Not just another principled loser.

Fear the smear.

Quoting Whatfur: Fear the smear.

Enlighten the fooled:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/alterman

Quoting Whatfur: Not just another principled loser.

A closeted Obama supporter is born?

Quoting Whatfur: Obama's crazy ex-girlfriend!

I smell fear:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...5dNGmP7AWgtmIA

Quoting renzo: Enlighten the fooled:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/alterman

Awesome effort by Alterman and Zornick. Thanks for the link.

I was hoping that this story might have gotten some airing Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy in this diavlog I guess that some of his friends and associates smiled all the way to the bank; of except for Mr. Resco, he frowned all the way to the hoosegow.

Quoting renzo: I smell fear:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...5dNGmP7AWgtmIA

First, I thought I would never get through Alterman's article, just like I never thought he would get to his point . But do you really think that great mass of bloviation was really worth the one flipflop paragraph. I guess he thought a bunch of deflection about reporters loving McCain somehow made his point for him. Pretty sure McCain's flips and flops already have been covered effectively without the incredible waste of time. Maybe Eric missed his plane and had some time to kill at the airport. Concerning the second...well... "Francis Fukuyama, Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Bacevich" The "High Priests of U.S. Conservatism" Riiiighhhhttt.

Quoting piscivorous: I was hoping that this story might have gotten some airing Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy in this diavlog I guess that some of his friends and associates smiled all the way to the bank; of except for Mr. Resco, he frowned all the way to the hoosegow.

about as much airing as this one

Quoting handle: about as much airing as this one

Or these three. And yeah, there are more. Oh, and it's not just land. What about de plane, boss?

Quoting Whatfur: Concerning the second...well... "Francis Fukuyama, Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Bacevich" The "High Priests of U.S. Conservatism" Riiiighhhhttt.

Who are your high priests by the way?

Quoting Whatfur: Concerning the second...well... "Francis Fukuyama, Andrew Sullivan and Andrew Bacevich" The "High Priests of U.S. Conservatism" Riiiighhhhttt.

Conservatives and neocon radicals are not the same thing. But you are already very sensitive to the differences aren't you? You have to act like you aren't, and hide your agenda in order to project a more reasonable persona, or risk alienating those you think you are influencing. Why can't you just be who you are? Oops, answered my own question before I asked it, sorry.

Quoting renzo: Who are your high priests by the way?

Hint:
He commented that he thought Bush's historical legacy would most resemble Truman's.

Quoting some guy who can't read for context: First, I thought I would never get through Alterman's article, just like I never thought he would get to his point . But do you really think that great mass of bloviation was really worth the one flipflop paragraph. I guess he thought a bunch of deflection about reporters loving McCain somehow made his point for him.

Seemed to me that the MSM love for McCain was the main point. Of course, the title of the article probably hid this. I'd call the length extensive documentation.

Good one(s)!

Quoting renzo: Who are your high priests by the way?

Mine are personally all dead. Pretty predictable though...at least I read and commented on your articles while the usual suspects here just try to flatter me with with aping my article surge. In any case...I have to finish listening to the vlog as I really didn't mean to detour the conversation and abortion IS a big deal to many more than just Catholics.

It's evident from clicking this guy's book link that he's not a credible historian of the Democratic party. Anyone who attributes the shift of "working class whites" from the Democratic Party to the phenomenon of "educated elites" and "secularists" taking over a "1968 Commission" and allegedly hijacking the party structure without any mention of what was happening in the bigger picture regarding race in those years is an unreliable narrator, at best. This is the "Strom Thurmond/Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left them" school of half-wit discourse. That he's published by "Encounter Books", which is little more than a right-wing propaganda vendor run by wingnut David Horowitz' "lefty apostate" comrade, Peter Collier fills in any blanks on where this guy is coming from. The truth is the Democrats have held the allegiance of one of the most religious ethnic groups in America. Oh wait a minute - those dark folks don't count in these discussions. "Secularists have a choke-hold..." What bullshit. We (true liberals of many religious and non-religious ethical stripes - not just straw-man "secularists") cut loose the chokehold of bigots and folks who had imposed

Quoting Whatfur: Mine are personally all dead.

Pretty predictable though...at least I read and commented on your articles while the usual suspects here just try to flatter me with with aping my article surge.

In any case...I have to finish listening to the vlog as I really didn't mean to detour the conversation and abortion IS a big deal to many more than just Catholics.

Yep, support the troops and fetuses at least until they are not troops and fetuses anymore, then let 'em eat cake.
the usual suspect
Your surge is working! quit playing the victim...

Actually you can read about that one in the congressional record maybe you should spend some time there and get the answers you seek.

