When Bill Clinton was presenting himself to the American public in 1992, he was described as "The Man from Hope", Hope, Arkansas, that is. His supporters even made a movie with that title. The Clinton campaign called him the Man from Hope for two reasons, to take advantage of the town's name, and to imply that Clinton had the wholesome values many of us associate with small towns.
There is just one thing wrong with calling Clinton the Man from Hope; it isn't completely true. Clinton was born in Hope in 1946 and lived there (in the care of grandparents) until 1950, but he grew up in Hot Springs, Arkansas, a very different place. Hot Springs was famous, or, if you prefer, infamous, for its vices, famous enough to attract visitors like Al Capone and Bugs Moran. Hardly anyone would think those visitors had small town values.
But Clinton got away with it during 1992, though reporters familiar with Arkansas (and Clinton's personal history) must have know that he was being deceptive.
The Obama campaign is pulling a similar trick with his mother.
Barack's mother, Ann Dunham, grew up in small-town Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs during the Depression, and then signed up for World War II after Pearl Harbor, where he marched across Europe in Patton's army. Her mother went to work on a bomber assembly line, and after the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through the Federal Housing Program, and moved west to Hawaii.
That leaves out a lot. Stanley Ann Dunham was born in Kansas in 1942, but her family moved to the Seattle area in 1955, and in 1956 settled in a Seattle suburb, Mercer Island, where they moved sharply to the left. There's a good description of their time in Mercer Island in this long Chicago Tribune article. Some excerpts:
Obama's mother spent 8th grade through high school here. Four of those five years were spent on Mercer Island, a 5-mile-long, South America-shaped stretch of Douglas firs and cedars, just across from Seattle in Lake Washington.
. . .
At Mercer High School, two teachers -- Val Foubert and Jim Wichterman -- generated regular parental thunderstorms by teaching their students to challenge societal norms and question all manner of authority. Foubert, who died recently, taught English. His texts were cutting edge: "Atlas Shrugged," "The Organization Man," "The Hidden Persuaders," "1984" and the acerbic writings of H.L. Mencken.
. . .
"If you were concerned about something going wrong in the world, Stanley would know about it first," said [fellow student] Chip Wall, who described her as "a fellow traveler. . . . We were liberals before we knew what liberals were."
(Or as I would say, leftists.)
Sociologically, Mercer Island was already a long way from small town Kansas, especially for those who fell under the influence of teachers like Foubert and Wichterman. But Obama would prefer that we not know about that part of his mother's life, even though it was the formative part.
It is not hard to see why Obama wants to conceal this part of his mother's life, just as it is not hard to see why Clinton wanted to call himself the Man from Hope. In each case, the man wants to claim some connection to small town values, the one directly and the other through his mother. Clinton got away with it in 1992, and Obama may do the same this year.
The deliberate deception tells us something about both men. In particular, it tells us that both men are bold liars, willing to deceive even when they know that their deceptions can be detected by anyone who takes a little time to check. (And both men rely on the forbearance of "mainstream" journalists, some of whom must know the truth.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(The Dunhams didn't go directly from Kansas to Seattle. After World War II, her family moved to Texas, and from there to Seattle. So, with the same lack of accuracy, one could say that Barack's mother grew up in Texas. But I doubt that his campaign will ever make that claim.
Incidentally, I fell for this trick myself, believing for some time that the Dunhams had lived in Kansas most of their lives and then moved to Hawaii to retire.
This is the fourth post in my "Strange Obama" series. You can find the earlier posts here, here, and here.)
Two corrections: Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, was born in 1942, not 1940, as I originally wrote. And her family also lived in California after leaving Kansas, and before moving to the Seattle area.
Posted by Jim Miller at May 08, 2008 01:39 PM | Email ThisObama's mother, that very very very very very very very very very interesting woman, eh WVH?
Oh the twists and contortions we shall soon witness when finally one day, WVH declares her Obama-loyalty, loyalty to a man who grew up with a mother sttepd in *GASP* Ayn Rand. Will she become a closet shruggie?
It will be a very very very very very interesting time indeed!
Do you really think this issue will be relevant to picking the next President of the United States? Where his mother "grew up"? Seriously..... this raises doubts about his character???
April Fools Day was last month Jim, get a grip.
Next thing Jim will be telling us that John McCain is unfit to be President because his mother choose to give birth to her son in Panama rather than catch a flight back to the United States. =P
Unkl Witz -- It depends, I suppose, on whether you think that lying is important. Some do. That's why there was so much amusement over Hillary Clinton's interesting story about the snipers.
There are many ways to lie. (That's why the usual oath in courtrooms has those extra clauses.) It interests me that both Obama and Clinton chose the same way to deceive the voters -- and it interests me even more that the two men were willing to take a chance on being called on their deceptions.
It may not be a big chance. There were many in 1992 who wanted to believe Clinton, just as there are many who want to believe Obama, now. There is a technical psychological term for those people: "suckers".
Posted by: Jim MIller on May 8, 2008 03:19 PMLike I said Jim, get a grip.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 8, 2008 03:37 PMHis mother passed away in 1995 so I doubt she will be doing any characterizing of her own unless it's from the great beyond.
As long as he's got the lapdogs in the press and the rest of the Obamaphiles petting him and loving him and promising to clean up after him when he piddles on the floor(They call it puppy love), don't expect the print, tv or radio media to take him to task for obvious departures from the truth.
Edward R. Murrow is rolling over in his grave as I type.
I felt a little cheated because I hadn't been offered Ayn Rand or George Orwell until college.
Maybe I'm missing the mountain behind this molehill.
K
Posted by: K.Orengali on May 8, 2008 04:40 PMThis from the poster who supports the Afro-Leninist presidential candidate (Fauxbama) that would create the largest government-controlled nanny state in recorded American history should he get his way.
