Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 551 To 560 Of 839 Comments
Dennis D:
Produce an example.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 3.03.2009 @ 00:05
Great. Just great.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 2.03.2009 @ 19:26
David:
Setting aside the snark. . .
Obama isn't ideological. He doesn't give a f--- about ideology, left, right or center. His motives are a mix of high-mindedness and ego. He wants what's best (as he sees it) and he wants above all to succeed. He looks at the world as a series of problems, numbered one through ten. He's determined to take a stab at all ten, but is probably realistic enough to be happy with 70%.
His method is pragmatism. He sees himself as a problem solver and he'll judge himself by how well he succeeds at solving problems. He believes history will make the same judgment. (He's right.) His "ideology" is "does it work?"
The thing that makes Obama so dangerous to right wing or left wing is that the people are on the same page as he is: just fix stuff, we don't care how.
And it's why Rick and everyone else on the right doesn't get Obama. You keep trying to pigeonhole him as some kind of latter day Black Panther, or Weatherman, or else as Bambi, or even as a crook, or as a cut n' run appeaser. But that analysis is just a circle jerk: conservatives throwing the same tired, 90's era talking points back and forth.
Meanwhile, while you guys are choosing between "socialist" and "communist" as your favorite epithet, the country has tuned you and your tired 1.0 mentality out and is deep into 2.0 territory. Face it: you're Windows 95, and Obama is a Mac.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 2.03.2009 @ 17:44
But I am beginning to believe that Obama’s concern for the economy is secondary to his ambition to change this country from what it was – a free, capitalist superpower - to what he wants it to be – a mostly free, mixed economy, second rate power.
You're doing it again. You're trying to suss out Obama's character and thought process and failing.
Accepting that he's your ideological and partisan opponent, it does no good to misunderstand the nature of your opponent. It's not just you, of course, conservatives haven't understood thing one about this guy from the start.
Phenomenology, the epistemology that holds that we should begin by setting aside intellectual prejudices, baked-in assumptions, and what we want the truth to be, and do our limited best to see only what is actually there. It's not just good philosophy, it's good battle planning.
Think how much better we might have done had we seen the Viet Cong and the NVA clearly. Or seen Iraqi Sunnis clearly. We looked at each through ideological filters, and through the filter of optimism, seeing what we wanted to see and not what was there. You're still swinging an axe and your opponent has a compound bow.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 2.03.2009 @ 14:49
Chuck:
Funny you should ask:
http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.03.2009 @ 16:11
Ken:
You don't get it at all.
Rush Limbaugh stays rich if he continues to pander solely to wingnuts. Wingnuts are his audience. The only way he could really hurt his bottom line is by changing.
GOP politicians, on the other hand, have to get re-elected. And they know if they follow Limbaugh they're Whigs. Done for as a national party.
Rick actually seems to give a damn about the party and its prospects. Possibly because he understands that there are only the two parties and the only one even slightly likely to advance conservatism is the GOP. So he actually wants the GOP to survive.
Rush only cares about himself. His money, his power, his ego.
Which is why Democrats like me are buttering popcorn and enjoying the show. See, we want Rush in charge. We are Rush's second biggest supporters. Because unlike the nihilist dittoheads, we can read polls.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 3.03.2009 @ 20:08
Rush or Newt. Newt or Rush. Which unlikable, angry, has-been will symbolize the GOP?
This may be the best exemplar ever of "a win-win situation." For Democrats.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 3.03.2009 @ 10:16
Michael S:
I regret any aspersion I may have cast upon drunken sailors.
It may interest you to know that my father, a career Army man, was a sailor -- LCM, LCU, the army yacht, an ocean-going tug. Although he was a relatively sober sailor.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 2.03.2009 @ 13:39
Michael S:
I agree with a lot of what you say.
I've owned three homes -- 1 in Chicago, 2 in Chapel Hill -- managed to lose money on all three. But at this point I have zero debt. The funny thing is I've always thought of myself as spending like a drunken sailor. I never realized other people were actually more profligate than I.
All that being said, just what did the GOP manage to contribute to solving this shitstorm in the last 8 years? The usual conservative mouthpieces were still prattling on about the magic of the marketplace and how everything was government's fault. Up until about three seconds before it all blew up.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 2.03.2009 @ 00:50
John Galt:
I love this idea.
So, let me make sure I have the details down:
1) 8 years of Republicanism leaves the country bankrupt and the whole world on the edge of a depression.
2) Republicans become tax cheats in order to avoid paying for the clean-up.
Honestly, I don't understand why GOP membership and poll numbers are in the toilet. You guys are geniuses!
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 1.03.2009 @ 12:34
