Even if he was speaking privately. Or so Dave Ross says.
This morning, while waiting for Eric Earling to speak his few lines, I listened to about half an hour of the Dave Ross show. As you might expect, Ross had an excuse for Barack Obama's insults to small town voters in Pennsylvania.
Ross's argument, what I heard of it, went like this: All politicians lie about being populists, but Obama is inexperienced, and so failed to lie when he was speaking to that crowd of millionaires in San Francisco. Obama's mistake, which Ross does not think is serious, is that he told the truth when a more experienced politician would have lied.
(Alas, Ross did not illustrate his argument about politicians lying with examples from his own campaign. Now that would have been interesting! Nor did he think about this syllogism, which follows obviously from his argument: All politicians lie. Dave Ross is a politician. Therefore, . . . and I will leave the conclusion for you to figure out. For the record, I think that politicans lie directly much less often than most think, though many, perhaps most, are often deceptive without lying.)
Again and again, during this campaign, I have seen Obama supporters who hope that Obama is lying to the voters. Now, talk show host Dave Ross says, though not in exactly these words, that he wishes Obama had lied at that fund raiser. Some might think that Ross, and similar Obama supporters, are too cynical. And many will wonder whether they should trust people like Ross, people who want politicians, or at least their politicians, to lie.
(For the record, Obama was wrong in the argument he made in those insults, wrong in many ways. But Ross, who is often misinformed — and determined to remain so — will never realize that.
Note to commenters: Please stay on the topic, which is Dave Ross's reaction to Obama's "bitter" comments. Ross thinks that Obama told the truth but should have lied. Do you agree or disagree with Ross on those two points?)
Correction: The talk was actually given in San Francisco, not Marin County, as I originally wrote. I've corrected the text above.
Posted by Jim Miller at April 14, 2008 01:12 PM | Email ThisJust trying to find the guy's good side (taking thumper's adivce here). It ain't easy though, let me tell ya.
Posted by: pbj on April 14, 2008 01:35 PMWhy should anybody expect Obama to lie when that's exactly how he feels about some people? Ross should praise Obama for speaking his mind.
Put him on the highest hill in the land. Give him a megaphone.
Get the word out so all those 'typical white people' can decide for themselves if this is who they want leading the country.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/14/888068.aspx
Posted by: thehim on April 14, 2008 01:52 PMNo wonder Osa... Obama hates those things.
Posted by: Gary Clinger on April 14, 2008 02:02 PMHe was right to say what he said, and in fact, he didn't go far enough with it. The *facts* are that Obama is doing very well in states with mostly rural populations. More and more rural and small-town voters are seeing the light. This will stick to Obama about as much as that baloney about his preacher will -- very little at all -- and it will be largely forgotten by the election.
Needless to say, most people who post here will disagree with this, and that's fine. We'll see who laughs last in November.
Posted by: ivan on April 14, 2008 02:12 PMIn my opinion Obama is not an elitist. What he said about religion, gun and migrants sounds just about what people think in my part of this United States.
This we do when we are distressed. When we feel danger, we want to protect our family, we pickup gun. When we lose our job, we blame someone, the President or some poor immigrant.
Those who are upset with Obama just want an excuse to tarnish the image of this great American.
Obama said what he believed. He was honest about what he said. The truth is something else all together and the two are unrelated.
The truth is that both D's and R's "cling" to their guns and faith. But neither do so for the reason Obama thinks, however, he honestly believes what he said. Both D's and R's in small town America are far more sophisticated than Obama and other Pols on both sides ever think but rarely honestly admit. He wasn't trying to say what they wanted to hear (in this case in SF) he was simply saying what he believes. So he was honest. And, incorrect. His honesty as Dave Ross points out, would have been better disguised in platitudes and generalities. And that's true from a strategic standpoint and pathetic from a honorable one.
Posted by: Cecil on April 14, 2008 02:22 PMNewsday reported over the weekend that Obama took about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees at their Miami offices last October. The firm made headlines when its biggest lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, admitted to several counts of corruption and was sentenced to prison.
I wonder if any of the leftists in Seattle are having a "bitter" moment yet?
Posted by: John425 on April 14, 2008 02:37 PMWhen you don't have a job and the factory where you work has moved overseas I would imagine a lot of your fellow workers would turn to God for a help and guidance finding a new one. A lot of people associate the Govt. with the general state of the economy.