Wow, the disconnect with reality is appaling.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 8, 2008 05:35 PMWhere is the lie? She lived in Kansas from birth until some later point in her childhood. Then moved to Texas, then to Mercer Island. If she, or her son, wants to characterize that as growing up in Kansas, how is that lying?
Unkl, get real. Don't be a damned fool. By your defense of Obama's mama, me being born in Montana and leaving after six months thereafter means I was raised there, not elsewhere.
Posted by: barrackslawyer on May 8, 2008 07:11 PMThe more voters learn about the man, the more then learn that he's just one big sham. He's empty vessel filled with the evil collectivist philosophy of men like Bill Ayers. Voters are going to reject him, he is very divisive, and he had very little achievement or meaningful dialog.
It's just well delivered but empty rhetoric of hope and change designed to sneak a Marxist past the American electorate and in to power.
Don't like Bill Ayers? Just think of the positions he will be given in government if Obama gets elected.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 8, 2008 07:20 PMToto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.
Sorry I couldn't resist.
Hells bells, Pugetopolis will strengthen anyones lefty bona fides!
The Great Obama Video is far more damning than not claiming Mercer Island... even more so than his whopping 143 days of Senate "experience".
Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in terms of actual work days? Not much.
From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working.
After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.
In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may just be hitting his stride.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 8, 2008 07:43 PM
But just for our listeners in Rio Linda, remind us what that "disconnect" is, cuz as you know, many of them are Liberals and ya know, not too bright.
Oh, and also, remind us of your credentials, you know, all the degrees and designations you hold in political studies and economics.
Look forward to hearing more from you Rick. Your posts are always very enlightening.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 8, 2008 07:56 PMBut just for our listeners in Rio Linda, remind us what that "disconnect" is, cuz as you know, many of them are Liberals and ya know, not too bright.
Oh, and also, remind us of your credentials, you know, all the degrees and designations you hold in political studies and economics.
Look forward to hearing more from you Rick. Your posts are always very enlightening.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 8, 2008 07:56 PMBut just for our listeners in Rio Linda, remind us what that "disconnect" is, cuz as you know, many of them are Liberals and ya know, not too bright.
Oh, and also, remind us of your credentials, you know, all the degrees and designations you hold in political studies and economics.
Look forward to hearing more from you Rick. Your posts are always very enlightening.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 8, 2008 07:56 PMI'm assuming by calling yourself a barrackslawyer, you are not really a lawyer.
As far as where you grew up, if you grew up by the time you were six months old, sure, go ahead and say you grew up in Montana, if that's what you want.
If Obama's mom spent years zero thru ten in Kansas, that sounds a lot like growing up in Kansas to me. But if that disqualifies her son from being President, well, there ya go. Can't win them all.
I just didn't realize it was such a big deal where your mom grew up.....
Posted by: Unkl Witz on May 8, 2008 08:08 PMNo, the rest of us didn't think so either.
Patience young grasshopper, patience! :)
His mother's influence is consistent with the mentors that Barry O. had (Wright, Ayers, et. al.). This spells a collectivist philosophy and a clear socialist bend to him. More research on his voting record will show a clear connection there - one of the most liberal in the Senate. This is a good insight to what he would be like as President - like Dukakis or McGovern would have been. A fair amount of his success is due to his ability to hide facts like this who tell us who he really is, simply because he knows that a majority of the American people do not support his platform. That is called lieing by omission and many candidates have done that, but he has a slippery way of doing it. That has been key in his success in politics so far - to mesmerize those with his vacuous visionary speeches.
The opposition will serve itself well to expose the underlying person often and make it a campaign issue, along with discussing solutions to the big problems and putting it on Obama to be specific and force his hand. I have just outlined an effective campaign strategy for John McCain.
Posted by: KS on May 8, 2008 08:50 PMDon't tell me you are a lame Husky? Figures. Lot's of people have read Atlas Shrugged. :-) Plenty of people read all kinds of things from the Koran to Martha Stewart. I don't plan to observe Ramadan nor fold my towels and put bows on them. Reading all sorts of materials just makes one very, very, very interesting person instead of an uninformed dullard, like a Husky, right? :-)
Posted by: WVH on May 8, 2008 10:27 PMDo now that Obama's mother read Atlas Shrugged, it is an enlightening experience? Funny how that happens. Prior to us learning that O's mommy read Ayn Rand, you branded anyone who had read her to be a racist/bigot.... in your own words...a *GASP* "shruggie".
Oh the contortions are now beginning. WVH you go girl!
Posted by: pbj on May 8, 2008 11:22 PMGood lord, how did you conclude that? Do pay attention won't you?
WVH has a 'thing' for Ayn Rand, that very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very interesting lady - as she puts it.
Yeah Jim, but WVH doesn't have a problem with that one. She only hates people who read Atlas Shrugged. I think WVH has a crush on Ayn Rand or something. I bet she is a closet "shruggie". ;)
Posted by: pbj on May 8, 2008 11:27 PMAdd to the list of books I have read the Bible, Shakespeare and many classic works of fiction. I don't hate people who have read Atlas Shrugged. There is a cult of shruggies who view the world only through the lens of Atlas Shrugged and for these folks, Atlas Shrugged is gospel and Ms. Rand, that very, very, very interesting lady is a goddess.
This is from an interesting paper by Walden about how Ms. Rand, that very, very, very interesting lady liked to label those who did not drink the Rand Koolaide:
"....In addition to using personal invective against their opponents, Rand and her followers frequently resort to accusing them of many views to which they clearly do not subscribe. Then these objectivist writers enthusiastically proceed to knock down the strawmen they have constructedwhile deluding themselves that they have actually demolished their opponents' views...."
