Patterico's Pontifications

4/20/2008

Debating the Democratic Debates

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 12:31 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Former Clinton adviser and current ABC analyst George Stephanopoulos asked surprisingly hard questions of Obama in the Philadelphia Democratic debate and, not surprisingly, media sources like the Washington Post’s Tom Shales objected.

According to Ben Smith at the Politico, the Clinton campaign’s Jay Carson sent the following email to Tom Shales:

From: Jay Carson
To: [Tom Shales]
Sent: Thu Apr 17 17:59:49 2008
Subject: debates

Tom,

I hope this finds you doing well.

I read your piece with great curiosity this morning especially because I didn’t recall you ever having the same negative reaction to any of the multiple debates where the moderators were extremely tough on senator Clinton (much much tougher than either Stephanopoulos or Gibson were on either candidate last night). I did a lexis search to make sure I hadn’t missed you crying foul about any of these debates and my memory proved me correct. Msnbc was so tough on senator Clinton (including devoting over well over the first hour of two debates to tough questions to senator Clinton) that they were mocked and criticized by many for the imbalance of their coverage, though notably not you. In fact, you found their most recent debate to be “too tame and tepid.”

To be clear, I don’t think it is a bad thing for the press to be tough on presidential candidates (or their staff for that matter). These people are running for president after all, and if you cant handle a tv anchor how should the American people expect you to handle a hostile world leader? My only complaint is when a different standard exists for each candidate, which is the glaring issue with your piece. It is troubling to me that tough on one candidate is deserving of your outrage, and tough on another candidate is fair game, even “too tame.” I would posit that if one is going to be playing referee with media coverage it is all the more important not to have a double standard.

When you get a chance I would appreciate an explanation of how the various debates differed.

Best,

Jay

I’m interested in how Tom Shales explains how the debates differed, too.

In the meantime, I’m in favor of tough questions for all Presidential candidates and some reporters are asking candidates probing questions about their beliefs. The best thing about the competitive Democratic race is how it has fragmented the media. The worst thing is that it probably won’t last once the Democratic nominee is selected.

— DRJ

86 Responses to “Debating the Democratic Debates”

  1. I propose a constitutional amendment whereby both Republicans and Democrats run 2 (two) candidates each right up to election day. Then you’ll get real debates.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  2. As for the debate, I thought Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were right on, but Simon Cowell was a bit too harsh with his “your platform is simply dreadful” and “you are an embarrassment to politics” comments.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  3. Nico Pitney at Huffington Post (and save the bias charges, please) did a simple analysis of the four Obama v. Hillary debates thus far:

    1) ABC’s debate was in a class of its own, with more scandal and non-policy questions than any other. ABC asked the most scandal questions, and both ABC and NBC devoted only half of their questions to policy issues. The CNN debates were dramatically more policy-focused. Here’s a breakdown:

    [the columns represent policy, non-policy and scandal questions in that order]
    CNN (1/31) 31 3 1
    CNN (2/21) 23 5 2
    NBC (3/14) 24 17 5
    ABC (4/18) 32 14 13

    2) Barack Obama has received the overwhelming majority of scandal questions over the course of the four debates, by a margin of 17 to 4. Obama has fielded questions about his “bitter” remarks, his connections to 60s-era radical William Ayres, two questions about flag lapels, two questions about his alleged plagiarism of speeches, three questions on Louis Farrakhan, and eight about Jeremiah Wright.

    Clinton has received only four such questions — two about her Bosnia trip, one about a photo of Obama in African garb that was linked to her campaign without evidence by the Drudge Report, and one over-the-top inquiry about Bill Clinton (“If your campaign can’t control the former president now, what will it be like when you’re in the White House?”).

    3) Networks ‘balanced’ scandal questions to Obama by repeatedly asking Clinton about Obama’s electability/readiness. In three of the four debates, moderators followed scandal questions to Obama by asking Clinton whether she doubts Obama’s electability or experience.

    CNN (2/21): “Are you saying that your opponent is all hat and no cattle? … Are you saying that Senator Obama is not ready and not qualified to be commander in chief?”

    NBC: “Is your contention in this latest speech that America would somehow be taking a chance on Senator Obama as commander-in-chief?”

    ABC: “[A] simple yes-or-no question: Do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?”

    Of course, such questions are politically sensitive for Clinton; however they are hardly comparable in degree to scandal questions Obama received. In each case, they essentially provided Clinton an opportunity to expound on why she believes she is better suited to be the Democratic nominee.

    4) The debate famously mocked by Saturday Night Live was actually very favorable to Clinton. In the SNL rendition, CNN’s February debate was a mix of aggressive, biting questions to Hillary Clinton and softballs to Barack Obama. In fact, the candidates received identical or virtually identical questions about Cuba policy, immigration, bilingualism, the economy, Iraq, and earmarks. On the other hand, Obama was called out on an apparent shift over Cuba (“[T]hat’s different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations. So you’ve backtracked now…”), Clinton was offered multiple questions on Obama’s readiness to be commander-in-chief, and Obama was pressed to explain the plagiarism allegations.

    Clinton actually had it much rougher at CNN’s earlier one-on-one debate in Hollywood. That was the only debate of the four where Clinton was asked a scandal question while Obama was not. Moreover, Clinton faced three questions on her initial support for the Iraq war (“Why can’t you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?”), one question about Sen. Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama, and another on the perception of a Bush-Clinton dynasty (“How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?”).

    For my money, the problem with last night’s debate (which Obama clearly lost) was not the favoritism, it was the type of questions asked. It’s always an issue, but the time devoted to scandal with ABC was ludicrous as shown above.

    I think the previous debates where it wasn’t a two-person race sometimes showed an anti-Hillary bent, but that wasn’t Shales’ real point, as he said early in his piece:

    For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

    Russell (5ecf4a)

  4. These people are running for president after all, and if you cant handle a tv anchor how should the American people expect you to handle a hostile world leader?

    Let’s hear Mr. Carson explain why the Democratic candidates refuse to appear in a debate moderated by FOX.

    Steverino (6772c8)

  5. I propose a constitutional amendment whereby both Republicans and Democrats run 2 (two) candidates each right up to election day. Then you’ll get real debates

    I’ll take your Constitutional amendment and up you one :)

    +++++++

    A Constitutional Amendment at both Federal and State levels (if only, sigh….)

    NOTA – None of the Above is an automatic candidate on all ballots and votes for NOTA are counted.

    If NOTA wins the election, the office and all its supporting staff go unfilled and unfunded.

    If the office is constitutionally required, there is a second election with the proviso that the candidates that lost to NOTA are ineligible to run again. Costs of subsequent elections are funded by the political parties who offer candidates for consideration.

    Horatio (55069c)

  6. Russell – Since the existence of a contradiction between the previous debates and the latest is acknowledged by all parties involved, the next point of debate would then move to the categorization of the questions asked.

    The questions seem to be categorized differently by two groups. The first group is Obama supporters, who categorize the questions as “specious” and “gossipy trivia”. The second group consists of the Clinton campaign, Republicans and anyone else who doesn’t support Obama. Collectively, this second group has tended to view the latest debate questions as a “rules change” by which Obama is no longer able to hide behind the teleprompter.

    It is my contention that it is an impossibility for these two groups to come to an agreement on categorization. I would add, though, that Shales’ comment on the questions as “disputes that are no longer news” is inaccurate, as those not supporting Obama do not seem satisfied with his answers so far, thus making them newsworthy in a Presidential campaign.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  7. Horatio –
    Do you realize that your scenario could result in a severe lack of politicians for quite a while?

    Why, there’d be tons of offices unfilled . . .

    I fold, you win.

    What to do, however, about the guy who legally changes his name to NOTA?

    Apogee (366e8b)

  8. Russell – One other thing. One would expect that Obama, the great orator, could answer even “specious” and “gossipy” questions with ease.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  9. Do you realize that your scenario could result in a severe lack of politicians for quite a while?

    Why, there’d be tons of offices unfilled . . .

    OMG – why there’d be, ooh, ooh, what’s it called..? “Freedom” or something like that?

    What to do, however, about the guy who legally changes his name to NOTA?

    String him up from the nearest light pole just to make an example of those who would mock our elections

    :)

    Horatio (55069c)

  10. Horatio – Just tried to Google “Freedom”, but the site was restricted.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  11. Horatio – Just tried to Google “Freedom”, but the site was restricted

    But your IP was recorded…They’re going to be knocking on your door real soon. You do know who “They” are, don’t you? Some of Patterico’s friends in SWAT serving a warrant to the wrong house in their enthusiasm to prosecute the INSANE War on Some Drugs™.

    I knew I could get the IWOsD in here somehow

    What’s that smashing noise I hear?

    Horatio (55069c)

  12. Horatio – that smashing noise is Patterico at your door. It is illegal to hijack threads.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  13. Horatio – that smashing noise is Patterico at your door. It is illegal to hijack threads.

    Oops – sorry about that Patterico. Won’t happen again.

