Politico's Martin asserted as "fact" that Gore and Kerry "were elitists and were out of touch with average Americans"
SUMMARY: The Politico's Jonathan Martin asserted as "fact" that Al Gore and John Kerry "were elitists and were out of touch with average Americans." But to the extent the public perceived them in that manner, the media played a dominant role in creating and promoting that perception while largely avoiding discussion of whether President Bush was an "elitist."
During the April 11 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Politico senior political writer Jonathan Martin asserted as "fact" that the two most recent Democratic nominees for president, former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), "were elitists and were out of touch with average Americans." Referring to recent comments by Sen. Barack Obama, Martin said, "But again, this ultimately could be a problem in the fall for Obama in the general election. If you look at the past two cycles, [guest host] Kitty [Pilgrim], Al Gore and John Kerry. What did Republicans use against them more than anything else? The fact that they were elitists and were out of touch with average Americans. This is going to be the same thing all over again, probably."
But in characterizing Gore and Kerry as "elitists," Martin did not note that to the extent the public perceived them in that manner, the media played a dominant role during the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns in creating and promoting that perception. By contrast, the media largely avoided discussion during those campaigns of whether President Bush -- a graduate of Phillips Academy Andover, Yale University, and Harvard Business School, and the son of a former president and grandson of a former U.S. senator -- was an "elitist."
From the April 11 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
PILGRIM: Jonathan, your thoughts on how close the race is?
MARTIN: Well, it's very, very competitive. Especially in a place like Pennsylvania where Obama had made some progress, this could really hurt him in rural parts of that state. But look beyond that. Also places like Indiana, which is a key state coming up in May, and perhaps some rural parts of North Carolina. But again, this ultimately could be a problem in the fall for Obama in the general election. If you look at the past two cycles, Kitty, Al Gore and John Kerry. What did Republicans use against them more than anything else? The fact that they were elitists and were out of touch with average Americans. This is going to be the same thing all over again, probably.
PILGRIM: All right, Jonathan Martin, Errol Louis, Gloria Borger. We'll be right back in just a moment. We'll have much more on Senator Obama's stunning comments on small town America. We will have extensive coverage. More reaction from the candidates and the very best political analysts. Stay with us.
I agree, Martin should have said that Republicans portrayed Gore and Kerry as elitists and out of touch with average Americans.
What a silly argument. By the time anyone gets to the stage of running for President of the US, he or she is no longer one of the "average people". What we would hope is that this person is intelligent enough to embrace solutions in both economic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of average Americans.
You point out the flashing neon sign of Rightwing hypocricy, that "chickenhawk" factor.
No doubt, rightwingers are warmongers. They like to "problem solve" with force and violence, at home and abroad. They think it's "macho" and adds to that masculine, in-control image they like to cultivate.
Yet, they are personal cowards. Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, and on down the GOP/rightwing line, they want to call Democrats who are WAR HEROES cowards and unfit to hold office, and this flies directly in the face of their claimed support for the military. The Swift Boat guys, whom the GOP relied on so heavily to take down John Kerry (because Bush had no combat record to counter Kerry's), succeeded in smearing and dishonoring ALL OUR COMBAT VETS, by asserting that medals could not be trusted to be really earned and genuine.
Bottom line is that rightwingers HAVE no honor for "our troops", other than how they can be USED. USED as tools to promote corporate profit taking, and USED as tools of political advantage.
When it comes to the nuts and bolts of how you actually ACT when you supposedly HONOR something, the Rightwing FAIL utterly. They are like the abusive and neglectful husband who claims to HONOR his wife ... he CLAIMS it, but his every action shows his words ... or his understanding ... to be FALSE. He is an abuser AND a liar.
You're right. But, sometimes I want Media Matters to report on itself! He did NOT "state as fact" as MMFA says in the headline. This type of "out-of-contextism" (lol) gives right wing idiots the food to knock the credibility of the whole site!!!
Wake UP MMFA , and keep it accurate, or we might lose one or our most valueable assets, YOU!
"What did Republicans use against them more than anything else? The fact that they were elitists and were out of touch with average Americans."
How is that not "asserting as fact" that they're elitists and out of touch with average Americans? He stated it as a fact, plain as day.