Posted by: Cato on April 14, 2008 02:38 PMIf you're living in that area of the country, not even God could help you get a new job. Seriously.
Posted by: bma on April 14, 2008 02:46 PMYou mentioned church, I didn't. I am not a religious person. But I certainly can understand why people would pray for this country after seven years of Bush, and why anyone would say of people who vote for Republicans: "Forgive them, for they know not what they do."
For those who vote for Republicans who DO know what they do, I can see why people might think it is easier to pass a camel through a needle's eye than for them to get to heaven.
If those are the people Obama was referring to, then the burden of proof is on those who will say that Obama was not telling the truth.
Posted by: ivan on April 14, 2008 02:57 PMI think it would be quite possible for a politician to go into the countryside and say I ain't from around here and your ways are strange, and I've never bowled or shot a gun. But you all are cool, and country living makes sense for country folks.
He didn't he implied those folks are backwards, and not smart enough to know it. And I can talk to you about them and they won't catch on to the fact I am insulting them.
Posted by: Joe on April 14, 2008 03:05 PMFirst, church and guns have been present in boom economies and in so so economies and in down economies. So I think Obama is wrong to assert "down times lead to church and guns."
Second, if Obama lied, then he would contradict his message of "hope and change." Or is there some other reason besides "hope and change" that Mr Ross supports Obama? Maybe Mr Ross could post a response to the request for supporters of a candidate to outline the candidate's Accomplishments.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on April 14, 2008 03:06 PMWitness: Obama Attended Rezko Party
By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer
Monday, April 14, 2008
(04-14) 14:30 PDT CHICAGO, (AP) --
The government's star witness at the fraud trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko testified Monday that Sen. Barack Obama and his wife attended a party four years ago at the home of the indicted political fundraiser.
Stuart Levine said the party took place in April 2004 and was held to honor Iraqi-born Nadhmi Auchi, a London-based billionaire who was visiting the United States at the time.
Rezko, 52, was a major fundraiser for Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and the trial has been closely watched because of Obama's presidential campaign. But very little has been said about the senator thus far.
Neither Blagojevich nor Obama has been accused of wrongdoing. The Obama campaign has now given to charity nearly $150,000 in contributions received by Obama's House and Senate campaigns that came from Rezko, his employees, his associates and his family
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Monday that the senator "does not recall meeting Nadhmi Auchi at any time or on any occasion," and that Obama and his wife do not remember attending the party.
Auchi's attorney, Alasdair Pepper, has said his client doesn't remember meeting Obama.
Neither Blagojevich nor Obama has been accused of wrongdoing.
Rezko is charged with scheming with Levine to squeeze money management firms wanting state business for kickbacks and split a bribe. Rezko has denied that he took part in such a scheme.
But his bond was revoked and he was jailed by the trial judge after federal prosecutors discovered a wire transfer of $3.5 million in 2007 to his attorneys from Auchi by way of a bank in Lebanon. Rezko had told Judge Amy J. St. Eve that he had no money, no way of getting money and was living off the charity of friends and relatives.
Levine has pleaded guilty to the charges and taken the stand as the government's star witness in hopes of getting a lenient sentence.
Levine said very little about the party at Rezko's home or Obama's presence there.
He said he had flown Rezko's family back from Mexico the same day so that they would be in Chicago in time for the party.
"Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn was there?" Rezko attorney Joseph J. Duffy asked.
"Yes, Sir," Levine answered.
"Mr. and Mrs. Obama were there?" Duffy asked.
Levine agreed with a Duffy statement that "the governor was a no-show."
Do tell? Did Obama have the Secret Service have people arrested for disagreeable t-shirts at his speeches and take away your gun? Oh wait, that's the current President.
Unless you vote for the Democrat - oh, sorry. Democratic candidate. - you're just a bunch of schtoopid rubes who don't know any better. And if you do know better, you're going to hell.
They're nothing more than elitist snobs who don't know nearly as much as they think they do. And it shows every time they open their mouths.
Posted by: jimg on April 14, 2008 03:32 PMPraise the lord and pass the ammunition.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 14, 2008 03:43 PMI don't care who the president is, if anyone shows up to a speech with a gun, the secret service should take them out.