    Damn, someone is smashing down my door. Must be Sheriff Joe looking for illegally drugged aliens

    Horatio (55069c)

  14. Never mind the content of Jay Carson’s email message to Tom Shales, I want to know what Carson has against using proper capitalization. If the transcription from Politico is correct — and I am assuming that DRJ cut-and-pasted it as it appeared — then I object to his use of “senator Clinton” (three frickin’ times!), “Msnbc,” “lexis search,” etc. Makes the campaign look rinky-dink.

    JVW (33731e)

  15. Asking Obama whether or not Rev. Wright loves the country as much as he does is not a ‘surprisingly hard’ question. Asking him if he ‘believes in the flag’ isn’t a ‘surprisingly hard’ question. Starting the debate by insisting that both candidates pledge to choose the other as their running mate isn’t a ‘surprisingly hard’ question. None of these things matter in the fucking slightest, and by asking those sorts of questions, all the moderators did was shed light on how pathetic and meager American media has become.

    Stephanopolous was on the radio with Sean Hannity, ‘taking notes’ about what kinds of questions Hannity wanted asked the day before the debate, and that should tell us something right there. Hannity’s no fucking journalist, he’s a gossip, and is arguably one of the most partisan people in the country, incapable of objectivity and always, always advancing an agenda. Stephanopolous basically let Hannity become moderator for that debate. Stephanopolous was literally doing the bidding of Sean Hannity, and he thinks he did some great fucking job?

    Why don’t we ask John McCain why he cheated on his first wife? Why don’t we ask John McCain if he thought any poor, sick, dying kids suffered because his wife stole their pain medication? Why don’t we ask John McCain about the Vietnamese giving him preferential treatment because they knew his dad was an admiral? Why don’t we ask John McCain if he’s ever sexually fantasized about his own mother?

    We ask these sorts of questions of Obama and not of McCain because the media has been acquiescing to Hannity and Bush and Murdoch for so long that they don’t know how to do anything else. I don’t dispute that as individuals, most members of the media are liberals, but the collective body of work put out by the media over the years is anything but liberal. And the conversation between Stephanopolous and Hannity illustrates well how such a thing could happen. Too many times under the Bush administration, reporters have just called up a Republican or some White House official, and the resulting article is basically verbatim recitation. Which is easier than doing any actual work yourself, and hey, you don’t wanna risk losing your access! This debate was no different, some idiot reporter trying desperately to buttress his ‘fairness’ credentials just totally gives his responsibility over to a propagandist.

    Between this slothful, egotistical media and the scared and weak opposition in the Congress, there’s basically no checks and balances left on George Bush. He’s getting away with torturing, killing, and spying on people, and you dumbasses actually think that was some great demonstration of journalism? Karl Rove’s mission is complete; no longer does he have to distract the conservative base from all of the egregious and rampant law-breaking of the Republican party, you people will distract yourselves.

    Levi (76ef55)

  16. “Why don’t we ask John McCain why he cheated on his first wife? ”

    Levi, are you suggesting, in your inimitable fashion, that McCain had an affair with one of his North Vietnamese jailers ? He was gone for years and, when he came back, had trouble resuming his previous life. I’m sure you have experienced similar problems after spending years in a state of torture and deprivation but McCain does not have your towering strength of character which has enabled you to overcome your problems with savoir faire.

    The reason why these character questions keep coming up for Obama is that HE HAS NO RESUME ! He is an empty suit; a blank wall onto which people like Levi project their fantasies and wishes.

    Mike K (86bddb)

  17. Levi–

    Your correct. The questions were not revealing of their positions in any way, shape or form.

    So here’s one for Obama:

    You’ve made unifying the American public and putting our political divisions behind us one of the central themes of your campaign. Yet, National Journal ranked you as the single most liberal senator in 2007. So, which liberal beliefs of yours are you willing to give up for unity’s sake —20 questions for Obama

    Here’s one for Hillary:

    You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won’t that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive? —Questions for Hillary

    Here’s one for all three:

    Why won’t you answer the questions posed by the folks at Project Vote Smart? See also Test Case

    Horatio (55069c)

  18. Levi’s comments are as juvenile and profane as ever. The questions asked of Obama about Wright are relevant question because Obama put Wright into Obama’s circle of political advisors.

    A distinction that continues to escape Levi like so many. Instead of understanding this distinction between the question asked of Obama and Levi’s juvenile hypotheticals, we get more profanity.

    SPQR (6cd738)

  19. Levi, are you suggesting, in your inimitable fashion, that McCain had an affair with one of his North Vietnamese jailers ? He was gone for years and, when he came back, had trouble resuming his previous life. I’m sure you have experienced similar problems after spending years in a state of torture and deprivation but McCain does not have your towering strength of character which has enabled you to overcome your problems with savoir faire.

    I know I wouldn’t cheat on my wife no matter what the fuck happened to me. It’s not unreasonable for me to demand that McCain should have done what I say I would have? All I hear conservatives say lately is ‘I would have walked out if it was my church!’, can I not apply that same, impossible-to-satisfy standard to McCain, and then relentlessly criticize him for it?

    (Or maybe we should just refrain from making grand, uppity, holier-than-thou assertions about what things we all would have done if we were the Presidential candidates decades ago?)

    The reason why these character questions keep coming up for Obama is that HE HAS NO RESUME ! He is an empty suit; a blank wall onto which people like Levi project their fantasies and wishes.

    That’s bullshit. Just because you don’t like his resume doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one.

    Levi (76ef55)

  20. Levi – Good observations. The media hasn’r been asking Obama tough questions because they didn’t want to lose the limited access he has provided and also they are in the tank for him. You are correct on these points. The outrage about the debate helps prove the point.

    No tough questions were asked of McCain Wednesday night. You are also correct on this one. That is because it was a democratic debate. You may have missed that point and also that the subject of this thread is the democratic debate.

    George Bush is not running for reelection. Why do you have to keep getting reminded of that fact. You probably like hearing the sound of it, I assume. Discussing him in a thread about democratic debates is just another of your lame attempts to change the subject from the shitty performance of your candidate.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  21. So here’s one for Obama:

    You’ve made unifying the American public and putting our political divisions behind us one of the central themes of your campaign. Yet, National Journal ranked you as the single most liberal senator in 2007. So, which liberal beliefs of yours are you willing to give up for unity’s sake –20 questions for Obama

    That’s a shit question, too, which assumes in its wording that liberals can’t be uniters. George Bush just totally screwed the pooch on the ‘unity’ issue, so why don’t we try to be a little more fair than this?

    Additionally, that’s a bizarre, unanswerable hypothetical, that only opens up Obama to attack from someone or another for whichever liberal belief he says he would scrap first. There have been way too many stupid hypothetical questions asked in this campaign thus far, a symptom of lazy, fantasizing journalists.

    Here’s one for Hillary:

    You say that your healthcare proposal will leave alone those who are happy with their current insurance. But if you provide health benefits for close to 50 million new people, thereby generating huge new demand for medical care without any increase in the supply of doctors, nurses or hospitals, it will drive up prices radically. Won’t that force you to institute cost controls by limiting the care those now on health insurance can receive?

    This is a good question. Nuts and bolts stuff, probably a little boring for your average American compared to speculating about how racist Obama secretly is, but it’s relevant, and that’s what should matter to journalists.

    Levi (76ef55)

  22. jeez Levi

    You are a piece of work

    Your latest comments are pure rodent droppings

    Yeech!

    Buckshot (d4346c)

  23. Levi’s comments are as juvenile and profane as ever. The questions asked of Obama about Wright are relevant question because Obama put Wright into Obama’s circle of political advisors.

    A distinction that continues to escape Levi like so many. Instead of understanding this distinction between the question asked of Obama and Levi’s juvenile hypotheticals, we get more profanity.

    That distinction doesn’t escape me. Do you hear that? I’m still saying it’s irrelevant that he’s in his circle of advisers. It’s irrelevant, because I have the mind of a non-racist, and am able to discern that two black men, no matter how closely related, are two different people, that have different fucking thoughts. What are you worried about, Obama getting bad advice from Rev. Wright? You think Obama’s promised him the State Department or something? Why is it relevant, why should I care? Do your best to convince me.

    Also, keep complaining about my swearing, I’ve almost given it up but I think you need to complain just a bit more about it. Okay?

    Levi (76ef55)

  24. “That’s bullshit. Just because you don’t like his resume doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one.”

    Fair enough. Let’s look at it. Legislation as a State Senator in Illinois ?

    Here is the story of his legislation accomplishments.

    Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city’s most popular black call-in radio program.

    I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:

    “He said, ‘Cliff, I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator.'”

    “Oh, you are? Who might that be?”

    “Barack Obama.”

    Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.

    “I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,” State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. “Barack didn’t have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.

    “I don’t consider it bill jacking,” Hendon told me. “But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book.”

    OK WE got that settled.

    Now what are his US Senate accomplishments ?

    OK. There we are. Personality disorder discharge cases. Those are important.

    Next ???