I just gave this site about hour of reading. How does one maintain credibility when it accuses Martin of some evil sin "suggesting something is fact" and in the next article about McCain commit that same sin.
Really kids, be objective. If there is nothing newsworthy, then don't invent something.
My perception was that they used lies against Gore and Kerry more than they did any kind of elitist nonsense. The elitist stuff was just background noise to compete with the truth so the lies would be heard above the chatter. Lies, smears, name-calling, gerrymandering, voter intimidation, phone bank jamming, roll purges, rioting to stop the counting of votes. You can really tell how confident conservatives are about their "message." They don't seem to understand that their behavior makes their "message" loud and clear: there's only one way we can win and we know it.
It makes me proud, not than I'm a liberal, but that I'm not a conservative, just like I'm proud that I'm not a frog.
Conservatives are frogs ? I like that !
Liberals are Stallions, front hooves high in the air, bucking, with their main whipping in the wind, dwarfing all frogs near and far.
If your average Florida Dem could just go into a voting booth and cast an accurate ballot, the Supreme Court would never have had to get involved. Is it asking too much for somebody who takes the time to drive to the voting booth to actually pay attention to what they're doing once they get there?
If your average Florida Dem could just go into a voting booth and cast an accurate ballot,
It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court should not have been involved in this case. The Florida court system was dealing with it.
The ability to vote is not predicated on "accurately" casting a ballot. For instance, when I was a poll worker, those of us running the election had to aid the blind or people who couldn't read. They're still entitled to cast ballots, even if they can't do so "accurately" without assistance.
What counts is not accuracy, but the intent of the voter. Whenever the voter's intent can be determined, his vote should count. As an example, suppose a voter marks the ballot for McCain and also writes in McCain's name. That's an "overvote." That ballot is not "accurate," but the voter's intent is obvious -- in a fair election, that's one vote for McCain.
With punch card ballots the same standard is supposed to apply -- if a chad is mostly pushed out of the ballot card for instance, but is still attached to the card so that the machine doesn't read the vote, a hand count would reveal that fact. That ballot should count, because the voter's intent can be determined.
In Florida in 2000 the intent of the voter was routinely ignored -- among other problems, overvotes were not counted by hand to determine the intent of the voter. Republican poll workers pretended during hand counts that they couldn't tell if a chad had been punched and but was still partially attached to the ballot card.
Do NOT blame Florida voters for what happened in 2000. The fault lies with Republican cheaters, media enablers, and Democrats who didn't know how or didn't have the stomach to counter the dirty tricks.
the palm beach county butterfly ballot was illegal by state statute. state law says the mark to indicate your vote always goes to the right of the name. the butterfly ballot had them to the right and left. and the links in this link are all expired, but if you go about 1/3 down, it notes a canandian study where test voters screwed up the same kind of ballot. don't blame bush on anyone but the people who voted for him, and not by mistake.
http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/ballot/
this link was not expired. it shows the actual ballot.
http://www.mit.edu/~jtidwell/ballot_design.html
I've seen the ballot. If it was illegal then how could it have been used? Didn't Democrats approve the ballot, I've read that they did.
All these arguments above about intent. The only way I buy any of it is if a voter asked an election official and was told to do an incorrect thing. Otherwise, exercise your personal responsibility and do it correctly. It's not that difficult.
Right on Bruce.
Look, the arrow says #3....look, its the third hole down the ballot. So punch that one you big dummy. Rocket science at its best.
this quotes the pertinent state statute.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/111000-105.htm
There is a reason that you need to be 18 to vote. And if someone has the mental capacity of someone substancially less than 18 yrs old by not being able to count in basic 1 thru 20 number schemes....then no, they shouldnt be voting. And I was almost going to assume this was a difficult concept to understand.
Well your little nephew obviously has a larger mental capacity than florida democrats :-) Watch out folks, here comes the next member of Mensa.
Pay taxes? No, not so long as they ask for any government provided social programs, medicare, medicaid, social security, etc.
Military? Hell no. I would trust that person watching my back on the battlefield....they cant count to 3 on a ballot, but you think they can figure out coordinates of a location?