Posted by: pbj on April 14, 2008 03:45 PMNasty, lying right-wing shills like jimg continue to spew out their rhetorical manure, and they think people won't catch wise. They will, boyo, they will.
Posted by: ivan on April 14, 2008 03:47 PMI disagree with Dave Ross on this one on two counts. First, Dave's assumption that all politicians lie. You can take this from two standpoints. One is all of us have lied in our lifetimes (i.e., no one is perfect), however, I don't believe Ross was alluding to this. My guess he was alluding to a collary that Politicians will tell voters whatever they think they want to hear to get elected, and not the real truth. While many do believe this, and even believe it about Obama, the fact of the matter is Barack has shown repeatedly in the current campaign to address issues upfront. He has also demonstrated in town meetings to listen to voters questions and trying to truthfully respond even if it isn't what the voter wants to hear. His remarks in SF were basically this. I don't think it is a naviete, it is an honest effort to be upfront. Whether one agrees with him or not, he could have easily glossed this over, like say Bill Clinton has done many times in the past. It was the same with the Jeremiah Wright issue. Instead, he tells it like it is whether people want to hear the truth or not.
The second area where Ross is wrong is in assuming that voters just want to hear politicians who tell them good things. This is falling into the Hillary trap. It is why so many people are fed up with politics and politicians in general. This is why young people are so turn off to politics. This is why Barack is where he is today. Barack is the anti-politician vote. He isn't catering to the professional politician audience. He caters to the public itself. If one would read (or listen) to his lastest book, which I know is a stretch to ask some in the SP crowd, one would read/hear the stories of his going from home to home in Southern Illinios. You also see it in his recent bus trip through Pennsylvania, which he has had the luxury to do, instead of the tight schedule he had leading up to Ohio. When voters get to sit down with him face-to-face, and have him listen and respond to his questions, they come away with the response of the fact that while he may not agree with their stance, they were listened to and Barack understood where they were coming from.
Overall, I do not agree with the MSM's assassination over the comments. I think they were honest and did reflect the voters he came in contact with in Pennsylvania. Whether this costs him the nomination or the general, I don't know. I hope not, but I would rather he be honest about America than a Hillary who has no clue about real people and panders for their votes (and in this case I do say it is pandering in the dictionary sense of the word).
Posted by: tc on April 14, 2008 03:51 PMWe've had seven years of the later and look at the results.
Sorry lefties, your big hero stepped in it. And showed the entire country what you really believe in the process.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 14, 2008 03:57 PMMaybe because no one give a damn about John "flip-flop" McCain. =)
Don't you realize, "Unkl Witz" that rational folks dismiss this kind of garbage?
What is the matter with you?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 14, 2008 04:06 PMProgressives and the left commentariat are lashing out, because they know they have to lie and put on a good face. The MSM has to feign objectivity, etc. They know this hurt Obama badly, so they show their frustration.
The damage is done. I doubt he will fully recover for the general. And, I'm sure he will make more gaffes and mistakes, because that is the essence of Barack Obama.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 14, 2008 04:15 PMBring it on, please!
Meanwhile Obama flip-flops on his "bitter" comments. What a bunch of phonies!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 14, 2008 04:16 PM
To all: More seriously, so far this has mostly been a civil discussion. For example, I think tc is making an honest effort to address the questions I raised, though I am pretty sure we favor different candidates. Let's keep it civil.
Posted by: Jim Miller on April 14, 2008 04:20 PM
You saying that Republicans are immune from gaffes and mistakes? That sure seems like an elitist attitude to me. =P
Politicians can make serious mistakes and gaffes and somehow get elected...just look at Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).
Sen. Obama is arguing that he is being criticized for suggesting small-town voters are bitter - and the media is helping him in his effort to change the context. A Reuters story this morning refers to Sen. Obama "defending himself for calling people in small towns with economic blight 'bitter'."
In fact, real critics of the remark are not hitting him for the assertion that small-town voters are bitter. Critics are pointing out the fact that Obama suggested these voters "cling" to faith and religion only because they are bitter. He also suggested that looking to one's faith for solace and strength during difficult times is merely a reactionary crutch. In his speech, he lumps faith with bigotry and being a "gun nut" as symptoms of bitterness.
By playing the "guns & God" card, Obama is simply pandering to the San Francisco liberal fund raiser crowd by emphasizing the small-town, redneck conservative stereotype. This may serve him well among the liberal "elite" but not so well in rural and working-class areas of important swing states.