    Mike K (86bddb)

  25. No tough questions were asked of McCain Wednesday night. You are also correct on this one. That is because it was a democratic debate. You may have missed that point and also that the subject of this thread is the democratic debate.

    Nobody ever asks McCain tough questions. He’s a ‘foreign policy expert’ with a demonstratedly poor understanding of the situation in Iraq, as evidenced by his thrice repeated comments about Iran helping Al-Qaeda, and has unabashedly stated, while running for fucking President, that he doesn’t understand economics.

    That should be ammunition for months. Straight from the horse’s mouth, the Republican candidate doesn’t know what’s going on in Iraq or with our economy. But those have been chalked up as ‘misstatements’ by McCain’s subservient media, who have already dusted off the ‘glorious war-hero’ narrative they provide for all Republican candidates, and are too busy making fun of the faggy, pussy Democrats to care about anything that really matters to the country.

    Even if they scrutinized him for that, they still wouldn’t approach the topics of his affair, his medicine-stealing wife, or anything else from his past, because there’s not a liberal media apparatus that clamors for those sorts of petty, pointless, character attacks. Republicans have such an apparatus in talk radio.

    George Bush is not running for reelection. Why do you have to keep getting reminded of that fact. You probably like hearing the sound of it, I assume. Discussing him in a thread about democratic debates is just another of your lame attempts to change the subject from the shitty performance of your candidate.

    Do you even read what I type?

    Levi (76ef55)

  26. Hey Levi, has any reporter been able to quiz Obama directly about his relationship with Sadaam and Rezko’s buddy Nadhmi Auchi yet? Do you consider that another irrelevant distraction among his shady relationships? Wasn’t there a loan from Auchi to one of his campaigns or am I mistaken?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  27. Do you even read what I type?

    Levi – I’ll type it slower. The topic of the thread is the democratic debate. Why are you trying to change the subject?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  28. Levi – Is there nothing in your life that brings you joy, or pleasure? You seem so … bitter.

    JD (5f0e11)

  29. Some people seem to have difficulty with “non-policy” questions being asked of the person who wants to run for our highest elected office. They say that all other questions are a “distraction” or worse…not meaningful, off topic, nonsense, trivial, garbage, …etc.

    This is, of course, totally ridiculous.

    One way to look at it, would be to compare it to micro vs macro (as in economics, for instance) or the difference in studying the universe from the viewpoint of the galaxies vs the atom. The behavior of the universe at an atomic level is nothing like that which surrounds us on a larger scale.

    Understanding what motivates, shapes, inspires, prompts, and offends a candidate…at least to me, is every bit as important…probably moreso,..than their “policy statements” which are pre-crafted and reduced down for public consumption.

    Therefore, to know that Sen. Obama was strongly influenced and inspired by “Frank” a CPUSA member, was strongly influenced and inspired by Jeremiah Wright…a man who preaches liberaton theo-politics, that Sen. Obama has a strong internal magnet which is drawn to his most radical professors, to urban terrorists, to pro-Palestinian advisors, to the furthest reaches of leftist extremism…is to put him to the microscope rather than the telescope of bland policy discussions.

    What Levi says about McCain is fine with me. It’s that same microscope and I think it’s valuable and interesting information. Of course, Levi doesn’t believe that…he’s just doing it for the “nyah, nyah,” purposes…but, I think that micro view is important to every candidate and should be applied equally…as all inspections into their candidacy should.

    On balance, for me….McCain’s past personal life “dalliance” issues of love life don’t hold nearly the “flinch factor” as my President…as would the dalliances with anti-white, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, anti-AMERICA issues that seem to attract Sen. Obama.

    Sen. McCain may be attracted to a woman not his wife…Sen. Obama seems to be attracted to a country not his own.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  30. daleyrocks – As you well know, Bush is responsible for all things wrong in the world. Therefore, anything that Levitra finds to be remotely objectionable, can easily be turned to a tirade against Bush. Levi is interesting, in a Petri dish kind of way. Trolls like alphie and steve are just trollish. But Levi exudes anger. It is palpable, and all the hard Left have going for them. Levi/they are sad.

    JD (5f0e11)

  31. I found the Bill Ayers question very relevant. The Weather Underground issue exposes both Obama and Hillary. He for his relationship with a known domestic terrorist and the Clintons for the pardons of the Weather Underground members . Add that to the Executive Clemency given to the FALN terrorists . Everyone should fear Dems on the terrorist issue. Its certainly not absurd to think they would pardon Osama BinLaden given their history.

    Dennis D (ae900a)

  32. Obama has spent more than 50% of his Senate Career looking for another job. I demand a refund of his Senate salary.

    Dennis D (ae900a)

  33. Nobody ever asks McCain tough questions.

    Don’t worry, Levi; when one of the Dem candidates finally gets the nomination, the you’ll get your flying dirt.

    Retard.

    Even if they scrutinized him for that, they still wouldn’t approach the topics of his affair, his medicine-stealing wife, or anything else from his past, because there’s not a liberal media apparatus that clamors for those sorts of petty, pointless, character attacks.

    Oh yeah, not a word of criticism of Republicans is EVER heard on the Vast Right Wing Juggernauts of CBS, CNN or MSNBC!

    The fact you can make such a claim with a straight face illustrates your burning idelogical bigotry.

    Retard.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  34. Levitra

    Good one, JD.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  35. Levi writes: “Do you even read what I type?

    I think the mystery, Levi, is do you read what you type?

    SPQR (6cd738)

  36. Yoo Hoo, Levi !

    Do you ever try reading the 9/11 Commission Report ?

    Mike K (86bddb)

  37. I guess Levi #25 forgot about the New York Times coverage of McCain’s alleged affair with Vicki Iseman. It’s something the New York Times wants to forget because it was widely criticized.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  38. Hey Levi, what’s with all these objections to character questions? Obama asked us to look at his judgement rather than his experience when evaluating his fitness as President.

    Don’t you agree that charcter examination reveals his quality of judgement?

    Paul (4ca58a)

  39. Yoo Hoo, Levi !

    Do you ever try reading the 9/11 Commission Report ?

    Mike, he hasn’t read UN Resolution 1441 either.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  40. cfbleachers – I would have no problem discussing what levitra said about McCain, IF the topic of the thread was McCain. Levi just wants to avoid discussing the many flaws of his idol by changing the subject. If I were in his shoes I would probably do the same thing before admitting my candidate isn’t fit to run for the office like Obama.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  41. All these reading assignments for Levi are futile, he’s long ago shown that his self-delusion kung fu is mightier than any factual references.

    SPQR (6cd738)

  42. #3 Russell Wrote: [the columns represent policy, non-policy and scandal questions in that order]
    CNN (1/31) 31 3 1
    CNN (2/21) 23 5 2
    NBC (3/14) 24 17 5
    ABC (4/18) 32 14 13

    — Did you give any consideration to the possibility that, as the campaign moved forward and it became increasingly obvious who the real contenders were, that more and more revelations would be forthcoming? that prior to Super Tuesday NONE of the candidates had been fully vetted? that many of the “scandalous” questions have arisen recently, as the candidates do and say more things AND as more things from their pasts come to light?

    Are my questions annoying, or just annoyingly obvious?

    ………..

    “His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking.” — Mr. Spock, in The Wrath of Khan

    Missed It By THAT Much (dc3e48)

  43. No SPQR, more like factual references are Kryptonite to his self-delusional kung fu prowess.

    Paul (4ca58a)

  44. #5 Horatio wrote: “A Constitutional Amendment at both Federal and State levels (if only, sigh….)
    NOTA – None of the Above is an automatic candidate on all ballots and votes for NOTA are counted.”

    — “If only” there was a constitutional amendment? [silly enough, given that current rules allow for write-in candidates]; or, “if only” such an amendment would apply to both federal and state levels? [very silly, since amendments to the Constitution automatically apply to all states]; or, do you mean “if only” all 50 states followed your proposed federal example by amending their state Constitutions for statewide elections? [yet another attempt to subvert states’ rights? Depressing.]

    Votes for write-in candidates ARE counted; they’re just not widely reported.

    Missed It By THAT Much (dc3e48)

  45. That’s a shit question, too, which assumes in its wording that liberals can’t be uniters. George Bush just totally screwed the pooch on the ‘unity’ issue, so why don’t we try to be a little more fair than this?

    Additionally, that’s a bizarre, unanswerable hypothetical, that only opens up Obama to attack from someone or another for whichever liberal belief he says he would scrap first. There have been way too many stupid hypothetical questions asked in this campaign thus far, a symptom of lazy, fantasizing journalists.

    Read it again, Levi. Given that his policies and stated positions are diametrically opposed to what half the country believes, how do you unify those who don’t think like you unless you’re willing to compromise. That’s the art of politics that Reagan and Tip O’Neill understood.