Yea but it is Senator Obama that anoints himself as being above such political shenanigans when it looks more like he is chin deep in it, and he is a rather tall man is he not? .

Quoting brucds: Oh wait a minute - those dark folks don't count in these discussions.

Shoot this line over to the Obama campaign...he can use it when "...and have you heard he's black?" wears thin.

For those that might be interested Michael Totten has another good post out about his journey through Kosovo; more great pictures and some local color. The Road to Kosovo, Part II

Quoting piscivorous: Yea but it is Senator Obama that anoints himself as being above such political shenanigans ...

Give me a break. McCain has been dining out on his self-styled Maverick (tm) image for decades now.

Quoting brucds: It's evident from clicking this guy's book link that he's not a credible historian of the Democratic party.

Or just from listening to him. He sounded like someone in week two of a high school civics class doing a in-class practice pundit session. After eating too many Quaaludes.

That he's published by "Encounter Books" ...

Nice catch.

"Secularists have a choke-hold..." What bullshit.

Exactly. Did we have this? No. Did we have this? Yes.

This guy is a reactionary asshole who's welcome to go flack for McCain.

We can only hope.

pisc: Why don't you start a blog? I don't mean that you shouldn't post links of interest here, but it seems like you surf far and wide, and you ought to have your own space, too.

I spend a lot of time here currently because 8 months ago I broke my foot off and it is finally starting to heal, to the point that I am now able to begin pursuing work once more so my time spent at the keyboard commenting will diminish. While I would rather read than comment I have had time to do both, and have enjoyed the experience but with commenting beginning to interfere with my reading time and I am doing less of it. As I will have to leave my beloved Handyman trade and return to the world of technology I will be spending considerable amount of time having to build a different clientele base as well as figuring out how to pay the voluminous bills, that I have racked up in the last 8 months, so there is really not enough time in the day to blog as well.

Quoting brucds: It's evident from clicking this guy's book link that he's not a credible historian of the Democratic party. Anyone who attributes the shift of "working class whites" from the Democratic Party to the phenomenon of "educated elites" and "secularists" taking over a "1968 Commission" and allegedly hijacking the party structure without any mention of what was happening in the bigger picture regarding race in those years is an unreliable narrator, at best. This is the "Strom Thurmond/Zell Miller/Joe Lieberman didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left them" school of half-wit discourse. That he's published by "Encounter Books", which is little more than a right-wing propaganda vendor run by wingnut David Horowitz' "lefty apostate" comrade, Peter Collier fills in any blanks on where this guy is coming from. The truth is the Democrats have held the allegiance of one of the most religious ethnic groups in America. Oh wait a minute - those dark folks don't count in these discussions.

"Secularists have a choke-hold..." What bullshit. We (true liberals of many religious and non-religious ethical stripes - not just straw-man "secularists") cut loose the chokehold of bigots and folks who had imposed

Pisc: Glad to hear you'll be able to get back on your feet. Sorry that it'll take away from your keyboard time. But maybe once you get settled in the new groove you'll be able to find some open time slots. The thing about a blog is you don't have to do it on any schedule. One of my favorites, Steve Yegge, posts once or twice a month. And sometimes it's good for things like blowing off steam about starting on your next job. So I urge you to keep it in mind. Or, better yet, start one right now, see how it goes, don't tell anyone about it until you feel like it's got enough for you to share. On Blogspot, for example, you can start a blog and shield it from the public/open it to the public, by checking one box in your settings. Something to think about, anyway. Pardon my evangelizing.

The truth is the Democrats have held the allegiance of one of the most religious ethnic groups in America.

Two: African Americans and Latinos.

Quoting Wonderment: Two: African Americans and Latinos.

And let's not forget Catholics. Somehow Republicans have convinced themselves that Catholics vote overwhelmingly Republican, but (if I'm not mistaken), Catholics have voted for Democrats in every presidential election since at least 1960, except for 2004, when they lost the Catholic vote by only a small margin, 52%-47%.

And let's not forget Catholics.

Point taken, but overwhelmingly the Latinos are Catholics. En el nombre del padre, del hijo y del espíritu santo, amén.

Quoting Wonderment: Point taken, but overwhelmingly the Latinos are Catholics.

En el nombre del padre, del hijo y del espíritu santo, amén.

I know this is about "ethnic voters," and I guess whites are non-ethnic. But let's not forget the Northeast and Midwest, those heavily Catholic blue states of European stock.