There is an interesting book on the cult of Rand worship by Jeff Walker:
"....From Publishers Weekly
According to this devastating and often heavy-handed critique, Ayn Rand, whose novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged exposed millions to her philosophy of virtuous self-centeredness and capitalist freedom, was an oppressive personality whose Objectivist movement demonstrated all the classic elements of a destructive cult (its messianic leader and its separation of group members from family and friends). Walker presents his subject as an arrogant, dogmatic bully who brooked no criticism and as a repressed narcissist who feared her own emotions and hid behind a glorification of reason. He concludes that Rand was no more than a third-rate pop-novelist of propaganda fiction and that her "vulgar Nietzschean" philosophy's obsessive concern with the overachiever?who requires protection via absolutized individual rights?contributed to the movement's cultish aspects. Walker also savages self-esteem guru Nathaniel Branden, who was Rand's protege and extramarital lover; their explosive breakup in 1968 pulverized the Objectivist movement, whose contemporary schisms and crosscurrents he ploddingly tracks...."
The Ayn Rand cult (Paperback)
by Jeff Walker
People can be religious and profess a faith, but when it gets to the drinking of the koolaide by those following a Jim Jones leader, then it is a cult and it is destructive. Most adults can read all types of material and it does not lead to obssessive fantasy. That is what separates the Rand clones or shruggies from the rest of the population.
Sound like Democrats to me. ;)
Posted by: pbj on May 9, 2008 12:13 AM"On November 7, 1943, Ayn Rand issued a prophetic warning to Ruth Alexander, a prominent conservative writer and lecturer: "God save capitalism from capitalism's defenders! Nobody can defeat us nowexcept the Republicans." For Rand, the Republican Party had exhibited an awful penchant for political compromise: It had never seriously challenged the "collectivist premises" of the New Deal, nor had it fundamentally opposed the country's march toward statism. Ultimately, Rand thought, the GOP merely sought to slow the march toward collectivism, rather than to reverse its direction. For Rand, its betrayal of principle engendered the rise of the theocratic right, a move ment that, in Rand's view, undermined the rational and moral case for capitalism.
Rand characterized the "conservative" defense of the free society as half-baked, for just as the liberals had embraced intellectual freedom while seeking to regulate economic life, the conservatives had embraced economic freedom while seeking to regulate moral life. Rand's whole approach to politics sought to transcend this dichotomy and to embrace a consistent vision of human freedom in all its incarnations. Her admonitions should be seriously considered today by those friends of liberty who rush to celebrate any recent Republican victories. For within GOP ranks, Christian conserva tives have combined a rhetorical commitment to the free market with a steadfast belief in govern ment promotion of "family values"even if this means, among other things, state repression of alternative lifestyles, restraints on the First Amendment, opposition to abortion, and a renewed war on drugs...."
Letters of Ayn Rand, edited by Michael S. Berliner, New York: Penguin Dutton, 1995, 681 pages
Can you say Rand clones = cult just like Jim Jones
A witness is on the stand during a trial. The witness is asked where he was on a particular evening. The witness was at the Big Mall, The Little Pizza Parlor, the Pretty Park, and Joe's Sports Bar. Suppose the witness says, "I was at the Big Mall", and stops there.
Did the witness tell the truth? No, because he didn't tell the whole truth.
Is it true to say that Ann Dunham grew up in Kansas? No, because she grew up in Kansas, Texas, California, and Washington state.
The selection on where Dunham grew up that I quoted is from Obama's official campaign site. That's makes it nearly certain that it is a deliberate attempt to deceive, not the kind of omission that might occur in a casual talk. (And, as I mentioned, it did deceive me.)
Nor can we conclude that Obama is careless with the words and meanings. He was, after all, trained as a lawyer at Harvard.
Posted by: Jim Miller on May 9, 2008 04:58 AMIt's ALWAYS different when the lying scum are democrats. They ALWAYS get a pass. The leftists excuse, they justify, they attack the messenger... and there isn't a molecule of introspection between them.
Leftists rarely let inconvenient facts get in the way of their biases. If they did, Barry O wouldn't be able to fill a phone booth at a rally.
Posted by: Hinton on May 9, 2008 06:54 AM" I guess we're not in Kansas anymore Barry"
Posted by: Rick D. on May 9, 2008 06:57 AMBy continuing to harp on your little fantasy here of catching the Obama campaign in a huge, deliberate and potentially devastating lie, you haven't spent a lot of time in either courtrooms or depositions listening to examinations. But that's OK, you are in good company, most other folks haven't either.
The bottom line here is that yes, I, and I think most other reasonable people, are going to give Obama and his campaign staff a pass on this. If he wants to highlight the Kansas portion of his mother's background, so much the better for Kansas.
Could it somehow be that you are just angry because it appears to slight the Mercer Island portion of her early years? Certainly no one could fault her for neglecting to mention Texas.
Or could it be you are simply desperate for something negative to say about Obama, and you're willing to attempt to make a big deal our this.....
I've seen some really, REALLY stupid comments on this site, but associating Rand with liberalism and the left is basically only something I would expect to see on opposites day.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 9, 2008 08:58 AM"That is what you rabid Rand clones are. "
Sorry Honey, I haven't ever read Atlas Shrugged, but thanks for showing how you ignorantly stereotype people. That's what we like about you.
Posted by: pbj on May 9, 2008 09:15 AMWhen it comes to ignorant sterotyping, you, pirate, freedomlover and the rest of the boys are with the best. This is what YOU said at post #2:
"Oh the twists and contortions we shall soon witness when finally one day, WVH declares her Obama-loyalty, loyalty to a man who grew up with a mother sttepd in *GASP* Ayn Rand. Will she become a closet shruggie?
It will be a very very very very very interesting time indeed!