"poor public speaking redneck and a terrible shotgun shooter"
You forgot stupid, and liar.
Liar? Not proven. Corrupt cabinet members...possible and I wouldnt argue against that. Like I said, Im not a bush supporter anymore. However, Kerry is absolute scum for what he lied about with the military. Not that Bush is any better....but dont try and make him look like a god send.
Oh just imagine the difficult ballot punching procedures the democrats would encounter if there was an additional line item on it! Oh heavens, that gives me a headache just thinking about it.
If the butterfly ballot had Bush and Gore's names reversed (Gore first and Bush second with arrow on third dot) the same would have happened to no fewer Republicans and Bush would have unfairly lost votes. You still have not proven that punching the second dot shows stupidity AND you haven't proven that Republicans are any smarter than the Democrats that made the mistake.
Either you already realized the point I'm making and you are a liar OR you are stupid OR you've been listening to Rush too long.
Here's how flawed your logic is Einstein: By your logic Republicans in Palm Beach, Florida were only tested to have the ability to count to one in order to have their vote counted. By your logic, the ballot failed to weed out the stupid Republicans from having their vote counted.
In the end, thinking that the ballot was an IQ test makes one stupid. Thinking that there should be an IQ test to vote makes one an elitist. Nothing worse than a stupid elitist.
Bottom line, had Gore won Florida decisively, or had it gone uncontested with Gore winning, or had Gore managed to win his own home state of Tennessee, none of this would matter one iota to disgruntled, whining Democrats. How many elections have they bellyached and moaned about when they have won?
None.
They only complain about fixed voting machines, or rigged elections when they lose - because in their elitist attitude they cannot imagine voters picking the other side over them? It is unfathomable so the only possible explanation is the Republicans, or their buddies who own and operate the voting machines, cheated, somehow, someway......so they jump on the whine bandwagon instead of acting like adults and accepting the results of elections.
Get over it.
So it's not enough to actually win. It's Gore's fault because he didn't win by a large enough margin to prevent election fraud. I have yet to understand what the hell you think is relevant about failure to complain about won elections. What does that prove, in your mind?
"They only complain about fixed voting machines, or rigged elections when they lose - because in their elitist attitude they cannot imagine voters picking the other side over them? It is unfathomable so the only possible explanation is the Republicans, or their buddies who own and operate the voting machines, cheated, somehow, someway......so they jump on the whine bandwagon instead of acting like adults and accepting the results of elections."
I don't remember any accusations of fraud in 1988, 1984, 1980. I remember Republicans complaining about 1960, though, many still do. Could they not imagine that people would elect their opponents, or did they think had a valid complaint?
If there wasn't actually a case for fraud, then you might have a point. But since there is, you can't attribute such complaints to "elitism" or whatever other idiotic excuse you want to cook up. It's like someone stole your car, and the police tell you you're just upset because you don't like public transportation. Yeah, that's the reason.
Why is it that when welfare fraud is discovered that people get so upset about it? Why not just get over it and accept what's happened? If someone steals your identity and spends your money, why don't you just accept that result? Why whine about it? It doesn't really matter if people get things they don't deserve while taking them away from people that do, obviously.
If anyone should get over something, it should be you getting over your blind denial of this fraud. You won't address the specifics, you just dismiss the entire thing out of hand for some reason. You grow up and deal with the reality of the situation instead of acting like a four-year old throwing a fit because some people want honest elections in this country.
A case for fraud? Is that the best you've got? Sorry, need more than that, like actual criminal convictions where results are overturned because of verifiable fraud, how about that? Otherwise, sour grapes and whining.
And if you can't see the relevance of only complaining about election fraud when you lose, and are noticeably silent when the results are in your favor, then you are the delusional one, not me.
Oh, and if you have to back nearly 50 years for an example of Republican whining, then you also don't have much there either.
Basically, your post is just more of the same that we have all heard for 8 years, isn't it time to move on?
"A case for fraud? Is that the best you've got? Sorry, need more than that, like actual criminal convictions where results are overturned because of verifiable fraud, how about that? Otherwise, sour grapes and whining."
No, criminal convictions are not necessary to assert wrongdoing. What a ridiculous comment, as if anybody who committed fraud couldn't possibly get away with it.