Amy was somewhat more "with it" on this entire topic, displaying much better understanding of nuance. Maybe it's just me, but she seems to have placed Mr. S somewhat in the shade. (This even though I didn't agree with some of her takes such as her tendency to make the knee-jerk conclusion that the only folks likely to sit out the election were in essence 1970's radical feminists.) Still, this whole topic of "religion in politics" spooks me more than just a little, even to the point where I felt almost nauseous noticing the other day Obama's pandering after the "faith-based initiative" crowd, advocating their hand-in-hand partership with government: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us...2obama.html?hp I'm not surprised to see Obama do a little dance with politically problematic voting sectors, but this is just out-and-out groveling. (Heaven forbid he should actually advocate anything but an arm's-length relationship with the Evangelicals). It's almost like Obama's signaling encouragement to the erosion of the much-needed barrier between church and state, welcoming self-serving Christian power-mongers into positions where they can grab influence and power, little different than under Bush. (Thus, incidentally, being also able to suppress their religious "competition.") This seems to me to verge

I didn't really follow this diavlog. "The Democrats Blue" author has this deal about some guy named Dutton putting in motion the mechanism to pull control from Mayor Daley and I assume other big city white catholic dems and giving it to the lefties. Ok, that's his thing. It doesn't exactly "light me fire." Thomas Edsall has covered this ground pretty well a long time ago. I have seen Amy on here before and still can't figure out where she is coming from? It has something to do with white evangelicals warming up to democrats but that's about as much as I can get from her. I don't think she has given any empirical data to substantiate her claims but I may have missed it if she has. As far as Obama tap dancing on the religion thing that is nothing new. The most memorable aspects of the campaign was the various stances he took on his minister in such a short amount of time. The minister went from great to someone less than great, to not great at all. Something like a accelerated bad marriage except this acrimony and

Great diavlog. I think energy will be a big voting issue in the Fall. In summer 2004, people were upset over $2/ gallon gas. In four years, the price doubled! Furthermore, we weren't in a recession in '04. Assuming that the situation will magically be better come November is sticking your head in the sand.

Piscivorous-- Heal well! I'm real sorry to hear you're going through a hard time. (I rarely agree with you, but I really enjoy your writing -- thanks for that!)

Quoting piscivorous: I spend a lot of time here currently because 8 months ago I broke my foot off and it is finally starting to heal, to the point that I am now able to begin pursuing work once more so my time spent at the keyboard commenting will diminish. While I would rather read than comment I have had time to do both, and have enjoyed the experience but with commenting beginning to interfere with my reading time and I am doing less of it. As I will have to leave my beloved Handyman trade and return to the world of technology I will be spending considerable amount of time having to build a different clientele base as well as figuring out how to pay the voluminous bills, that I have racked up in the last 8 months, so there is really not enough time in the day to blog as well.

Glad you're on the mend, pisc. I need to develop some discipline myself...more reading less posting!

Well, you don't actually think the people mentioned in that article are high priests of conservatism, do you? Here are some high priests (I offer no guarantees, however, of their theological expertise) of conservatism: Charles Krauthammer
William Kristol
Victor Davis Hanson
Thomas Sowell
Rich Lowry
Fred Barnes
Michael Barone
Ben Wattenberg (though not so much as of late)

[quote=brucds;81867]"Secularists have a choke-hold..." What bullshit. We (true liberals of many religious and non-religious ethical stripes - not just straw-man "secularists") cut loose the chokehold of bigots and folks who had imposed their theolotically-rationalized racism for a century and, now, want to inflict narrow theological beliefs about women and choice on others.[quote] Not to pick nits, but eugenics was very popular in the 20s among secular types like G. B. Shaw and quite opposed by at least G. K. Chesterton (and I'm guessing other religious types too). So, not all of the racism of the last century was religiously motivated (unless you take eugenics not to have any racial tones to it, which, I suppose, we could discuss). Moreover, some of the anti-racism of the 20th century, I think, was religiously motivated.

Bobby G:

Not to pick nits, but eugenics was very popular in the 20s among secular types like ...

Well, it is picking a nit, and a fairly irrelevant one, too. Very few people active in political discussion today, particularly those who favor a secular society, view eugenics as anything but a bad idea. It's from the past, and we've long since figured out that it was wrong. Bringing up something like this is asinine. It's like basing an argument against Christianity solely on the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition.

Quoting bjkeefe: Bobby G:

Well, it is picking a nit, and a fairly irrelevant one, too. Very few people active in political discussion today, particularly those who favor a secular society, view eugenics as anything but a bad idea. It's from the past, and we've long since figured out that it was wrong. Bringing up something like this is asinine. It's like basing an argument against Christianity solely on the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition.

Or like picking a fight based on having read the last book by Jonah Goldberg.