Posted by pbj at May 8, 2008 02:12 PM"
1. The only candidate I have endorsed is Governor Gregoire.
2. I plan to see who is nominated by each party, the supporters of Dr. Paul seem to think their candidate has a prayer.
Now as for your comment about sterotyping people, I refer YOU to my post above and the Walden quote which describes the tactics of Rand clones:
"....In addition to using personal invective against their opponents, Rand and her followers frequently resort to accusing them of many views to which they clearly do not subscribe...."
Senator Mc Cain, like Senator Rossi certainly needs a better class of supporters.
You should read about Ms. Rand, that very, very, very interesting lady because she is sooooooooo interesting. pbj, you doing that mental yoga, again?
""....In addition to using personal invective against their opponents, Rand and her followers frequently resort to accusing them of many views to which they clearly do not subscribe...."
Describes you WVH.
Sooner or later the Democrat convention will come around and they will oficially nominate Obama. I predict here and now that you WILL endorse Obama. Now you keep this post and if you endorse McCain in Nov, you can throw it in my face.
Posted by: pbj on May 9, 2008 09:42 AMYou can't predict what any independent will do. Dude, that Walden quote has a picture of you and the boys with it. You and the boys are intellectually dishonest. If you can't get some one BANNED, then you attempt to label, if that doesn't work, then you continually misstate their comments. That was the Rand tactic used against her former lover, Nathaniel Branden and his wife.
You and the boys remind me a bit of Scientologists.
You can't argue philosophy or political ideology, so you follow the tactics described by Walden. This is the core of the Rand philosophy which is set out in the "Value of Selfishness" by Rand:
Ayn Rand here sets forth the moral principles of Objectivism, the philosophy that holds man's life -- the life proper to a rational being -- as the standards of moral values and regards altruism as incompatible with man's nature, with the creative requirements of his survival, and with a free society.
Any person who doesn't drink your koolaide HAS TO be labeled because if a lot of the truly conservative coalition making up the bulk of the republican party examines the truly empty core of the ideology of you and the boys, you would become as welcome as David Duke at either an Anti-Defamation League or Urban League picnic. ALL people who claim to be Christian conservatives should read about Ms. Rand. She had a lot of scaorn for Christians and especially Catholics.
Nice try. You and the boys care to argue the merits of what Ms. Rand said? Thought so. Your next move is what, I am a communist and kick puppies and kittens?
You can't predict what any independent will do. Dude, that Walden quote has a picture of you and the boys with it. You and the boys are intellectually dishonest. If you can't get some one BANNED, then you attempt to label, if that doesn't work, then you continually misstate their comments. That was the Rand tactic used against her former lover, Nathaniel Branden and his wife.
You and the boys remind me a bit of Scientologists.
You can't argue philosophy or political ideology, so you follow the tactics described by Walden. This is the core of the Rand philosophy which is set out in the "Value of Selfishness" by Rand:
Ayn Rand here sets forth the moral principles of Objectivism, the philosophy that holds man's life -- the life proper to a rational being -- as the standards of moral values and regards altruism as incompatible with man's nature, with the creative requirements of his survival, and with a free society.
Any person who doesn't drink your koolaide HAS TO be labeled because if a lot of the truly conservative coalition making up the bulk of the republican party examines the truly empty core of the ideology of you and the boys, you would become as welcome as David Duke at either an Anti-Defamation League or Urban League picnic. ALL people who claim to be Christian conservatives should read about Ms. Rand. She had a lot of scorn for Christians and especially Catholics.
Nice try. You and the boys care to argue the merits of what Ms. Rand said? Thought so. Your next move is what, I am a communist and kick puppies and kittens?
Sorry pbj, I just can't see WVH voting for someone who believes it's OK to discriminate against women in the workplace.
All while she has no problem with someone who discrimates in the sorority.
Right.
What a bunch of hypocrite yahoos.
The serial obfusCATOr must have some serious attention disorder... or he conveniently ignore inconvenient facts.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 9, 2008 11:57 AMI only wish it was Mitt Romney running on the GOP side. He'd mop up the floor with Obama where McCain will look like Uncle Fester in contrast next to Barry.
You said:
"You can't predict what any independent will do."
Well with you I can. You are so predictable.
"Sorry pbj, I just can't see WVH voting for someone who believes it's OK to discriminate against women in the workplace. "
So you agree with me that she will vote Obama? Thanks for clarifying that. Be careful though, next she will call you a "shruggie", ramble on about David Duke and Ayn Rand.
Despite all her protestations to the opposite, she is pretty much a left Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, if one is honset about it. At least you are honest about it Cato.
Posted by: pbj on May 9, 2008 12:56 PMSo she grew up in several places. So what? Did you think that Obama was less qualified because his mother spent some time growing up in Mercer Island as well as other places?
If this is all you have...
Posted by: DJ Allyn on May 9, 2008 01:49 PMThat and the lapel flag pin BS...I noticed McCain's not wearing his today. Since the Rezko thing turned out to be all hype and no bite the GOP's been running on empty.
There's only so much mock outrage they can get out of Rev. Wright without people looking at the GOP camps own little America haters (Falwell & Hagee).
1.pbj.,
You can't predict what any indie will do, you can predict with 100% accuracy what the Rand cult will do, see Walden above. You folks are incapable of a rational argument, so you label.
Well, hope member of the Rand cult sits well with you.
2. Andrew Brown
Got any articles which counter the info posted? You mean Ms. Rand loved Christians and republicans? Do you have such articles? If so, post them, otherwise, dude, you are the dolt.