"And if you can't see the relevance of only complaining about election fraud when you lose, and are noticeably silent when the results are in your favor, then you are the delusional one, not me."
Well, explain it then. Why would anyone complain when they win? Do tell.
"Oh, and if you have to back nearly 50 years for an example of Republican whining, then you also don't have much there either...Basically, your post is just more of the same that we have all heard for 8 years, isn't it time to move on?"
That was the last close election, wasn't it? Explain what difference the time makes. Were they whining or weren't they? Were there criminal convictions and overturned results in that election? Your post is more of the same head-in-the-sand defense of Bush. Why don't you just move on instead of posting your knee-jerk idiocy?
So, accusations of wrongdoing and fraud are enough for you? Due process is irrelevant if it doesn't feed into your conspiracy theories, is that what you're saying? Apparently so. We are to accept fraud at face value because of some gut feeling of yours? Sorry, we as a country deal in proof and facts, not conjecture.
And yes, winning or losing elections should be secondary to preserving the process and standing up for what's right and wrong. Obviously you are saying if you win just keep your mouth shut then, only moan when you lose.
You have just confirmed everything I said.
"So, accusations of wrongdoing and fraud are enough for you? Due process is irrelevant if it doesn't feed into your conspiracy theories, is that what you're saying? Apparently so. We are to accept fraud at face value because of some gut feeling of yours? Sorry, we as a country deal in proof and facts, not conjecture."
You can have facts without convictions. Just because action hasn't been taken doesn't mean it's not deserved. You always ignore the evidence and then call it a "gut feeling". Ridiculous.
"And yes, winning or losing elections should be secondary to preserving the process and standing up for what's right and wrong. Obviously you are saying if you win just keep your mouth shut then, only moan when you lose."
I can see your reaction now:"These guys whine even when they win, how are we supposed to take them seriously when they lose?" That sounds just about like you, doesn't it?
Action has not been taken because of the lack of evidence to support a conviction. The same goes for all allegations that are too weak to warrant actionable prosecutorial proceedings - in other words, a weak case.
If you want to continue furthering your "weak case", by all means do so.
But don't expect reasonable people to follow you down your road toward liberal conspiracy lala land, it always ends up at a dead end.
"Action has not been taken because of the lack of evidence to support a conviction. The same goes for all allegations that are too weak to warrant actionable prosecutorial proceedings - in other words, a weak case."
Baseless assertion. You have yet to ever demonstrate in any way how it's weak. Out-of-hand dismissals do not count.
"If you want to continue furthering your "weak case", by all means do so. But don't expect reasonable people to follow you down your road toward liberal conspiracy lala land, it always ends up at a dead end."
Why are you putting "weak case" in quotes? That's your term. Reasonable people know that it's not childish to point out illegal action and probably can admit that people who are related to Bush and work for him are not objective. You're the last person who should be talking as a representative of reason.
You call a prosecutor an avalanche chaser?!?!
This time I bet you vote for the warmonger who votes against vet benefits, right?
COLUMBUS' dismissive "trophy husband" applies to McCain as much as Kerry.
"Ooops!", said the rightwinger.
Jesus, you are so stupid, Columbus. So someone who, in your view, is not intellectually competent to count to three, who shouldn't be allowed to vote, is supposed to be competent enough to manage the complex affair of holding down a job and paying bills? They are supposed to magically have the capacity to fend for themselves? I think you know people with such disabilities would end up living on the street if there were no support for them.
I know your stock answer will be, "then families, not me, need to take responsibility and care for their own problems." And you would be half way correct. Parents have responsibilities to their kids. However, you're going to have to realize that families who are living in this cut throat, market fundamentalist economy that gives employers a pass on paying a living wage and makes medical security a commodity, need help fulfilling their obligations.
Arrow #3....3rd hole down the ballot....right next to arrow #3. Christ man, even elementary school kids can take tests on scan-tron sheets to fill in the corresponding bubble. If you cannot do that, then yes, you are an idiot.
You should probably do some internet surfing for comebacks...you're definately lacking in that area son.
True, you only defend the retarded cowboy riding his stick pony in the oval office.
