiro, USA Today
Wellstone may still pay a price for political apostasy if he follows his current inclination to vote "no" on Iraq. Coleman framed the coming debate Monday by declaring: "This isn't a question of patriotism. It's a question of judgment."

September 1, 2002
REMEMBER 9/11: POLITICAL FALLOUT: There'll be no starting gun for fall's races
Tom Baxter, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
But Chambliss' campaign hotly insisted that it was not questioning Cleland's patriotism when the Republican said he had not lived up to his oath of office on a vote to amend a chemical weapons treaty.

"No one in either party should ever insinuate the debate is over anything but judgment," Wolfe said. "Judgment is fair game. Patriotism is not."

--THE GREAT SILENCE OF 1992-2002--

--1992: THE CLINTON REBUFF--

George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Chris Patten

October 13, 1992
Bush Hits Rival's Character
Chicago Sun-Times
President Bush today renewed his attacks on Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's character as vice presidential hopefuls Dan Quayle, Al Gore and James Stockdale prepared for their evening debate in Atlanta. "I'm not questioning patriotism. I am questioning character and judgment," Bush said on NBC-TV's "Today" program.

October 12, 1992
Presidential Debate
Are there important issues of character separating you from these other two men?

BUSH: I think the American people should be the judge of that. I think character is a very important question.

I said something the other day where I was accused of being like Joe McCarthy because I questioned - I put it this way; I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil.

Maybe they say, "Well, it was a youthful indiscretion." I was 19 or 20, flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces and I'm sorry, but demonstrating - it's not a question of patriotism. It's a question of character and judgment.

But he has made - not admitted - a mistake and I just find it impossible to understand how an American can demonstrate against his own country in a foreign land - organizing demonstrations against it when young men are held prisoner in Hanoi or kids out of the ghetto were drafted.

....

CLINTON To Bush: You have questioned my patriotism. You even brought some right-wing congressmen into the White House to plot how to attack me for going to Russia in 1969-1970, when over 50,000 other Americans did.

Now, I honor your service in World War II, I honor Mr. Perot's service in uniform and the service of every man and woman who ever served, including Admiral Crowe, who was your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and who's supporting me.

But when Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism he was wrong. He was wrong. And a senator from Connecticut stood up to him named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy, you were wrong to attack my patriotism. I was opposed to the war but I loved my country and we need a president who will bring this country together, not divide it.

We've had enough division. I want to lead a unified country.

October 9, 1992
Clinton's candor is issue
Gerald R. Ford, USA Today
President Bush has not questioned Gov. Clinton's patriotism; he has questioned his judgment and candor. So do I.

from across the pond...
February 3, 1992
Dirtier Tricks Still To Come
Alan Travis and Keith Harper, The Guardian
The Conservative Party chairman, Chris Patten, was sweetness and light about future campaigning yesterday, after having back-handedly exploited the Sunday Times "disclosures". They did not raise questions about Neil Kinnock's patriotism but they did leave questions about the Labour leader's judgment, he said.

--1980-1988: REAGAN-BUSH I-

George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan

September 25, 1988
The First Bush-Dukakis Debate
BUSH: I'm not questioning his patriotism. He goes out and says the man is questioning my patriotism. And then all the liberal columnists join in. I am not. I am questioning his judgment on these matters, or where he's coming from. He has every right to do it. But I believe that's not what the American people want, and when he said, when he said at the convention, ideology doesn't matter, just competence, he was moving away from his own record, from what his passion has been over the years. And that's all I'm trying to do, is put it in focus. And I hope people don't think that I'm questioning his patriotism when I say he used his words to describe his participation in that organization.

September 25, 1988
CAMPAIGN 88: Bush's flag offensive: shades of Nixon campaigns
Curtis Wilkie, Boston Globe
On this level, the 1988 race is a throwback to the 1970 congressional contest, in which Bush was running against Lloyd Bentsen for a Senate seat in Texas. The nationwide struggle was one of the toughest campaigns in modern American history. In an attempt to oust a number of Democratic incumbents, Agnew served as Nixon's point man, barnstorming across a country already divided over the Vietnam War. Agnew blamed Democratic officeholders for disorders and suggested that they sided with criminals; there was an implication that they were un-American.

Republican candidates proudly wore American flag lapel pins like war decorations that year.

After Agnew was criticized for his approach, he worked a new line into his speeches. He said he did not question anyone's "patriotism," only the "judgment of the radical liberals."

Bush uses the same language this year. When he assails Dukakis on the Pledge of Allegiance, Bush adds, "I don't question his patriotism, I question his judgment."