3. Rags,
You claim to be of a certain faith, yet you are a cardcarrying member of the Rand cult. Did you know that Ms. Rand was pro-choice and loved to kill all kinds of babies? Did you know that she said this:
"Curiously, Rand's principal interest in religion appears to be Roman Catholicism. She devotes two essays to papal encyclicals. In "Of Living Death," she critiques Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae (which opposed artificial contraception) and in "Requiem for Man" she critiques his Populorum Progressio (a discussion of economics). While non-Catholic religions generally don't have equivalents to papal encyclicals, this attention given the Roman Catholic Church is noteworthy. Rand went so far as to blame the existence of American laws against abortion (which she opposed) on the Roman Catholic Church, even though such laws predated the arrival of large number of Catholic immigrants by decades. [Rand, VOR, p. 59; Robbins, WAP, p. 208.]
Rand's focus on Catholicism likely stems from a belief that Catholicism is the principal opponent of reason and capitalism. Because she had a certain respect for Catholicism's leading philosopher, Thomas Aquinas (who attempts to integrate faith and reason) Catholicism constituted the greatest threat. In "Requiem for Man" she sees Catholicism as the principal rival to communism:
Today, Catholicism and communism may well cooperate, on the premise that they will fight each other for power later, but must first destroy their common enemy, the individual, by forcing mankind to unite to form one neck-ready for one leash. [Rand, CUI, p. 316.]
A few other reasons for Rand's preoccupation with Catholicism (as opposed to Protestantism) come to mind. First, Protestantism is a more variegated system of belief, making it harder to analyze than Catholicism. Second, Protestantism is often represented as friendlier toward Capitalism and individualism than Catholicism (the so-called "Weber thesis," for example). Third, Catholicism is associated with a period of time - the Middle Ages - which plays a substantial role in Rand's philosophy of history...."
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Parille/Ayn_Rand,_Objectivism,_and_Religion_(Part_1_of_4).shtml
Her opinion on Catholics is very similiar to another cult:
"Then, in the period of economic dislocation and political and social unrest that followed World War I (1914-1918), the Klan expanded rapidly in urban areas and became active in many states, notably Colorado, Oregon, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Although the Klan everywhere fiercely preached white supremacy, it focused its attack on what it considered to be alien outsiders, particularly the Roman Catholic church, which it believed was threatening traditional American ways and values. All non-Protestants, aliens, liberals, trade unionists, and striking workers were denounced as subversives."
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562317/ku_klux_klan.html
Rags, poor big fat Rand victim.
If I were posting what you wanted to read, it wouldn't matter if I posted in Sanskrit. You Rand clones are so predictable. The Walton quote refer to the tactics of Rand clones:
"....In addition to using personal invective against their opponents, Rand and her followers frequently resort to accusing them of many views to which they clearly do not subscribe. Then these objectivist writers enthusiastically proceed to knock down the strawmen they have constructedwhile deluding themselves that they have actually demolished their opponents' views...."
I bet if I called Senators Obama or Clinton a bunch of names you wouldn't care about the method of the comment, right?
Posted by: WVH on May 9, 2008 03:16 PMAND THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE
"The Catholic Church regards abortion, as well as embryonic stem cell research, as 'intrinsically evil.'"... and how is that evil promoting/supporting queen who claims to be Catholic this fine day?
Oh, you mean like calling people racists, bigots, klan members, Rovians, Shruggies, et al?
Hmmmm....Sounds alot like you WVH. Dontcha think?
A leading pro-life Catholic is feuding with supporters of Barack Obama who claim to be Catholic but join the candidate in violating the Church's teachings by strongly supporting abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Catholic League President Bill Donahue says true Catholics would oppose Obama.... that evil promoting/supporting queen who claims to be Catholic. Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 9, 2008 03:28 PM
It goes towards integrity. How can Mr. Obama claim he will bring about a more transparent government when he isn't transparent about his own personal life?
White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at a town hall meeting at the Google headquarters here plans to unveil a technology plan Wednesday describing how an Obama administration would bring a "new level of transparency" to public life. As a candidate, he still has some ways to go on that front himself. ~ from november 17, 2007
The queston is.......Is Obama just another politician who says one thing and does another?
I don't think that is exactly living up to the "hope" or "change" mantra that he is trying to sell the American Electorate now is it?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 9, 2008 03:54 PMHate to tell you but Phil Donahue also opposes McCain for being so buddy buddy with Rev. Hagee. Looks like US Catholics will have to pray for Presidential guidance.
How can Mr. Obama claim he will bring about a more transparent government when he isn't transparent about his own personal life?
What's he not transparent on? His entire public life seems to be on display for those who want to see it. This is an odd claim given that McCain's wife is the one who's hiding her tax records. She afraid of letting America see what causes she donates her billions too?
I am going to use this example for the sake of argument as I have a great deal of respect for Mrs. Mc Cain. Still, don't you think it is a bit
disingenuous to comment on Senator Obama and President Clinton and not comment on this:
Cindy McCain says she'll never release her tax returns
May 8 01:02 PM US/Eastern
'No': Cindy McCain Vows To Never Release Tax Returns
WASHINGTON (AP) - Cindy McCain says she will never make her tax returns public even if her husband wins the White House and she becomes the first lady.
"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate," Cindy McCain, wife of Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain, said in an interview aired on NBC's "Today" on Thursday.
Asked if she would release her tax returns if she was first lady, Cindy McCain said: "No."
The Arizona senator released his tax return last month, reporting he had a total income of $405,409 in 2007 and paid $84,460 in federal income taxes. He files his return separately from his wife, an heiress to a Phoenix-based beer distributing company whose fortune is in the $100 million range.
Sen. McCain is routinely is ranked among the richest lawmakers in Congress, but he and his wife have kept their finances separate throughout their marriage. A prenuptial agreement left much of the family's assets in Cindy McCain's name.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns gives the appearance of a double standard on the part of her husband.
"What is John McCain trying to hide?" Dean said in a statement. "Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House."
Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton filed joint tax returns with their spouses and publicly released those returns.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90HJ5SO1&show_article=1
Mrs. Mc Cain is estimated to be worth about $100 million. She and her family are very charitable and her fortune comes from a legitimate business.
Still, commenting on Senator Obama and President Clinton only, really.
I already said I RESPECT Mrs. Mc Cain. Girlfriend, bought herself a himbo, so that is not the issue. Nobody gets to the level of presidential candidate any more who comes from a background of poverty. The point is this:
Still, don't you think it is a bit
disingenuous to comment on Senator Obama and President Clinton and not comment on the fact that the Mc Cain family is very wealthy?
For all those stuck in airports this summer, do you think there will be a mention of the fact that Mrs. Mc Cain's family has a private jet?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, by the way.
Point is that none of these folks is reading the Sunday papers and clipping grocery coupons, although some media maven has probably thought about having one of them pump their own gas.
Commenting on one side of the equation is just disingenuous.
Both the Obama's and Clinton's filed jointly so it makes sense that those candidates would disclose their earnings and John McCain (the candidate) dislcosed his earnings as well.
So help me out here and tell me again where the problem is?
All 3 candidates have disclosed their personal tax filings. Nothing else to say. Contingent of course on whether Cato or WVH disagree that a private citizen has a right to either disclose or not disclose their records to the public. She said "no" and that is how it will stand......deal with it.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 9, 2008 08:13 PMSorta like mikey gregoire picket himself a public government paid mealticket, eh?
You are getting more disgusting with every post.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 9, 2008 09:27 PM1. Mrs. Mc Cain runs a legitimate business and contributes to charity. She is entitled to use every legitimate tax break which benefits her for any reason. What I pointed out was the fact that ALL the candidates come from privledged backgrounds in comparison to those voters "offended" by the bitter remarks. One does not get to be a presidential candidate without having assets or access to assets. If it makes you feel better, Mrs. Kerry was in the same position. This post takes a very one-sided view.
2. Now, Rags, I get more digusting. Really. I suppose that makes you want to start calling me little Black victim with every post. Now, that was digusting. If it makes you feel better, Mrs. Kerry bought herself a himbo as well. For decades women have been referred to as bimbos when a much wealthier man was picking up the checks. By all accounts, Mrs. Mc Cain is able to hold her own, so she is the one with the money and position and she helped him to achieve his power by bankrolling his political career. That makes him a himbo.
Goodness, what did Governor Gregoire ever do to you other than continue breathing.
Got a question for you. It is my understanding that Senator Rossi is Catholic. I know that he is very much prolife. So, if he is elected does he fail to enforce the law?
Posted by: WVH on May 9, 2008 09:39 PMGovernor Quagmire only killed a couple of kids thanks to her miserable oversight of DHHS. Please ask her at the next rally how many child sized caskets she has budgeted for in FY 2008, Wilda.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 10, 2008 01:40 PMWhenever you use my first name, that means you can't answer any of the substantive points.
So Rickie, here are three questions to which you can't respond:
1. Got a question for you. It is my understanding that Senator Rossi is Catholic. I know that he is very much prolife. So, if he is elected does he fail to enforce the law?
2. If elected, does he seek to totally ban ALL abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Will he spearhead an initiative or have legislation introduced?
3. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida is acknowledged to have been a good governor. He still had problems with his version of DSHS. The breakdown of the family produces problems that are difficult to deal with. What is Senator Rossi's solution, especially since he plans to fund his transportation plan out of the general fund.
Now, you boys can get together over objectivist theory and come up with a reply.
Posted by: WVH on May 10, 2008 01:49 PMI can predict what you will do with 100% accuracy when it comes to Obama. I predict you go for Obama and there was never any question about it.
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 01:51 PMUnlike you koolaide drinking objectivist losers, some people actually listen to the candidates and vote for who they think is best. If you believe Arianna Huffington, not even Senator Mc Cain voted for President Bush last time. He denies it. For the record, I voted for Nader the last two elections. A Nader vote for many including me, means we thought both parties ran lame candidates.
Nader is running again, I don't have to vote for either party. In Washington, it is very easy to write-in. All you know is because you are a koolaide drinking idiot, you assume everyone else is.
I have some questions for you:
1) In 2001 the Nisqually quake damaged the Alaskan Way viaduct. We wer subsequently told that it was a matter of life and death to replace that structure and this argument was used to get our gas tax increased. Subsequently, the first project the DOT used that money for was a bike trail in Moses Lake.
Do you believe that the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, similar to the Cypress Viaduct in 1989?
2) Gregoire had four years to come up with a plan for the Viaduct replacement. That is in addition to the 3 years her predecessor (another Democrat) had. She has not done so. In fact when given the opportunity to show leadership, she instead put the issue to voters. Do you think that she has showed leadership on the viaduct issue by punting for over four years in addition to the three years of punting her Democrat predecessor did?
3) If you were raped, would you want the DOC releasing your rapist to live under a bridge five miles from where you live? Would you not care if they didn't notify you of this?
Would it make it any better for you, as a theoretical victim of rape, that the same thing occurred in Florida to rape victims there?
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 02:06 PM
Once again you dodge the questions. Typical. You can't answer so you dodge.
You said:
"Unlike you koolaide drinking objectivist losers, some people actually listen to the candidates and vote for who they think is best."
Hmm. Now what was that Walden quote again? Oh yes... (from your own post at 29):
"....In addition to using personal invective against their opponents,..."
I rest my case.
So Rickie, here are three questions to which you can't respond:
1. Got a question for you. It is my understanding that Senator Rossi is Catholic. I know that he is very much prolife. So, if he is elected does he fail to enforce the law?