They are pretty much one and the same in my book.........sorry, had to duck away from the pc for a second, was under sniper fire.
If you need help with that, Im sure one of the "bitter" gun lovers targeting Obama will be glad to assist you.
"You voted for the dumbest president ever not once but twice."-Loonz
If this is indeed so, it is only because the alternatives were such poor choices.
So you're admitting that Bush LOST the 2000 election, and only because of stupid voters did he take office.
Thanks, I've been saying he lost for over 7 years.
so basically the person counting the first time was also a moron.
Machines counted the first time.
"Who told you that the people whose votes were thrown out were the same people counting the votes?-Loonz
What he meant was that both the person counting and the person voting are both human and thus both have a presumably similar capacity for error.
Why do you continue to expose the sheer childishness of your political convictions with such jibes? DO you realize that by presenting a contrary point without explaining why it is true is a waste of the energy it takes for me to point this out?
If you reeeaally, think about it, you may just find that i was right and you were wrong.
What we should do is replace the counting machines with environmentally friendly, "green" machines. Thus they could do no wrong.
That my good fellow, is conservative satire. i do not expect you to appreciate the humor, seeing as it is directed at liberals such as yourself.
Ah.
So, conservative satire is lame and witless.
Good to know.
No, conservative satire is actually hard to appreciate if yours are the beliefs/behaviors bieng satirized.
Problem is--THE VOTES WERE NEVER FULLY RE-COUNTED !!!
Count the votes, or live in a Dictatorship.
And you can buy votes with government handouts. But neither discounts the facts of easily punching a number corresponding bubble on a ballot.
Yup. Thats what I base my entire life on....trying to make life hell for gays. Personally, you're mighty distracted from reality as many repubilcans could care less about gay issues. In fact, I say let them get married and deal with the same miserable b.s that heterosexual people deal with...divorce, alimony, child support, etc.
The "republicans hate gays" rhetoric is getting a bit outdated, as its not that huge of an issue anymore.
Yup. Thats what I base my entire life on....trying to make life hell for gays.
This is basically the conservative platform.
The "republicans hate gays" rhetoric is getting a bit outdated, as its not that huge of an issue anymore.
It may be a bit dated but it's true.
Well, being the "compassionate" people that you "say" you are...you are awfully good at generalizing each person in a group.
Not all republicans have a problem with gay marriage or low income people. We just dont want to give our hard earned money to them.
Well, being the "compassionate" people that you "say" you are...you are awfully good at generalizing each person in a group.
Who said I was compassionate?
Not all republicans have a problem with gay marriage or low income people. We just dont want to give our hard earned money to them.
Yes, I'm fimilar with the conservative motto: "Greediness is next to godliness".
"Greediness is next to godliness".
Well it had to be changed for a reason. Because the "cleanliness is next to godliness" line certainly wouldn't apply to dirty hippies. lol
"...you are awfully good at generalizing each person in a group."-Columbus
This is only to avoid discrimination. For you see, a liberal cannot tolerate any form of discriminatory thought in their systems. thus they are incapable of discriminating between what is good and bad, right or wrong, republican or democrat etc.
Conservatives cant stand any kind of logic or reality. Its because they are morons.
Wow. So much said, in so few words.
Loonz:
Personal responsibility is an elitist attitude? Whatever you say.
"I've seen the ballot. If it was illegal then how could it have been used? Didn't Democrats approve the ballot, I've read that they did."
What "Democrats" are you talking about, exactly? One person whose party affiliation very well might have been based solely on convenience? Where did you read this?
Illegal is illegal. The fact that it happened doesn't make it otherwise, no matter who approved it. I've read that the Secretary of State was the co-chair of Bush's Florida campaign, and I also heard that the Governor was Bush's brother. Did you know that? Of course you did, so acting like there's no way an illegal ballot could have possibly been used is farcical. As if we're supposed to believe these people are completely objective, and nothing improper could possibly slip past their diligent and even-handed supervision. Hilarious.
"All these arguments above about intent. The only way I buy any of it is if a voter asked an election official and was told to do an incorrect thing. Otherwise, exercise your personal responsibility and do it correctly. It's not that difficult."