In 1970, Edmund S. Muskie, then a senator from Maine, retaliated on behalf of the Democratic Party in a nationally televised address on an election eve where, he said, "something has gone wrong."

Democrats had "their motives questioned and their patriotism doubted," Muskie said. The Republican campaign was filled with "empty threat and malicious slander." He called the Nixon-Agnew effort "a lie."

"And the American people know it is a lie," he continued, adding, "How dare they tell us that this party is less devoted or less courageous in maintaining American principles and values than are they themselves."

September 10, 1988
Robin Tone, The New York Times
Dukakis Likens G.O.P. Attacks To McCarthy's
In his sharpest attack yet, Gov. Michael S. Dukakis of Massachusetts today compared the Republicans who are ''attacking my patriotism'' to those who cheered the tactics of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and challenged the patriotism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Before a cheering crowd of 5,000 at East Texas State University, Mr. Dukakis declared, ''Just as they did in the 1930's and the 1950's, the American people and the people of Texas can smell the garbage.''

Mr. Dukakis proceeded with a lacerating critique of Mr. Bush's record, repeating the refrain, "I don't question Mr. Bush's patriotism, but I do question his judgment."

The speech was a tough response to a Bush attack that has dogged and infuriated the Dukakis campaign. Mr. Bush has assailed Mr. Dukakis for vetoing a 1977 bill that would have required teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance in Massachusetts' public schools. Mr. Dukakis has defended his action on legal grounds, noting that he was advised by the state's highest court that the measure was unconstitutional.

Patriotism Issue Persists

But the issue has persisted, linked with Republican attempts to portray Mr. Dukakis as weak on national security issues, and that general theme has posed a serious problem for the Massachusetts Governor as he seeks the support of conservative Democrats.

In response, Mr. Bush, appearing at a rally in York, Pa., denied that he was questioning the Democratic nominee's patriotism and then echoed Mr. Dukakis's words.

''The liberal Governor of Massachusetts attacked me for questioning his patriotism,'' he said. ''I am not questioning his patriotism, I'm questioning his judgment.''

October 21, 1984
Foreign Policy Charges Fly; Mondale, Reagan Tune Rhetoric On Eve of Their Second Debate
David S. Broder, Washington Post
He said Mondale's voting record on defense issues is as one-sided as that of former South Dakota senator McGovern, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972.

"What troubles me most is how little he seems to have learned about the dangers of weakness and naive thinking," Reagan said. "I don't question his patriotism. I do question his judgment."

--1970: AGNEW VS. AMERICA--

Spiro T. Agnew

August 18, 1970
Page 1, The New York Times
Agnew says he does not question patriotism of Hatfield and McGovern, but finds fault with 'their wisdom, their judgment and their logic'.

comment #113

BurmaShave says ...

"April 4, 2004
RNC Chairman Marc Racicot
Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war. Critical analysis offered in the best interests of the country is part of a healthy democracy. But this use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment."

That's chillingly close to suggesting that an election would be innapropriate in a time of war. Maybe our 1/20/09 bumper stickers are premature?

comment #114

Walter Sobchak says ...

Holy Christ, Prager! You just got out of summer school for that one...

maybe the reason the Republicans are always saying "I'm not questioning his patriotism...." is because every time you turn around some liberal is crying about someone questioning their patriotism....

I read the above as "for the last fucking time, I'm NOT, repeat NOT, questioning your goddamn patriotism!!! Jeez! Stop crying, already!)

comment #115

Walter Sobchak says ...

"...chillingly close to suggesting"?

oooohhhh...

So me saying that I like pizza is chillingly close to suggesting that I would like to take a vacation to Wisconsin sometime in the near future ... (afterall, pizza is covered in cheese, a lot of cheese is made in Wisconsin.....it's all right there! CONNECT THE DOTS!)

comment #116

christian says ...

yes, the words "infer" and "imply" have no bearing on discourse or reality.

that's why in the courtroom, no prosecutor or defender EVER tries to connect dots using vague verbiage to sway a jury. that NEVER happens.

especially not in advertising!

comment #117

Walter Sobchak says ...

"I can't quit you..."
- christian (speaking to this thread)

which, if you scroll waaaayyy back, kind of, in a funny way, brings this thread full circle

comment #118

christian says ...

walter, what exactly are you implying?

or infering?

or trying to say?

heavens to mergatroid -- exit stage left!

comment #119

Walter Sobchak says ...

I'm saying that despite what you declare, you have a powerful attraction to this particular thread...you can't just walk away...

not that there's anything wrong with that

Dick Cheney is a great American hero and Haliburton has made this a greater nation...

there, that should keep you around for a few more hits