2. If elected, does he seek to totally ban ALL abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Will he spearhead an initiative or have legislation introduced?
3. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida is acknowledged to have been a good governor. He still had problems with his version of DSHS. The breakdown of the family produces problems that are difficult to deal with. What is Senator Rossi's solution, especially since he plans to fund his transportation plan out of the general fund.
Now, you boys can get together over objectivist theory and come up with a reply.
So, dude, you are on first. there is a group of you guys that like to hand off the ball to each other. The questions are above, run with it.
Posted by: WVH on May 10, 2008 02:21 PMOne further quick comment. All you boys have is a hope and a prayer that as a "real" governor, not a theoretical one, Senator Rossi could do a better job. That is the issue for this election. If voters think that Senator Rossi can do a better job, his new title will be Governor Rossi. If they believe as I do that he is all hat and no cattle, then it will be Governor Gregoire, again.
Posted by: WVH on May 10, 2008 02:26 PMBut I am going to remove her dodge:
HERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS:
1. Got a question for you. It is my understanding that Senator Rossi is Catholic. I know that he is very much prolife. So, if he is elected does he fail to enforce the law?
First off you need a lesson in how government works. The attorney general is the one in charge of seeing that the law is enforced. You might want to ask that question of Rob McKenna.
2. If elected, does he seek to totally ban ALL abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Will he spearhead an initiative or have legislation introduced?
Unlike Democrats who waste the people's time introducing resolutions to impeach Bush in the washington State government, Dino Rossi realizes that abortion is a federal issue and as such must be decided in the SUpreme Court. He therefore will not wast the people's time and instead spend his time working for all the people of Washington State. Contrast this with the Democrats like Senator Eric Oemig who wastes the people's time on frivolous topics that are out of the jurisdiction.
3. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida is acknowledged to have been a good governor. He still had problems with his version of DSHS. The breakdown of the family produces problems that are difficult to deal with. What is Senator Rossi's solution, especially since he plans to fund his transportation plan out of the general fund.
Jeb Bush was a good governor? First off I challenge that assertion. You assume something and build all your argument off that assumption. So prove Jeb Bush was a good governor first.
You know in darfur they are killing people. So should we allow killing of people here because it is allowed in Darfur?
Now, will you answer my questions or simply dodge them? As an official representative of the Gregoire campaign, is that the tactic, dodge the question, that you are told to employ?
The Walden quote refers to being called things like little Black victim, having the members of your race ALL described as pimps, prostitutes, and whores, and having racial epithets constantly thrown at you. That is what the Walden quote refers to. Rhethorical florish is defined as:
rhe·tor·i·cal (r-tôr-kl, -tr-)
adj.
1. Of or relating to rhetoric.
2. Characterized by overelaborate or bombastic rhetoric.
3. Used for persuasive effect: a speech punctuated by rhetorical pauses.
If you don't understand the difference in rhethoric of using the term "koolaide drinker" and little Black victim, you aren't resting your case, you have been resting on your butt and need to read more.
Please answer these questions:
1) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending money on pet massage, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
2) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending $1.5 million lighting the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in decorative holiday lighting, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
3) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, shoulw we be using taxpayer monies to subsidize the Clearwater Casino, a the current Gregoire budget has us doing?
If you and Gregoire thinks those items above are more important that fixing viaduct, why should the people trust you and Gregoire to have any different priorities for the next four years?
Here is another question for you WVH.
1) How in good conscience, can you support a woman whom you know for a fact attended a racist sorority and even embraced it by becoming its president?
I have never thrown racial epithets at you, nor called you any of those things. You are simply in a blind fury striking out at anyone who disagrees with you. As such the Walden quote applies to you.
Now will you answer my questions or will you employ the Gregoire tactic of changing the subject?
I am very aware of how government works. The governor has some discretion in how funds are handled. So, does he hold back funds for certain programs?
2. If elected, does he seek to totally ban ALL abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Will he spearhead an initiative or have legislation introduced?
Does he spearhead an intitiative or seek to have a sympathetic legislator introduce legislation?I thought the issue was Govenor Gregoire was in favor of killing babies and has done nothing to prevent it. So, does he follow the Dakota example?
3. The comparison between Governor Gregoire and Governor Bush is apt because there are difficulties with DSHS departments in even the best run states. You have no more proof that Senator Rossi could do a better job than Governor Gregoire or that he can do better than Governor Bush did in Florida. It is easy to hope that a "Governor" Rossi could do better. His budget projections for transportation mean that money will have to come from the general fund. His projections are not realistic.
So, what proof do you have that he will do better?
NONE. That is not a dodge.
I am not an official representative of the Gregoire campaign, I am a Gregoire supporter. Are you an official representative of the Rossi campaign or just one of the boys using one of several monikers to hide your identity?
Posted by: WVH on May 10, 2008 02:50 PMYou said in post 77:
"Rhethorical florish is defined as:
rhe·tor·i·cal (r-tôr-kl, -tr-)
adj.
1. Of or relating to rhetoric.
2. Characterized by overelaborate or bombastic rhetoric.
3. Used for persuasive effect: a speech punctuated by rhetorical pauses."
So you are admitting you employ "bombastic rhetoric" in place of reasoned response. Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 02:52 PMI said the Walden quote refers to things like. Did I ever say you said those things? Blind fury happens to be an example of rhetorical flourish, glad to see you get the point. No, the Walden quote does not apply to me, as I don't call people names as the first line of attack.
1. The question of how I can support Governor Gregoire is a similiar question asked by pudge undercover. People grow and mature, many people are not the same individuals that they were at 20. Apparently, some here have grown harder in their hatred of people of different races as they have aged. Some who post here as they have aged have adopted the tactic of win at all costs and will do anything, they are amoral. That is the difference in the aging process for some. Some who post here want to BAN opposing points of view because they really aren't good at debate. That is the difference in aging. Some people grow and mature into better people and citizens, others don't.