Dave Ross seems to suggest Sen. Obama was on the remark with these comments. But Sen. Obama, in this instance, provided what I think was additional and important insight into his thinking and character. He seems to have either a lack of understanding or a disdain for people who embrace a faith tradition. Or perhaps he just felt it would be financially helpful to take a cheap shot at such people while pandering to a crowd that likely both disdains AND lacks understanding for people of deep faith.
I suspect the latter...
Posted by: airfoil on April 14, 2008 04:25 PMPerhaps it might be more effective for liberals to point out the success of liberal programs throughout history. Or is it more effective to sneer at rural Americans as the leading Democrat candidate has?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 14, 2008 04:40 PMI must say I was appalled to see the photo and caption of Ms. Clinton knocking back a "beer and a bump." If "under rate" means to say I don't think she will do literally anything to pander to certain segments of the voting public, rest assured I most certainly do not under rate her.
But to get back to my earlier point: is that what we want from our future President? I mean it's one thing to make an fool of oneself trying to eat a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich or try to bowl when it's clearly something you've probably never done before. But to pander to the hard drinking crowd is pathetic.
Frankly, I've got more respect for John McCain for avoiding this sort of silliness. Of course I won't vote for him because he thinks we need to "stay the course" in Iraq. And I think that is dead wrong.
Since they sound like their candidate, that is, empty-suited America-hating racist bigots; it's kinda shaping up to be another Mondale year.
And after it happens, they'll be wandering around going "wa.... wa... wa happened?"
It is rare, in my experience, to see a candidate snatch defeat from the jaws of victory the way this moron has done it. And with each snarky, defensive, whiney remark by the candidate or his supporters; they acknowledge how bleak their horizon has become.
Hatred of all things Republican is a force with some power; but it's not enough to get a left-of-Lenin candidate like this clown where they want him to go. And moronic screw ups like the ones he seems incapable of avoiding are the very reason Hillary is hanging around: Every few days, this guy, who is too stupid to run a White House elevator, let alone the United States, says something that buries him a liitle deeper.
When you're at the bottom of the hole, Barry, you really ought to stop digging. And moronic temper tantrums like those displayed here do nothing to strengthen the candidate's position; nor do nonsensical pronouncements like Barry's idiocy "doesn't hurt him" do anything except show the power of wishful thinking.
Posted by: hinton on April 14, 2008 04:59 PMSays the man on his GOP high horse who would never sneer at others while lumping large groups of people together into broad stereotypes.
Perhaps it might be more effective for liberals to point out the success of liberal programs throughout history
Sounds good to me, how about the SEC and FDIC. The GOP seem to like NAFTA.
Or is it more effective to sneer at rural Americans as the leading Democrat candidate has?
I dunno, he's certainly taking hell for it...thought I expect it to blow over like a lot mistakes and gaffe's do. The 527's will have fun with it while McCain runs his campaign on the taxpayer dime.
Was she "pandering to the hard drinking crowd" I agree with you, Unkl Witz, it's pathetic. But pandering is what Democrats are best at. At least she could have downed the beer and whiskey.
LOL!! Best comment I've read all day!!
Back to the original topic. Obama made his statement because he felt he was in his nice, fuzzy liberal element. He's an urban elite snotty liberal who has never gotten his hands dirty in his whole life.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 14, 2008 05:23 PMDon't you realize, "Bill Cruchon" that rational folks dismiss this kind of garbage?
What is the matter with you?
Don't you realize, "Bill Cruchon" that rational folks dismiss this kind of garbage?
What is the matter with you?
Explain Obama's condescending comments about rural Americans.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 14, 2008 05:46 PMOff the top of my head, yes.
I don't believe either were solely founded by Democrats.
Then we will never find anything that's a truly "democratic" policy since the GOP has been around since 1850's. Before that there were the Federalists and the Whigs. Policy usually pass through both houses of Congress before reaching the President giving parties ample time to hijack or lay claim to the policy in discussion.
He's an urban elite snotty liberal who has never gotten his hands dirty in his whole life.
Should Romney or Huckabee had won the nomination might you be signing a different tune?
Posted by: Cato on April 14, 2008 05:50 PMIt was the same move he made with the "arugula" statement.
