No part of the Reagan coalition was about welfare queens? Please. Tell that to the children. I was there. Reagan worked that mythical cadillac-driving welfare queen, and he did it to get votes, and he got votes. I'm certainly not saying it was the sole or even predominant reason for his success. But it wasn't irrelevant, either.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 18.03.2008 @ 18:25
If I may summarize your summary of Mr. DeLong, we're having a crisis of bullshit. A bunch of people convinced us they knew what they were doing, and they didn't.
I'm self-employed, generally a capitalist, but I've never been comfortable with the quasi-religious faith conservatives have in the "magic" of the marketplace. A degree of regulation and oversight is required. Had we had more aggressive, more skeptical oversight, had we had more transparency, we might be in better shape today.
At a point where a Bear Stearns is simply too big for us to allow it to go under, and has to be rescued by government, we taxpayers have earned a say in how it handles its business.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 17.03.2008 @ 17:06
I can be prevailed upon to drink either of the Glens as well. And I just wrote the post.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.03.2008 @ 21:58
In fact, why arenâ€™t you doing anything to inform your fellow Obama supporters and try and bring them around to your realistic appraisal of the candidate and what he can accomplish?
You know what? You're absolutely right. I should do that. I will. (Probably better tomorrow, since I've been enjoying a bit of the Macallan this evening.)
Heh. I see you prefer the single malts. My preference goes to Glenfiddich or Glenlivet - two other excellent Speyside distilleries - in a slightly chilled glass (yes, I know, blasphemy).
Ed.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.03.2008 @ 20:54
Barack Obama is just another politician â€“ devious when he has to be, vague when it suits him, and a liar when necessity calls. May this incident involving Reverend Wright open the eyes of most of those who have lost themselves in Obamaâ€™s rhetorical fog so that they can see who and what they are supporting for President of the United States.
Classic straw man logic. You assume you know what we Obama supporters see in Obama, and then inform us that we are terribly mistaken, and finally announce that we're beaten, destroyed, devastated by your overwhelming attack.
I support Obama. I've never thought he was anything other than a politician. I wouldn't want him to be. The presidency, after all, is kind of a political job.
I support Obama for one simple reason: he has built his campaign on the notion of reaching beyond the intellectual dead end of hyperpartisanship.
Do I think he's Jesus come back to save us? Um . . . no. Do I think he's a reincarnated George Washington? Nope. Do I expect he'll be disappointing, as all politicians end up being? Yep. Do I think he'll keep all his campaign promises? No more than any other president.
I support him because an Obama administration will have as a starting point a promise of non-partisan pragmatism. Note that I say "a promise." Mrs. Clinton can't even offer us that much. And Mr. McCain, who I admire, represents a continuation of policies that have proven less than impressive, the candidate of a party in desperate need of some time off for reflection.
Your attack -- excuse me, attacks plural -- would no doubt be effective if I were the straw man you envision. But since I'm not, and since I haven't yet met an Obama supporter who was, you're like a punch-drunk boxer, throwing haymakers at an opponent who's standing in his corner enjoying a cool drink.
If all Obama supporters were like you, a post like this wouldn' be necessary. But since millions of his supporters are as I describe, your "strawman" argument is ludicrous. It may be for you because, after all, you are more intelligent and discerning than your average Obamamaniac. But my "attacks" as you call them are damned effective because they are not aimed at you. They are aimed at other Obama supporters - the vast majority - who couldn't tell you why they support him but nevertheless hail him as the man who will bring change to Washington.
Stop personalizing every post I write about Obama. You are far from a typical Obama supporter. In fact, why aren't you doing anything to inform your fellow Obama supporters and try and bring them around to your realistic appraisal of the candidate and what he can accomplish? The reason is you would be shouted down - as they are shouting down the Hillary supporters at Kos and elsewhere. These movement Obamamaniacs will brook no opposition to their view of the candidate - which only reinforces my arguments about why Obama is a hypocrite of monstrous proportions.
Ed.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 15.03.2008 @ 20:37
It is completely shocking â€“ considering that the hypocritical asshole who is doing the endorsing is piously proclaiming that heâ€™s a different kind of politician than everyone else.
Oh, please. Every presidential candidate in my lifetime (I'm a year or two older than you, if I recall correctly) has said as much. This is a big nothing.
You know what would impress me coming from the right side of the blogosphere? A post actually supporting McCain. I'm willing to bet the ratio is ten attacks on Obama for every kind word spoken about your own candidate.
And the attacks are so lame. Obama the cult leader! Obama the . . . gasp . . . politician! Obama who doesn't wear a flag pin! Oh woe.
You got nothing on Obama, (so far, at least,) and you've got nothing good to say about your own guy. Let me ask you: does that feel like a winning combo for November?Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.03.2008 @ 18:57
So a politician made a reciprocal endorsement deal? Yeah, you're right, Rick, how has this staggering news failed to engender wall-to-wall news coverage? Shocking! Unprecedented!
It is completely shocking - considering that the hypocritical asshole who is doing the endorsing is piously proclaiming that he's a different kind of politician than everyone else. And the fact that he endorsed a corrupt Machine politician when a legitimate reform politician was running against him is also a little shocking, don't you think?
Maybe I should use smaller words. Will that help you get the point?
Ed.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 9.03.2008 @ 11:19
Mr. Obama has run an amazingly effective campaign so far. Better by just about any criterion than that run by Mr. McCain. Obama, to take the obvious example, has not managed to go broke and been forced to lay off almost his entire staff. He's outfundraising McCain by four or five to one. And unlike McCain, who really only faced Mitt the Flip and Mike Huckabee, Obama has had to run against the scariest political machine currently in existence.
He's had a bad week. But he's a quick study.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 8.03.2008 @ 13:08
I like #3. The whole "I'm a Mac," "I'm a PC," thing could be the basis for a genocidal civil war. Windows' blue screen of death would be a rather more literal phenomenon.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 28.02.2008 @ 21:13
Let me know when they get to the point of equating a legless, one-armed war-vet with Osama Bin Laden. Or when they start accusing someone of having an out wedlock black baby. Or when they accuse a heroic prisoner of war of having sold out his country during five years of torture. That's when we'll know they've sunk to the level of Republicans.Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 21.01.2008 @ 10:23
Pages (84) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  82 83 84