2. Governor Gregoire doesn't change the subject any more than Senator Rossi and his supporters. He WILL be forced to explain his views on abortion and what he will and will not do. He is a pragmatist and that will make many of his base very, very unhappy.
Now, are you a member of the Rossi campaign?
Posted by: WVH on May 10, 2008 03:00 PMThat wasn't to original question you asked. Let me refresh your memory ( I know you ere ederly and may forget from time to time):
In post 74, you said, and I quote:
"1. Got a question for you. It is my understanding that Senator Rossi is Catholic. I know that he is very much prolife. So, if he is elected does he fail to enforce the law?"
Now if you intend to ask a different question, please say so, but don't ask a question about law enforcement and pretend it is something else when it is answered directly.
2. If elected, does he seek to totally ban ALL abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? Will he spearhead an initiative or have legislation introduced?
I have answered that question in post #76. Please see that post for your answer. Repeating you questions as a dodge won't hid eht efact you cannot repsond to my questions because they reveal the depth of incompetence Gregoire has displayed as governor and you know you cannot defend it. That is why you dodge.
"Does he spearhead an intitiative or seek to have a sympathetic legislator introduce legislation?I thought the issue was Govenor Gregoire was in favor of killing babies and has done nothing to prevent it. So, does he follow the Dakota example?"
Has Rossi ever sponsored such legislation? Please quote me the date and the bill number. Why should we think he would do this in the future then?
I am not sure why you are saying Gregoire is in favor of killing babies.
3. The comparison between Governor Gregoire and Governor Bush is apt because there are difficulties with DSHS departments in even the best run states. You have no more proof that Senator Rossi could do a better job than Governor Gregoire or that he can do better than Governor Bush did in Florida. It is easy to hope that a "Governor" Rossi could do better. His budget projections for transportation mean that money will have to come from the general fund. His projections are not realistic.
So, what proof do you have that he will do better?
NONE. That is not a dodge.
Yes I do have proof. In 2003 Dino worked across party lines to balance the state budget without raising taxes, while still protecting the most vulnerable. He received six different awards from the developmentally disabled community for protecting their funding - proving that it is possible to be fiscally responsible and still have a social conscience.
And we hav proof how Gregoire will operate. She will raise taxes, essentially lying to the voters whom she promised in 2004 she would not raise taxes. Gregoire will prioritise pet massages over fixing the viaduct.
I am not an official representative of the Gregoire campaign, I am a Gregoire supporter. Are you an official representative of the Rossi campaign or just one of the boys using one of several monikers to hide your identity?
Yes, you are an official representative. Gregoire is all you can ever talk about.
Now will you answer my questions or just admit you can't respond for fear or divulging the depth of Gregoire's incompetence?
1) In 2001 the Nisqually quake damaged the Alaskan Way viaduct. We wer subsequently told that it was a matter of life and death to replace that structure and this argument was used to get our gas tax increased. Subsequently, the first project the DOT used that money for was a bike trail in Moses Lake.
Do you believe that the Alaskan Way Viaduct is a disaster waiting to happen, similar to the Cypress Viaduct in 1989?
2) Gregoire had four years to come up with a plan for the Viaduct replacement. That is in addition to the 3 years her predecessor (another Democrat) had. She has not done so. In fact when given the opportunity to show leadership, she instead put the issue to voters. Do you think that she has showed leadership on the viaduct issue by punting for over four years in addition to the three years of punting her Democrat predecessor did?
3) If you were raped, would you want the DOC releasing your rapist to live under a bridge five miles from where you live? Would you not care if they didn't notify you of this?
Would it make it any better for you, as a theoretical victim of rape, that the same thing occurred in Florida to rape victims there?
4) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending money on pet massage, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
5) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, should we be spending $1.5 million lighting the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in decorative holiday lighting, as the Gregoire budget currently has us doing?
6) With our state running a $2.4 billion budget deficit, shoulw we be using taxpayer monies to subsidize the Clearwater Casino, a the current Gregoire budget has us doing?
If you and Gregoire thinks those items above are more important that fixing viaduct, why should the people trust you and Gregoire to have any different priorities for the next four years?
7) How in good conscience, can you support a woman whom you know for a fact attended a racist sorority and even embraced it by becoming its president?
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 03:12 PMI call BS on that. Refer please to post 25 of your, the first thing out of your keyboard:
25. pbj,
Don't tell me you are a lame Husky? Figures. Lot's of people have read Atlas Shrugged. :-) Plenty of people read all kinds of things from the Koran to Martha Stewart. I don't plan to observe Ramadan nor fold my towels and put bows on them. Reading all sorts of materials just makes one very, very, very interesting person instead of an uninformed dullard, like a Husky, right? :-)
Posted by WVH at May 8, 2008 10:27 PM
I rest my case.
Now will you answer my questions or simply admit you cannot respond because the answer is too embarrassing for you boss Gregoire?
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 03:16 PM
84. oh pbj, you give me too much credit. I suggest that if you have cable, watch Commons Question period in the British Parlement. Now, that is true rhetorical flourish. You have a hope and a prayer that Senator Rossi will be better. That is all it is, a hope and a prayer. Posted by WVH at May 10, 2008 03:05 PM
Isn't hope what Senator Obama is running on? Didn't his wife say that "hope is making a comeback"?
I would add that we know how Gregoire will run things, raise taxes though she said she wouldn't. Prioritizing pet massage over transportation. releasing rapists within 5 miles of their victims. After four year of that, I'd say we need some hope. And all we can do is pray that the King County sElections goons won't steal the election AGAIN.
Posted by: pbj on May 10, 2008 03:38 PM