The idea is that he's not really talking to the "People" of Pennsylvania. He's talking to the intelligentsia and sending them little jokes.
The Arugula Statement is a clear mockery of the Belgian Endive mess during the Dukakis campaign. So, is Obama repeating Dukakis mistakes?
No...clearly not. Obama is mocking phone-it-in conservatives who have been playing the same card since 1988! Obama is calling the bluff of the entrenched conservative media by baiting them with an obvious troll.
It's a gamble. Obama is saying to the Conservative coterie -- look it's not the same electorate, they won't jump when you throw them the same bones and salves.
He could be right. Look the candidates who gave into the "Social Conservatives"...Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson...all went down in flames.
For Republicans to get into office, they are going to have to back to their moderate roots. Obama is challenging a stereotype that was painted by Paleo (formerly Neo, but time marches on) Conservatives.
(BTW -- I am a moderate -- small m -- Republican. )
Posted by: John Bailo on April 14, 2008 05:51 PMI would be delighted to talk substance rather than any kind of personal attack.
Let's do it.
Why are we discussing such a trivial issue like a few condescending remarks when our country is at war and our economy is on the verge of collapse?
Tell me Bill, why are these remarks more in need of discussion than war and economic disaster?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 14, 2008 05:51 PMI don't agree with him 100%, maybe not quite 50%, but I think much of the basic premise is correct: 1) people get angry when they loose jobs, (2) they feel hopeless when there are few job opportunities available as replacements, and (3) they take that anger out in more ways than one. That probably doesn't involve "clinging to religion," though religion probably helps people get through rough times, which is not a negative as Obama suggested.
But the bottom line is that the solution is to get jobs out into small town America. I think that's where he was headed in his comments. It's not a bad goal, though the means can be argued over, and will be argued over, forever.
Posted by: BananaLand on April 14, 2008 05:59 PM
Then you need to start by rolling back the GMA so you CAN develop out in those small towns. Right now, that's not allowed. I wanted to move my business to Silvana, but the GMA and growth restrictions would not allow such a move. So rather than that, and after fighting the State for years, I simply moved overseas.
The Government of this State - Democrats - are DIRECTLY responsible for businesses relocating from Washington. Same with Michigan, and most of the rust belt. Governments and unions who want to control the businesses, rather than let the owners and creators of those businesses do what they do best and run the economic engines of society.
An additional comment on the bittergate:
A couple of people commented that it isn't the "bitter" part of the quote that is upsetting, but the religion, guns, etc. part. I do believe that in this part of the quote, Barack, speaking off the cuff, totally jumbled what he was attempting to state and messed up big time. Given Barack's history (from my knowledge of studying the candidate and not relying on the MSM's portral), I believe what he was attempting to state is that instead of addressing the issues, candidates in the past several years have focused on religious, guns, and other secondary issues to get people interested in voting, instead of focusing on the big economic issues. For example, one of Karl Rove's 2004 stategy to get Bush re-elected was to spur states, like Ohio, to put gay marriage issues on the ballot. Whereas, the working guy could probably have cared less about the election due to the economic hardship, this brought him out to vote. It was a wise political move by Rove, but it never addressed the big issues effecting Ohio and the other midwest/mideast states in the Rust Belt.
I grew up in a small town in the Rust Belt. I saw the beginning of the decline. It didn't just effect the blue-collar worker that directly worked on the assembly line. It effected whole communities (e.g., multiplier effect of a business). It also wasn't just the auto industry decline, which I put the blame both on union's pushing increases in benefits without regard to operating conditions and auto industry executes that failed to recognize real quality and innovation when confronted with the Japanese auto makers. The management was fat, dumb and content in their country clubs and private estates.
The other industry that also started declining in the late 70's and 80's was the farm industry. It became too expensive for the small farmer to afford equipment, and it became economically impractical to even grow crops to feed their livestock. The cost of growing the crops (gas along with equipment costs) was more than the return they made on the livestock they raised. Only dairy farmers and some hog farms survived on the small scale farming business, with the dairy surviving only due to government subsidies. Everything else was gobbled up by huge agribusiness entities. Small farmers either had to sell or mortgage everything to get big fast. The era of 100-300 acre farms disappeared. One needed 500-1000 acres to start to break even, which put it beyond the small farmer and immediate family to run.