    And as others have noted, GWB isn’t running for re-election

    Horatio (55069c)

  46. Votes for write-in candidates ARE counted; they’re just not widely reported.

    Not in Presidential elections as the votes are cast for electors – not the candidates. No ballot access. No electors to count

    Horatio (55069c)

  47. Never said that write-in candidates have access to electors; only said that popular votes for them ARE tabulated. And, to be accurate, 8 states do not allow write-in votes for President, while only Nevada currently has “None of These Candidates” as a choice on the ballot. If that choice was extended to all 50 states there’s a possibility that NOTA plus write-ins could total three quarters of one percent of the total vote!

    How many electors do you get for that?

    Missed It By THAT Much (d02d39)

  48. Depends… If they are ALL in Alaska, you might actually win the state. :)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  49. How many electors do you get for that?

    0

    Electors have to be named and validated prior to the election

    Horatio (55069c)

  50. I think he meant how many votes in the electoral college come election day…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  51. I just read this thread again this morning. Levi really is a sad, pathetic person.

    JD (75f5c3)

  52. Some people seem to have difficulty with “non-policy” questions being asked of the person who wants to run for our highest elected office. They say that all other questions are a “distraction” or worse…not meaningful, off topic, nonsense, trivial, garbage, …etc.

    This is, of course, totally ridiculous.

    No one is saying that ‘all other questions are a distraction,’ we’re saying that this very specific line of questioning for Obama is not meaningful, off topic, nonsense…. I don’t expect Americans to not wonder what kind of person their President is, but that’s not what’s going on here. This is the Republican media out in full force trying to end Obama’s candidacy by spreading rumors and insinuating things. A question like ‘Do you think Rev. Wright loves the country as much as you do?’ is totally irrelevant and was only asked to force Obama to talk about Wright again for a few minutes in the hope that he slips up.

    One way to look at it, would be to compare it to micro vs macro (as in economics, for instance) or the difference in studying the universe from the viewpoint of the galaxies vs the atom.

    LOL! Is this the big physics lesson I’ve been waiting for? This ought to be fucking good….

    The behavior of the universe at an atomic level is nothing like that which surrounds us on a larger scale.

    To hijack your analogy, the behavior of the universe at an atomic level is utterly insignificant compared to that which surrounds us on a larger scale. You’re dwelling on minutiae, but I’m looking at the big picture, and in American politics, since we’re talking about how to organize and lead 300 million people, and not why we should endlessly dissect those things that by comparison are totally meaningless, I guess that means that I’m more on top of it than you are, if we follow your analogy. I’m taking a global view, and you have tunnel vision.

    Understanding what motivates, shapes, inspires, prompts, and offends a candidate…at least to me, is every bit as important…probably moreso,..than their “policy statements” which are pre-crafted and reduced down for public consumption.

    Ah yes, well if you’re just operating under the assumption that everything a person says is a total fabrication, I can see why you’d spend hours scrutinizing meaningless, tertiary relationships and think that you were being really diligent and thorough. There’s just nothing I can fucking say to that. ‘Everything Obama says is a lie!’ How am I supposed to argue against that? And I mean, ‘pre-crafted and reduced down for public consumption?’ You know he’s running a campaign, what the fuck is he supposed to do? Just wing it 24 hours a day? You’re actually blasting him for being fucking prepared.

    Therefore, to know that Sen. Obama was strongly influenced and inspired by “Frank” a CPUSA member, was strongly influenced and inspired by Jeremiah Wright…a man who preaches liberaton theo-politics, that Sen. Obama has a strong internal magnet which is drawn to his most radical professors, to urban terrorists, to pro-Palestinian advisors, to the furthest reaches of leftist extremism…is to put him to the microscope rather than the telescope of bland policy discussions.

    And here’s the meaty, extra-retarded part of your post I’ve seen you use again and again. This is where we start seeing how meaningless and irrelevant your microscopic assessment of Obama is, because you’re afraid to make any assurances about him. You say Obama has a ‘strong internal magnet’ that draws him to the ‘furthest reaches of leftist extremism,’ I mean what is that supposed to mean? If you’re going to bother scrutinizing Obama to this degree, why can’t you make any specific, concrete assertions about him? It’s always this vague ‘he’s a lefty!’ thing with you, and while that probably works pretty well around here, it doesn’t with me, so why don’t you try a more convincing tactic? Accuse Obama of something, stop insinuating things. What’s going to happen, he’s going to make Wright the surgeon general so we can get to the bottom of who created the AIDS virus? We’re going to discover President Obama sneaking up to the Pentagon in the night with a pipe bomb?

    Come on man, you can’t honestly evaluate people on some unknowable bullshit like what kinds of internal magnets they have.

    What Levi says about McCain is fine with me.

    Of course they’re fine, they’re legitimate criticisms about things that McCain has actually done and said. I’m not just making it up that McCain said he doesn’t get economics, and I’m not insinuating it, I’m legitimately criticizing him for his own words, and comparing that to his policy proposals, and arriving at the conclusion that McCain is right; he doesn’t get economics. You can follow my reasoning, yours is untraceable.

    It’s that same microscope and I think it’s valuable and interesting information. Of course, Levi doesn’t believe that…he’s just doing it for the “nyah, nyah,” purposes…but, I think that micro view is important to every candidate and should be applied equally…as all inspections into their candidacy should.

    Ah yes, those good ol’ ‘nyah, nyah’ purposes. Erecting massive double standards and perpetuating unchallenged hypocrisy is what keeps the proles of the Republican party, like yourself, right where they are, endlessly distracted and voting against themselves.

    Sen. McCain may be attracted to a woman not his wife…Sen. Obama seems to be attracted to a country not his own.

    Ooo, that’s some great finish line, but it highlights the same old problem you have when it comes to clearly explaining exactly how Wright would impact Obama’s presidency. ‘Obama’s attracted to a country not his own.’ More vague, patently absurd, non-committal bullshit. I can’t even believe we’re talking about the same candidate, all you have to do is watch Obama talk for five minutes about anything to know that he’s not some crazy, secret terrorist or whatever the fuck you’re inferring, have you tried that yet?

    Levi (76ef55)

  53. I just read this thread again this morning. Levi really is a sad, pathetic person.

    You’re reading and re-reading everything I write, what does that make you?

    Levi (76ef55)

  54. Where in my comment did I indicate that I only read your comments? You are particularly full of yourself today.

    JD (75f5c3)

  55. Scott – Do you have any idea why Levi is so angry?

    JD (75f5c3)

  56. From the Chicago Tribune

    Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He’s appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns.

    Simply put, the Baracky campaign is centered around hopiness, changeyness, the cult of personality, and his claim to have superior judgment. Looking into issues like his relationship with a person who acknowledges that he proudly engaged in domestic terrorism is not playing dirty, pandering, irrelevant, etc … What kind of judgment must one have to hang out with Ayers? Would you be so dismissive, Levi, if McCain was noted to have had the exact same type of relationships with a racist pastor, and David Duke had held a fundraiser for him. Of course, you would find that highly objectionable, and rightly so.

    I suspect your anger is a result of cognitive dissonance, from having the standards that your side has employed applied to your messianic candidate.

    Back to the debates. They have debated 20+ times. We know their wrongheaded policy positions, all too well. Except for capital gains tax increases from Baracky, that was a new one. Surrender in Iraq. Government run healthcare. Tax the “rich”. Tax the holy hell out of successful corporations.

    But, when personality and judgment are the centerpieces of your platform, where else do you suggest we look for guidance? We already know that he is one of, if not the least experienced people in history to get this close to the White House. He votes present on tough issues. Why not examine his chosen associations?

    JD (75f5c3)

  57. Simply put, the Baracky campaign is centered around hopiness, changeyness, the cult of personality, and his claim to have superior judgment. Looking into issues like his relationship with a person who acknowledges that he proudly engaged in domestic terrorism is not playing dirty, pandering, irrelevant, etc … What kind of judgment must one have to hang out with Ayers?

    So serving together on a panel now becomes ‘hanging out.’ Like Obama called up Ayers every weekend and wanted to do stuff. Even if he did, who gives a fuck? Ayers is a free man, he’s teaching kids, certainly he has a certain stigma attached to him but he’s a functioning member of society, just like Wright is, I’m not alarmed that Obama knows him, has worked with him, or has called him a friend. Again, what would I have to worry about, Obama bombing the Pentagon? Serving on a board or some committee doesn’t mean you’re forever and always held accountable for everything every other board or committee member has ever done or said.

    Would you be so dismissive, Levi, if McCain was noted to have had the exact same type of relationships with a racist pastor, and David Duke had held a fundraiser for him. Of course, you would find that highly objectionable, and rightly so.

    First, I don’t think Wright is a racist. Second, I think McCain has plenty of similar associations that could be covered just as hysterically as Obama’s if the media chose to, they just don’t. That said, McCain’s associations and all of his little baggage issues don’t matter to me in the slightest. He can do whatever the fuck he wants to, he can spend time with whomever he wants, wherever he wants, I’m not voting for him based on what he says he would do as the President.

    I only bring up Parsley and Hagee to expose the double standard in the media’s coverage and your insincere whining.

    I suspect your anger is a result of cognitive dissonance, from having the standards that your side has employed applied to your messianic candidate.

    What standards? Is McCain being scrutinized to this degree? Was George Bush? I don’t remember any arguments against Republicans originating from the liberals as devoted to the personality as these attacks against Obama are. So what the fuck are you talking about?

    Back to the debates. They have debated 20+ times. We know their wrongheaded policy positions, all too well. Except for capital gains tax increases from Baracky, that was a new one. Surrender in Iraq. Government run healthcare. Tax the “rich”. Tax the holy hell out of successful corporations.

    You’re hitting on a half-truth, kind of. We did do all the policy debates, and we had those weekly primaries and caucuses that refreshed the news cycle, kept all these lazy reporters busy. Everything has been idle and stagnant for the last 7 weeks though, and the media coverage has turned into this depraved, gossipy, tabloid-style speculation-fest. They’re tired of the hard work of covering a campaign, so they’ve given over to indulging all of the ridiculous and inaccurate character smears the Republican party is perpetuating because it’s easy and it pays well.

    But, when personality and judgment are the centerpieces of your platform, where else do you suggest we look for guidance? We already know that he is one of, if not the least experienced people in history to get this close to the White House. He votes present on tough issues. Why not examine his chosen associations?

    The whole political process is predicated upon the general belief that the opposing faction’s judgment is fundamentally flawed. Conservatives think liberals have stupid and bad ideas for government, and liberals know conservatives have stupid and bad ideas for government. I don’t see anything wrong with his judgment, he takes all the stances that I would expect a liberal to take. He certainly hasn’t shown any poor judgment operationally in crafting his record-setting campaign or choosing his strategists, which is a pretty big early test of whether or not someone is going to be able to exercise practical judgment in the White House. Just because you’re offended by who his surrogates are doesn’t mean he has poor judgment, you’re just conflating the offense you’ve taken with your generic view that liberals have poor judgment.

    Way to put together a real post, by the way. You should try doing this more, and leave the stupid one-liners to the rest of the morons.

    Levi (76ef55)

  58. Anger is such an unbecoming quality, Levi. You really ought to talk to someone about the overt hostility you demonstrate that do not bend their will to your thoughts.

    Even if he did, who gives a fuck?

    I do, and I suspect more share my position than yours. Ayers and his ilk killed Americans and engaged in domestic terrorism. You do not mind, which is not only not surprising, but consistent with your attitudes. Personally, I do not know anyone that has attacked our country, nor do I visit them at their homes. Were I to voluntarily associate with those types, it would come with the tacit understanding that it would be a poor decision. You engage in the same minimization that Obama does. Their relationship was far greater than serving on a board. Even if that was the extent of it, were I appointed to a board with Ayers being on it, I would easily decline, just like I would have walked out of my Church had my pastor said God Damn America, or any others of the litany of craziness Wright threw out there over a couple decades.

    First, I don’t think Wright is a racist. Second, I think McCain has plenty of similar associations that could be covered just as hysterically as Obama’s if the media chose to, they just don’t.

    How do you define a racist? Any conventional definition would include Jeremiah Wright. As to the second notion – proof please? Hagee and Parsely have been shown, ad nauseum, to not be comparable by mean of association, proximity, vitriol, etc … but keep throwing those memes out there. Repetition does not make it so.

    so they’ve given over to indulging all of the ridiculous and inaccurate character smears the Republican party is perpetuating

    Blame the Republicans. That is easier for you to do than to acknowledge that there are 2 seriously deficient candidates running for the Dem nomination. I do not recall McCain bringing any of this stuff up. So far, this is Hillary and Baracky going after each other, so where the Republicans fit in, you will have to explain.

    Conservatives think liberals have stupid and bad ideas for government, and liberals know conservatives have stupid and bad ideas for government.

    Cute.

    I don’t see anything wrong with his judgment, he takes all the stances that I would expect a liberal to take

    Yet you on the Left squeal like a stuck pig when we point out that Baracky is, in fact, quite liberal. Why is that? Own your socialism. Be proud of it.

    He certainly hasn’t shown any poor judgment operationally in crafting his record-setting campaign or choosing his strategists,

    Naming Jeremiah Wright to his group of advisors was a good idea?

    Way to put together a real post, by the way. You should try doing this more,

    Still kind of full of yourself? I seek your approval like I seek a shotgun blast to the head.

    JD (75f5c3)

  59. I do, and I suspect more share my position than yours. Ayers and his ilk killed Americans and engaged in domestic terrorism. You do not mind, which is not only not surprising, but consistent with your attitudes. Personally, I do not know anyone that has attacked our country, nor do I visit them at their homes. Were I to voluntarily associate with those types, it would come with the tacit understanding that it would be a poor decision. You engage in the same minimization that Obama does. Their relationship was far greater than serving on a board. Even if that was the extent of it, were I appointed to a board with Ayers being on it, I would easily decline, just like I would have walked out of my Church had my pastor said God Damn America, or any others of the litany of craziness Wright threw out there over a couple decades.

    Gimme a fucking break. You didn’t care that this Ayers guy was out in America, living free, teaching kids, until you figured out you could hammer Obama with it. You would walk away from serving on the board with Ayers, you’d walk out of church if Wright said something you didn’t like, big fucking deal, what you say you would do if you had somebody else’s life doesn’t matter a fucking bit. Obama liked his church, he probably liked whatever board he was on. Neither of those things pertain in the slightest to what kind of President I perceive he has the potential to be based on his stated policy positions.

    How do you define a racist? Any conventional definition would include Jeremiah Wright.

    There’s no blanket definition, but I know that Wright isn’t a racist, the only thing he said that even has shades of racism is the comment about the government and AIDS. If you must have a definition, I would say a racist is someone that thinks they’re superior to other people based on their skin color. I don’t think Wright believes that.

    As to the second notion – proof please? Hagee and Parsely have been shown, ad nauseum, to not be comparable by mean of association, proximity, vitriol, etc … but keep throwing those memes out there. Repetition does not make it so.

    They’re more than comparable, you’re just being fucking impossible. The right has a much larger and much deeper stable of religious figures saying batshit crazy fucking things that remain prominent, influential, vaunted icons in the Republican party. Wright doesn’t have anywhere near the kind of power in the Democratic party that Robertson and Hagee have in the Republican party, and you fucking know it.

    Blame the Republicans. That is easier for you to do than to acknowledge that there are 2 seriously deficient candidates running for the Dem nomination. I do not recall McCain bringing any of this stuff up. So far, this is Hillary and Baracky going after each other, so where the Republicans fit in, you will have to explain.

    What do you mean I have to explain where the Republican fit in? Stephanopolous was getting debate moderation advice from Sean fucking Hannity, that’s not explanation enough? The genesis of this story is obvious; Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys get on their radio shows and repeat the same shit about Wright for a few weeks, the MSM invariably picks it up because they’re lazy fucking tools, and now you’re telling me that the MSM coverage proves this is a legitimate story. I’m not a god damn moron, this is how all critics or enemies of Republicans are dealt with, and you’re running the only play you have.

    Conservatives think liberals have stupid and bad ideas for government, and liberals know conservatives have stupid and bad ideas for government.

    Yet you on the Left squeal like a stuck pig when we point out that Baracky is, in fact, quite liberal. Why is that? Own your socialism. Be proud of it.

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    Naming Jeremiah Wright to his group of advisors was a good idea?

    He’s crushing John McCain in fundraising, isn’t he?

    Still kind of full of yourself? I seek your approval like I seek a shotgun blast to the head.

    How could I not be full of myself when I have all these lackeys hanging on my every word? Relax. I only tried to give you a compliment because you actually addressed me, something few people around here have the balls to do.

    Levi (76ef55)

  60. Levi,

    Slow down. You forgot to close your blockquote code.

    DRJ (a431ca)

  61. Gimme a fucking break. You didn’t care that this Ayers guy was out in America

    You would be wrong, but that is not the least bit surprising. My dislike of Ayers, and his fellow domestic terrorists has nothing to do with the politics of Baracky.

    They’re more than comparable, you’re just being fucking impossible.

    Since McCain lives over 1000 miles away from Hagee, has never attended church there even once in over 20 years, has never donated tens of thousands of dollars to Hagee, and has never appointed Hagee to a position in his campaign, it is quite a stretch (read-dishonest distortion) to equate Wright and Hagee.

    So Stephanopolous is a right wing lackey? That is at odds with his resume.

    The rest of you rant does not make sense. I quoted you saying Baracky was reliably Left, and then asked why the Left whines when he is accurately described as liberal.

    You stated that he has shown good judgment so far, and I asked if appointing Wright to a position in his campaign showed good judgment, and you reply with fundraising questions?

    FWIW – The answer to your irrelevant point is that Baracky is involved in an ongoing contested primary, and McCain is not, so it should come as no surprise that he continues to raise more money.

    JD (75f5c3)

  62. You would be wrong, but that is not the least bit surprising. My dislike of Ayers, and his fellow domestic terrorists has nothing to do with the politics of Baracky.