What the Midwest/Mideast had however is pride, their churches, and local community interactions, like going deer hunting in the fall. This has kept them going, but it hasn't necessarily made them overwhelmed with joy. Sure there are pockets of growth around larger communities that have moved beyond the dependence of the auto industry and small farmers, but in the small towns, this isn't the case. The parallel would be the logging industry here in the Northwest.
Posted by: tc on April 14, 2008 07:36 PMYes, we need to start a drawdown in Iraq and bring our troops as well as balance the budget, get rid of earmarks. Sen. McCain will do that, plus not force feed us Universal Health Care and save us from becoming more of a nanny-state. Dave Ross would never bring that kind of discourse up on his show - that would be coming out and saying "The Emperor has no clothes".
I understand that Rev. Wright has Black Muslim leanings and started out as one before he became of pastor - seems like he maintains that philosophy after hearing his views.
Posted by: KS on April 14, 2008 08:08 PMYes, we need to start a drawdown in Iraq and bring our troops as well as work toward balancing the budget and get rid of earmarks. Sen. McCain will do that, plus not force feed us Universal Health Care and save us from becoming more of a nanny-state. Dave Ross would never bring that kind of discourse up on his show - that would be coming out and saying "The Emperor has no clothes".
I understand that Rev. Wright has Black Muslim leanings and started out as one before he became of pastor - seems like he maintains that philosophy after hearing his views.
Posted by: KS on April 14, 2008 08:11 PMCheck the other polls out there that indicate the unwashed masses could not care less about that quote.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 14, 2008 09:02 PMIf what he was trying to say was that people who are under extreme economic pressure cling to things that make them secure, he could have said it another way and got his meaning out. Like, people whose homes are in foreclosure, who worry about how they can help their kids go to college, or who worry about how they will pay a medical bill find solace in the familiar, like mac and cheese.
This election will not be won by appealing to the partisans of either party. It will be won by getting moderates and indies to vote for the ticket.
Now, for those simply agast by the "elitism" of Senator Obama. The Clintons made over $150 million the last few years. Senator Mc Cain was smart enough to become a himbo for an attractive woman with $100+ million, Governor Romney is worth several 100 million and Senator Edwards made over $30 million from law practice. Does any one here really think any of these folks are waiting for the Freddie coupons to come out so they can buy their groceries?
Posted by: WVH on April 14, 2008 10:01 PMI was reminded of this wily, grizzled, veteran, and Democrat elected who took me under his wing and said, "Swatter, next time when you get asked the question, tell them you support their position since by then, you will have been elected; besides, the question you were asked isn't important because the tax hike has to be voted by the people and wouldn't be a vote you would have to take."
This referred to a question by the Teamsters, for example, if I would pass legislation against WalMart, or another union about a sales tax increase to help their union.
Posted by: swatter on April 15, 2008 06:49 AMSen Obama: you say you will start withdrawing our troops from Iraq immediately upon assuming office. Would this mean you will disregard the advice of your top military commanders or will you find and replace these commanders with one's that agree with you?
Posted by: Duffman on April 15, 2008 07:07 AMSo the context of his statement is somewhat distorted. Perhaps he is thinking about religion being the opium of the people as believed by a previous loony left leader of another time.
The left fears armed citizens. One may imagine why, can't one?
So in one brief, condescending comment he arrogantly exposed his view of Americans that he desires to lead (control). Lots of luck Mr.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 15, 2008 08:45 AMNuts
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 15, 2008 09:02 AMDelivered at the Ford Hall Forum on April 20, 1986, and published in The Objectivist Forum, June 1986. It is reprinted in The Voice of Reason.
A specter is haunting America--the specter of religion. This, borrowing Karl Marx's literary style, is my theme tonight.
Where do I see religion? The outstanding political fact of the 1980s is the rise of the New Right, and its penetration of the Republican party under President Reagan. The bulk of the New Right consists of Protestant Fundamentalists, typified by the Moral Majority. These men are frequently allied on basic issues with other religiously oriented groups, including conservative Catholics of the William F. Buckley ilk and neoconservative Jewish intellectuals of the Commentary magazine variety.
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5360
2. Another posters says the unempolyment rate is a bit over 5% and that is a national average.
In every state there are areas of unemployment that are higher than both the state and the national average. As industries leave the rust belt, towns and dreams die. What was said about communities in this category could have been said in a manner to cause less offense.