    Oh yeah, I’m sure that before Obama’s political ascension that was your crucial issue, right? I’m sure you thought about it all the time and campaigned to have him arrested or at least fired from his teaching job, that’s what you’re telling me?

    Yeah fucking right.

    Since McCain lives over 1000 miles away from Hagee, has never attended church there even once in over 20 years, has never donated tens of thousands of dollars to Hagee, and has never appointed Hagee to a position in his campaign, it is quite a stretch (read-dishonest distortion) to equate Wright and Hagee.

    The particulars of their respective relationships are different, so the fuck what? McCain has more recently and more publicly embraced Hagee than Obama has done with Wright, that doesn’t count for anything? I thought we were supposed to be really, really concerned about who these candidates associate with, McCain sought Hagee’s endorsement, that’s not an association?

    And again, Hagee is one of many. The Republican party owes its current incarnation to people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Hagee. Those men have way more in common ideologically and in terms of an agenda with the broader Republican party than Wright does with Obama or other Democrats. You’re worried that Obama’s might be anti-white because you think Wright is anti-white, but Republicans actually are trying to pass things like gay marriage amendments, which these evangelical leaders have publicly clamored for. Rev. Wright has virtually no power and no clout on the left, while Robertson and Hagee are actively defining the agenda of their party. If Rev. Wright had blamed 9-11 on the gays, as opposed to all of us, would you excuse him?

    So Stephanopolous is a right wing lackey? That is at odds with his resume.

    He was the other day. If you’re going to go on TV and ask a Presidential candidate if they think somebody loves the country as much as he does, you’re a lackey. That’s not journalism, by any stretch of the definition.

    The rest of you rant does not make sense. I quoted you saying Baracky was reliably Left, and then asked why the Left whines when he is accurately described as liberal.

    Who whines when you label him a liberal? I don’t. He is a liberal. You don’t understand liberalism anyway, you just think it’s some deep insult like calling someone a Nazi, but he is a liberal.

    You stated that he has shown good judgment so far, and I asked if appointing Wright to a position in his campaign showed good judgment, and you reply with fundraising questions?

    After the Republican media frenzy has torn Obama a new one over Rev. Wright, it would be stupid for me to say that keeping him close to the campaign was the right thing to do. In hindsight, obviously, he shouldn’t have done it. If anything, it demonstrates maybe a little naivety on the part of Obama about the kind of mudslinging buttheads he’s running against, but given his current status as the likely nominee of the party, his judgment isn’t something I’m worried about. He’s had the deck stacked against him from the get-go, and he wouldn’t have lasted this long if he hadn’t made lots of brilliant decisions.

    FWIW – The answer to your irrelevant point is that Baracky is involved in an ongoing contested primary, and McCain is not, so it should come as no surprise that he continues to raise more money.

    How does that explain McCain being crushed by Obama even when he was in a contested primary?

    Look at this graph.

    McCain edged Barack in January of 2007, before Barack officially announced. Every single month since he did announce, he’s at the very least beaten him, and many times, he’s absolutely crushed him. My ‘seriously deficient’ candidate has raised three times more money than yours has. So how should we describe yours, if mine is ‘seriously deficient?’

    Levi (76ef55)

  63. Posting broken?

    Levi (76ef55)

  64. Levi, I’m not sure why I’m attempting this again, I must enjoy slamming my head against a brick wall, but your reply to my post was particularly lacking in comprehension, so I’ll go more slowly this time.

    1)”Nobody is saying all other questions are a distraction…it’s just all of THESE other questions…”

    LOL. This would be a cute comedy skit on SNL, ….”no, no, no…we’re not saying that Sen. Obama thinks ALL other questions are a distraction…just the ones you are asking that he doesn’t have a pre-scripted answer for …are a distraction”.

    If he can’t answer anything outside of his script without becoming distracted, he doesn’t have the attention span necessary to be a beauty pageant queen…much less leader of the free world.

    “I’m for world peace and taxing rich white people, except the Kennedy’s and Teresa Heinz’ husband”

    2)If you believe that nothing on the atomic level has any significance to the world around us, you have given your entire existence a description as “meaningless”. I’m sure there are some around here who would agree.

    The point, which you missed, of course…is that there is nothing “tertiary” about Sen. Obama’s entire existence from boyhood through today having a strong magnetic attachment to far, far, far leftist, extremist worldviews.

    “Frank” was a CPUSA member and a vital imprint upon young Barack. To suggest that such an imprint is “tertiary” is disingenuous, coy, or simply the result of being thick as a brick.

    Of course it has meaning, of course it has impact. What is fair, is to explore it freely and see exactly what that impact might be.

    Your responses “in extremis” are simply little cognition tantrums…since you can’t think your way through a problem or an argument…you have to scream, swear and bloviate your way through.

    What you lack in substance, you make up in decibels.

    Am I afraid that he is going to bomb the Pentagon? No, I’m afraid that his attachment to people who have…is a serious character flaw.

    I’m afraid that his empathy for people who bomb dances with our young men in uniform in attendance, shows an antipathy for the troops and an empathy for those who mean to harm them.

    And while we are exposing the ridiculously disingenuous and coy behaviors…let’s nip one seriously deficient empty ploy in the bud.

    When Ayers and Dorhn hosted, at their home, an event FOR Sen. Obama…to even remotely suggest that he was blissfully unaware of who they were, what they had done, or how they CURRENTLY felt about it all…is mind-numbingly…. simpletonism.

    Only a simpleton would suggest that Sen. Obama went to their home, was the guest of honor, met with “like-minded” individuals who were also on a selective guest list…and didn’t know EXACTLY who Ayers and Dohrn were.

    He was…and IS…comfortable with their past deeds. THAT…is a problem for people who think attempting to blow up military dances, police departments, law enforcement, the Pentagon…and other violetn acts of extreme leftist domestic terrorists, is not deserving of political cover, empathy or support, in any form.

    It’s not that Sen. Obama is a PERSONAL risk of domestic terrorism, it’s that he’s not a strong enough deterrent, in fact, his history suggests that he may agree with it. He pre-scripts a statement that SAYS he isn’t…but, these “distraction” questions suggest …he’s quite comfortable with it all.

    Why is this relevant? Because if he is responsive to radical leftism…his policies, the way he manages issues, his judicial selections, his cabinet, his advisors…will likely reflect that extremism as well. And THAT will influence virtually everything that a President has an impact upon.

    Rev. Wright’s extremist views, his visits with and lionizing of Farrakhan, his attachment to all manner of extremism…is a consistent pattern. THAT consistent pattern…could not have been unexposed over 20 years to Sen. Obama. Yet, he was drawn to Rev. Wright, like a moth to a flame.

    This attraction to extreme worldviews, does not sit well with people who don’t hold them. They obviously sit well with you..since you do.

    2)

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  65. Well shit I can’t post anymore it seems

    [EDIT: Levi – I found nine comments in the filter. Nine. I don’t know why the first one got caught but once that happened, your attempts to post so many similar comments so quickly probably put you into automatic moderation. It’s happened to me before and it’s probably happened to everyone at one time or another but there are only two solutions: Wait until Patterico or I find your comments and release them, or watch your language and slow down. — DRJ]

    Levi (76ef55)

  66. You would be wrong, but that is not the least bit surprising. My dislike of Ayers, and his fellow domestic terrorists has nothing to do with the politics of Baracky.

    Oh yeah, I’m sure that before Obama’s political ascension that was your crucial issue, right? I’m sure you thought about it all the time and campaigned to have him arrested or at least fired from his teaching job, that’s what you’re telling me?

    Yeah fucking right.

    Since McCain lives over 1000 miles away from Hagee, has never attended church there even once in over 20 years, has never donated tens of thousands of dollars to Hagee, and has never appointed Hagee to a position in his campaign, it is quite a stretch (read-dishonest distortion) to equate Wright and Hagee.

    The particulars of their respective relationships are different, so the fuck what? McCain has more recently and more publicly embraced Hagee than Obama has done with Wright, that doesn’t count for anything? I thought we were supposed to be really, really concerned about who these candidates associate with, McCain sought Hagee’s endorsement, that’s not an association?

    And again, Hagee is one of many. The Republican party owes its current incarnation to people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Hagee. Those men have way more in common ideologically and in terms of an agenda with the broader Republican party than Wright does with Obama or other Democrats. You’re worried that Obama’s might be anti-white because you think Wright is anti-white, but Republicans actually are trying to pass things like gay marriage amendments, which these evangelical leaders have publicly clamored for. Rev. Wright has virtually no power and no clout on the left, while Robertson and Hagee are actively defining the agenda of their party. If Rev. Wright had blamed 9-11 on the gays, as opposed to all of us, would you excuse him?

    So Stephanopolous is a right wing lackey? That is at odds with his resume.

    He was the other day. If you’re going to go on TV and ask a Presidential candidate if they think somebody loves the country as much as he does, you’re a lackey. That’s not journalism, by any stretch of the definition.

    The rest of you rant does not make sense. I quoted you saying Baracky was reliably Left, and then asked why the Left whines when he is accurately described as liberal.