3. Regarding elitism, can anyone tell me the name of the last lower middle class person who was in contention to be president? I certainly don't remember any lower middle class person running.
Geez Army M/V, I thought you of all people would be more approving of Conservative leaders abroad. Looks like Berlusconi just won a third term despite the "22% unemployment".
No, they'll be wandering wailing "Waaaaah! We were robbed by Diebold, Karl Rove, and Ken Blackwell!"
Posted by: Little Big Mouth (dross@bonneville) on April 15, 2008 10:29 AM(Being Democrat means always shifting blame to somebody else for your won stupidity.)
Posted by: Little Big Mouth on April 15, 2008 11:05 AMSpeaking of, did you remember to thank Dave Ross for providing the final solution to our transportation problem? In 1990 he said (insert lefty Mercer Island elitist big voice here) the answer to Puget gridlock is to build heated bus shelters.
And his answer to the heartbreak of Iraq? Snivel & grovel to al Jazeera.
Meanwhile, blame Dori Monson when Goldycrats lose again, losers that they are.
Posted by: Little Big Mouth on April 15, 2008 11:09 AMJust for the fun of it, you've been there how many times?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 15, 2008 12:01 PMGuess she or one of her staff (you know, those "incompetent" staffers who are always to blame) feel they have to portray her as Washington born - even if it's a wee bit distorted. Guess they feel that appeals to those people who start off: "As a Washington native let me tell you about the evils of that Okie Clay Bennett...The evils of greedy California developers raping Ballard..."
Posted by: Mel on April 15, 2008 12:03 PMDude, you should trying reading before posting. You might wish to note the part where he's going into Naples to fix it's many problems.
Great guy. I like him. (-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on April 15, 2008 12:06 PMOh, wait. That was his separated-at-birth twin brother, William F. Buckley. Amazing resemblance.
Amazing also was Newsweek's eulogy to WFB, written by socialist scion Evan Thomas, that presented Buckley as an emblem of departed conservative civility. Unlike all remaining conservatives who sometimes say mean things about liberals.
SPL has a book about Buckley's mid-60s run for NYC mayor (the contest in which WFB said that, if he were declared the winner, he'd demand a recount). The book's liberal author casually and repeatedly refers to Buckley as a Bircher and a Nazi. Sort of like Dan Schorr falsely announcing on the evening news in 1964 that Barry Goldwater was hooked up with unreconstructed Bavarian Brownwhirts and Hitler-loving war criminals.
Posted by: Grits & Fritz on April 15, 2008 12:52 PMhttp://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/15/obama-back-to-wearing-an-american-flag-pin/
Posted by: Gary on April 15, 2008 12:56 PMYes, Berlusconi was the PM six years ago...recall this is his THIRD TERM.
Berlusconi years as PM:
June 2001 - May 2006
Looks like he took a few years off only to come back. Which means he was PM when you were there 6 years ago.
Just for the fun of it, you've been there how many times?
I've been there once. Seemed like a nice place though not as nice as Belgium was.
I think it's great that he's bringing reform, I'm think every country needs a good housecleaning now and then. Over here it might be the Republicans who get swept away. We'll have to wait till November to find out. Meanwhile life goes on.
and the ever popular; "it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment...".
The GOP doesn't have a corner on the stereotyping market.
Obama seems to think all white people are consumed with racism, paranoia, and religious fanaticism. It always boils down to "you white people are to blame".
Posted by: Scott on April 15, 2008 03:41 PMYou made the point I was trying to make. I don't care what the philosophy from Dennis Kucninach to Dr. Paul, what you will see in those running for the top spot is those whose Linked-In files give them access to resources and people with resources. The philosophy of the seeker really is relevant only to the partisans who support them.
Quite often these folks because they are seeking the top job will have characteristics and opinions of the upper middle class or upper class in society because that is the world they live in.
Why do candidates go to Pacific Heights in CA, Winnetka in Illinois, Medina and the Highlands here, because that is where the money is. That is like asking why robbers rob banks, because that is where the money is.
I don't care whether it is Senators Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Mc Cain and Governors Huckabee and Romney as well as Dr. Paul. These are all upper class individuals who know how to work the system.
Posted by: WVH on April 15, 2008 09:48 PM