    Who whines when you label him a liberal? I don’t. He is a liberal. You don’t understand liberalism anyway, you just think it’s some deep insult like calling someone a Nazi, but he is a liberal.

    You stated that he has shown good judgment so far, and I asked if appointing Wright to a position in his campaign showed good judgment, and you reply with fundraising questions?

    After the Republican media frenzy has torn Obama a new one over Rev. Wright, it would be stupid for me to say that keeping him close to the campaign was the right thing to do. In hindsight, obviously, he shouldn’t have done it. If anything, it demonstrates maybe a little naivety on the part of Obama about the kind of mudslinging buttheads he’s running against, but given his current status as the likely nominee of the party, his judgment isn’t something I’m worried about. He’s had the deck stacked against him from the get-go, and he wouldn’t have lasted this long if he hadn’t made lots of brilliant decisions.

    FWIW – The answer to your irrelevant point is that Baracky is involved in an ongoing contested primary, and McCain is not, so it should come as no surprise that he continues to raise more money.

    How does that explain McCain being crushed by Obama even when he was in a contested primary?

    McCain edged Barack in January of 2007, before Barack officially announced. Every single month since he did announce, he’s at the very least beaten him, and many times, he’s absolutely crushed him. My ‘seriously deficient’ candidate has raised three times more money than yours has. So how should we describe yours, if mine is ‘seriously deficient?’

    Levi (76ef55)

  67. We could only hope.

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  68. You would be wrong, but that is not the least bit surprising. My dislike of Ayers, and his fellow domestic terrorists has nothing to do with the politics of Baracky.

    Oh yeah, I’m sure that before Obama’s political ascension that was your crucial issue, right? I’msure you thought about it all the time and campaigned to have him arrested or at least fired from his teaching job, that’s what you’re telling me?

    Yeah fucking right.

    Since McCain lives over 1000 miles away from Hagee, has never attended church there even once in over 20 years, has never donated tens of thousands of dollars to Hagee, and has never appointed Hagee to a position in his campaign, it is quite a stretch (read-dishonest distortion) to equate Wright and Hagee.

    The particulars of their respective relationships are different, so the fuck what? McCain has more recently and more publicly embraced Hagee than Obama has done with Wright, that doesn’t count for anything? I thought we were supposed to be really, really concerned about who these candidates associate with, McCain sought Hagee’s endorsement, that’s not an association?

    And again, Hagee is one of many. The Republican party owes its current incarnation to people like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Hagee. Those men have way more in common ideologically and in terms of an agenda with the broader Republican party than Wright does with Obama or other Democrats. You’re worried that Obama’s might be anti-white because you think Wright is anti-white, but Republicans actually are trying to pass things like gay marriage amendments, which these evangelical leaders have publicly clamored for. Rev. Wright has virtually no power and no clout on the left, while Robertson and Hagee are actively defining the agenda of their party. If Rev. Wright had blamed 9-11 on the gays, as opposed to all of us, would you excuse him?

    So Stephanopolous is a right wing lackey? That is at odds with his resume.

    He was the other day. If you’re going to go on TV and ask a Presidential candidate if they think somebody loves the country as much as he does, you’re a lackey. That’s not journalism, by any stretch of the definition.

    The rest of you rant does not make sense. I quoted you saying Baracky was reliably Left, and then asked why the Left whines when he is accurately described as liberal.

    Who whines when you label him a liberal? I don’t. He is a liberal. You don’t understand liberalism anyway, you just think it’s some deep insult like calling someone a Nazi, but he is a liberal.

    You stated that he has shown good judgment so far, and I asked if appointing Wright to a position in his campaign showed good judgment, and you reply with fundraising questions?

    After the Republican media frenzy has torn Obama a new one over Rev. Wright, it would be stupid for me to say that keeping him close to the campaign was the right thing to do. In hindsight, obviously, he shouldn’t have done it. If anything, it demonstrates maybe a little naivety on the part of Obama about the kind of mudslinging buttheads he’s running against, but given his current status as the likely nominee of the party, his judgment isn’t something I’m worried about. He’s had the deck stacked against him from the get-go, and he wouldn’t have lasted this long if he hadn’t made lots of brilliant decisions.

    FWIW – The answer to your irrelevant point is that Baracky is involved in an ongoing contested primary, and McCain is not, so it should come as no surprise that he continues to raise more money.

    How does that explain McCain being crushed by Obama even when he was in a contested primary?

    McCain edged Barack in January of 2007, before Barack officially announced. Every single month since he did announce, he’s at the very least beaten him, and many times, he’s absolutely crushed him. My ‘seriously deficient’ candidate has raised three times more money than yours has. So how should we describe yours, if mine is ‘seriously deficient?’

    Levi (76ef55)

  69. We could only hope.

    Hah, take that! Double post!

    Levi (76ef55)

  70. “How does that explain McCain being crushed by Obama even when he was in a contested primary?”

    Please provide details of which primary matched up John McCain and Barack Obama?

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  71. Oh yeah, I’m sure that before Obama’s political ascension that was your crucial issue, right? I’m sure you thought about it all the time and campaigned to have him arrested or at least fired from his teaching job, that’s what you’re telling me?

    Is that the standard you hold for everything? As an individual, I have no power to control the prosecution of his, and due to the errors made in the past, that will never happen. So, just because I was not some high profile advocate against Ayers does not preclude me from hating him, and what they did. That you are too small minded to understand that is also sad. Since I have not campaigned to have him removed from his job, does that mean I endorse him? I thought that degrees and nuace were supposed to be the domain of the thinking Left.

    The particulars of their respective relationships are different, so the fuck what?

    Yeah, I hate it when the facts get in the way of Teh Narrive. They are exactly alike, except for all of the differences !!!

    I do not think Wright is anti-white. I know it, and his words state it. However, that was never mentioned by me, so nice strawman.

    Rev. Wright has virtually no power and no clout on the left

    Except to be a spitual advisor and mentor to the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic party.

    McCain has more recently and more publicly embraced Hagee than Obama has done with Wright

    Proof, please. And do not be selective in your quoting.

    I never claimed Stephanopolous was a journalist. That would be a lie. He is a Clinton political hack.

    That is it, Levi. Change the rules. Whoever raises the most money wins! Raising money does not change his flaws, it just makes him a rich candidate with flaws.

    JD (75f5c3)

  72. Levi, I’m not sure why I’m attempting this again, I must enjoy slamming my head against a brick wall, but your reply to my post was particularly lacking in comprehension, so I’ll go more slowly this time.

    Oh good.

    1)”Nobody is saying all other questions are a distraction…it’s just all of THESE other questions…”

    LOL. This would be a cute comedy skit on SNL, ….”no, no, no…we’re not saying that Sen. Obama thinks ALL other questions are a distraction…just the ones you are asking that he doesn’t have a pre-scripted answer for …are a distraction”.

    If he can’t answer anything outside of his script without becoming distracted, he doesn’t have the attention span necessary to be a beauty pageant queen…much less leader of the free world.

    If you can tell me the journalistic value of asking a question such as “Do you think Rev. Wright loves the country as much as you do?” I will cede you this point. Explain to me what that question could conceivably tell us about Obama. Can you do that? Afterwards, tackle the value of the question “Do you believe in the flag?”

    What’s more, he is answering these questions, he’s been answering them for months, you’re just not even trying to give him an opportunity. You had a chance to watch him answer all these questions about his life and his religion about a week ago, and you didn’t take it. So how honest and sincere are you being when you’re continually claiming that you want to take a hard look at Obama, and hold his feet to the fire and ask him about all of these ‘issues,’ when you can’t even be bothered to watch the guy try to answer the questions that are put to him?

    2)If you believe that nothing on the atomic level has any significance to the world around us, you have given your entire existence a description as “meaningless”. I’m sure there are some around here who would agree.

    I’m a random collection of molecules hurdling through space towards an inevitable, inescapable conclusion in the grand scheme of things. We’re all meaningless, born explicitly so that we can reproduce and then die unceremoniously. I’ll take that insult as a compliment, thank you.

    The point, which you missed, of course…is that there is nothing “tertiary” about Sen. Obama’s entire existence from boyhood through today having a strong magnetic attachment to far, far, far leftist, extremist worldviews.

    “Frank” was a CPUSA member and a vital imprint upon young Barack. To suggest that such an imprint is “tertiary” is disingenuous, coy, or simply the result of being thick as a brick.

    This ‘strong magnetic attachment’ to these ‘extremist worldviews’ that you speak of, has it manifested itself in any of Obama’s essays or policy statements? It seems to me, if Obama has been some impressionable, willing brainwashing victim for his entire life, shouldn’t his radicalism be exposed by his actions as a public servant by now? He’s been holding elected office for 12 years, has he demonstrated any ‘strong magnetic attachment’ to any of these ‘extremist worldviews’ you’re so worried about? Because it appears to me that he’s spent most of his time trying to help poor people. What, is he just holding all of his militant radicalism back until he gets into the White House?

    Of course it has meaning, of course it has impact. What is fair, is to explore it freely and see exactly what that impact might be.

    Your responses “in extremis” are simply little cognition tantrums…since you can’t think your way through a problem or an argument…you have to scream, swear and bloviate your way through.

    What you lack in substance, you make up in decibels.

    I’ve considered not swearing to keep you idiots from harping on me about it and maybe spend a little time actually engaging me, but fuck that. I’m not going to censor myself, get over it.

    Am I afraid that he is going to bomb the Pentagon? No, I’m afraid that his attachment to people who have…

    Oooo! Is this it? Is this finally where you’re going to tell me why this all matters, and show me how it would affect Obama’s Presidency?

    is a serious character flaw.

    LOL! Swing and a miss!

    I’m afraid that his empathy for people who bomb dances with our young men in uniform in attendance, shows an antipathy for the troops and an empathy for those who mean to harm them.

    Ah yes, ‘liberals don’t support the troops.’ Certainly, because Obama went to Ayers’ house, we can reasonably conclude that Obama really likes terrorists and dead American soldiers.

    Buddy, if Obama really hated the troops, and wanted to see them killed, why does he say he’d pull them out of Iraq, where his beloved terrorist allies can get to them?

    And while we are exposing the ridiculously disingenuous and coy behaviors…let’s nip one seriously deficient empty ploy in the bud.

    When Ayers and Dorhn hosted, at their home, an event FOR Sen. Obama…to even remotely suggest that he was blissfully unaware of who they were, what they had done, or how they CURRENTLY felt about it all…is mind-numbingly…. simpletonism.

    Only a simpleton would suggest that Sen. Obama went to their home, was the guest of honor, met with “like-minded” individuals who were also on a selective guest list…and didn’t know EXACTLY who Ayers and Dohrn were.

    I’m sure Obama has always known who Ayers was, and I’ve never said otherwise.

    He was…and IS…comfortable with their past deeds. THAT…is a problem for people who think attempting to blow up military dances, police departments, law enforcement, the Pentagon…and other violetn acts of extreme leftist domestic terrorists, is not deserving of political cover, empathy or support, in any form.

    No one is comfortable with their deeds, but lots of people are comfortable with these people now, after they’ve become productive members of society. Obama’s not trying to give him cover or support, they were on a fucking board together. He’s clearly and repeatedly denounced what they did and why they did it, what else do you want him to do?

    It’s not that Sen. Obama is a PERSONAL risk of domestic terrorism, it’s that he’s not a strong enough deterrent, in fact, his history suggests that he may agree with it. He pre-scripts a statement that SAYS he isn’t…but, these “distraction” questions suggest …he’s quite comfortable with it all.

    That’s just fucking retarded. Obama’s not going to set the bombs himself, but he’ll probably get somebody to do it for him, because he agrees with domestic terrorism, that’s what you’re saying? He’s quite comfortable with domestic terrorism because of this insignificant connection to a former domestic terrorist, that’s it? That’s your big worry? That Obama is the next Osama bin Laden? Well certainly that’s a rational fear that we should all be expected to address with the utmost seriousness.

    Why is this relevant? Because if he is responsive to radical leftism…his policies, the way he manages issues, his judicial selections, his cabinet, his advisors…will likely reflect that extremism as well. And THAT will influence virtually everything that a President has an impact upon.

    The hereto undefined extremism that you’re hyperventilating about isn’t even reflected by him, but it’s going to permeate his whole cabinet and every one of his Presidential actions, huh? Obama sympathizes with terrorists, so he’s just gonna be the terrorist administration?

    Rev. Wright’s extremist views, his visits with and lionizing of Farrakhan, his attachment to all manner of extremism…is a consistent pattern. THAT consistent pattern…could not have been unexposed over 20 years to Sen. Obama. Yet, he was drawn to Rev. Wright, like a moth to a flame.

    This attraction to extreme worldviews, does not sit well with people who don’t hold them. They obviously sit well with you..since you do.

    I’m done. What the fuck? Buddy you are one the dumbest people I’ve ever met.

    Levi (76ef55)

  73. Boy, cfbleachers, I guess he told you.

    Now, don’t you feel chastised?

    Another Drew (f9dd2c)

  74. Another Drew…neither chaste nor chastised…I must be developing some sort of immunity to it.

    Levi

    Your responses are so simple-minded that they would be comical in another setting.

    Your infinite capacity for missing the point is only surpassed by your infinite incapacity to grasp it.

    “Frank” the Communist, Rev. Wright the Marxist/anti-Semite/anti-white preacher, Ayers, Dorhn, the radical professors at college, Rev. Moss, Rev. Meeks, Father Pfleger…are not “one-off” relationships…distant and fleeting, while Sen. Obama maintains his Ivory Soap purity.

    They constitute a pattern of attraction to deeply angry and hostile voices. Sen. Obama writes about how he practiced duplicity when dealing with “typical white folks”, so the fact that Michelle’s anger and hostility is closer to the surface should come as no surprise.

    Do leftists hate the troops? I have seen enough signs from Codepink and Berkeley suggesting that our troops should be shot to believe that exists, yes.

    Sen. Obama is not likely to set bombs off in the Pentagon, nor is he likely to advance out loud the hatred of white or Jewish people that Farrakhan and Wright have. But he has shown 20 years worth of attraction to those two men, and unless he is a blissfully ignorant babe in the woods…he knew EXACTLY what they stood for. And he embraced them anyway.

    You can water down his attachment to Wright all you like…you need to do so, in fact…or play as dumb as you have been…because Sen. Obama’s own words about how close he was to Wright will destroy your argument every time.

    The questions regarding whether Sen. Obama thought Wright loved the country, is a “set the table” question. If Sen. Obama says that Wright does not love the country…he attacks it, it would be truthful and honest…but, it would raise questions as to why he would embrace such a man so tightly.

    The point of it…is to explore why Sen. Obama would seek out, embrace, admire, adore, exalt…a man who hates this country, hates white people, hates Jewish people, and spreads vicious lies.

    Why indeed? Sen. Obama has not only not maintained a vigilance against anti-American extremism in his life (even while holding office), he has embraced it throughout his life.

    That’s worth exploring, even if you are too extremist to comprehend it.

    cfbleachers (4040c7)

  75. I see Levi is making up stuff again.

    SPQR (a261d3)

  76. I see Levi is making up stuff still.

    Fixed that for ya… :)

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  77. Thanks, Scott. Defective keyboard 😉

    SPQR (a261d3)

  78. The point of it…is to explore why Sen. Obama would seek out, embrace, admire, adore, exalt…a man who hates this country, hates white people, hates Jewish people, and spreads vicious lies.

    But this is okay with his followers. Voters are choosing him because of this.

    Vermont Neighbor (629f2e)

  79. VN, what frightens me is that that might be true for many of them.

    Though I can vouch for one as a seriously decent guy who just happens to like the pretty words.

    Ah well. I have hope for my friend…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  80. SPQR and Scott

    I see Levi is repeating the stuff he made up before.

    Fixed that for you again.

    I didn’t see anything new that Levi said today. It was the same tired old tripe, same old talking points. He needs some new material. Maher must be broadcasting reruns or something.

    New material would at least make him interesting.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  81. Indeed, daleyrocks, it is amusing that Levi repeats the same claims he’s been spanked on before. Not exactly “reality-based”.

    SPQR (a261d3)

  82. He would frst have to accept that he’s been beaten. He has yet to display the intelligence needed to come to that conclusion…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  83. Scott, yes. Friends who hit ‘send’ with sketchy Obama material. Thank God I only know one.

    Obviously Obama’s a magnet for the hippy dippy uninformed, happy-to-be-righteous crowd. The sheer numbers are what makes it scary. They’re still going to the polls in 6 months to beat the hell out of Bush.

    Vermont Neighbor (629f2e)

  84. VN – Just had lunch with a friend who was waxing about “coming around” to voting for Obama. I didn’t lay into him, as it wouldn’t have been warranted.

    He’s a thoughtful guy and a good guy. He just hasn’t bothered to actually parse the information given to him and makes decisions based on “the pretty words”. The gist of his argument is that he views Obama as an outsider who will fight the status quo. He holds this view because Obama has presented it to him and he sees no reason to question it.

    From what I can ascertain from my small sample, this is the common element in Obama supporters. They aren’t going to trust anybody in the media to give them information, and unless Obama really slips up (see Howard Dean), they will continue to support him.

    The upside of this fickle support is just that – it’s fickle and can change in an instant. These are not droves of hard leftists, just people who pay tangential attention to detail who are pissed at our government.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  85. ^ The caring, the concerned who just want someone new. That’s how Obama will gather votes. Until the general. And then all hell will break loose. Even our thoughtful and well-meaning friends will know something’s amiss. The ANGRY will stab the chad or claw the ballot with their pen in every effort to get Bush in the eyeball.

    Vermont Neighbor (629f2e)

  86. I see Levi is making up stuff again.

    What am I making up?

    Levi (76ef55)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4718 secs.