So it doesn't matter if it's illegal, it only matters if someone is directly told to mark the wrong hole. The mind boggles.
What I think you're missing here is that the ballot's confusing nature and illegality are not coincidental. That's exactly why it's illegal. Even more obviously, if it's not standard, then nobody is accustomed to seeing it. People are going to look at it the same way they look at the usual ballot, because that's what they're used to. The fact is it shouldn't be "not that difficult", it should be "not difficult". The concept of "personal responsibility" does not absolve the state government of its responsibility to follow the law and provide a ballot that makes all efforts to avoid confusion.
I'm sure if this stunt happened under the watch of a Democratic Secretary of State and Governor in favor of a Democrat, where Republican voters were confused by an illegal ballot, you'd be preaching personal responsibility in an effort to excuse the inexcusable. I just bet.
Oh please, you act like Florida is some totalitarian state run by thugs who lied, cheated and did whatever they felt like to get their leader, Bush, elected.....talk about conspiratorial, whining nonsense.
If the ballots were illegal, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the Democrats in the state to work within state election laws, and get it fixed...get it legal. If they were lazy, or derelict in their elected duty to maintain above the board, legal and fair elections, they ought to be ashamed. They deserve no sympathy, but scorn for allowing illegal ballots of any kind to be used anywhere in their state. Yes, personal responsibility.
Instead they lose and then complain about illegal this, or illegal that......stop acting like 3rd graders and grow up.
"Oh please, you act like Florida is some totalitarian state run by thugs who lied, cheated and did whatever they felt like to get their leader, Bush, elected.....talk about conspiratorial, whining nonsense."
No, I act like Bush's brother and campaign co-chair aren't objective participants in the process. Just because you bury your head in the sand at every opportunity no matter what is said about Florida, that doesn't mean there wasn't actually cheating. And if you can't question the motives of people with such obvious conflicts of interest without being a conspiracy nut, then it's literally impossible to accuse anyone of cospiring anywhere. "You're saying this suspect's wife and best friend are lying to give him an alibi? Impossible! Conspiratorial nonsense!"
"If the ballots were illegal, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the Democrats in the state to work within state election laws, and get it fixed...get it legal. If they were lazy, or derelict in their elected duty to maintain above the board, legal and fair elections, they ought to be ashamed. They deserve no sympathy, but scorn for allowing illegal ballots of any kind to be used anywhere in their state. Yes, personal responsibility."
Why isn't it the responsibility of the Secretary of State, since that's the person who oversees the election? She's the one who allowed it, so where's her personal responsibility in your opinion? Again, who are these Democrats who had oversight over the office of the Secretary of State and the Governor? I really want to know.
"Instead they lose and then complain about illegal this, or illegal that......stop acting like 3rd graders and grow up."
If you can cite the "lazy Democrats" who allowed this to happen, then you might have some semblance of a point. But where is the accountability for Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush? The argument here seems to be that it's fine to break statutory law, because it's the fault of some unnamed others to stop you from doing it. Funny, I thought legality was sort of a valid concern. Apparently it's just childishness to be concerned about the rule of law now, since it conflicts with your almighty denial of Republican wrongdoing. Amazing.
What's conspiratorial nuttiness is leveling charges without proof, over and over and over again, for 8 years; whining about political allegiances and rigged elections because you can't accept defeat like a responsible adult political party........that is conspiratorial nuttiness, your weak and irrelevant analogies notwithstanding.
How many times do I have to ask this:Who are these Democrats who had oversight over the Governor and Secretary of State?
Every time someone goes into specifics, you dismiss them out of hand. So for you to talk about evidence is laughable. You have shown over and over again that you have no interest in making an honest evaluation of the situation, choosing to defend Bush blindly instead.
That is weak. Make an actual argument, or just shut the hell up.
When you can't defend your theories beyond your blustering you say "shut the hell up".
Ok then.
If you can't answer the question, then you don't have an argument. If you don't have an argument, then you're just having a knee-jerk "whiner" reaction because you don't want to acknowledge the validity of the complaint, and that's not creating any meaningful discussion.
If you can't have a meaningful discussion, shut the hell up. That seems fair.
So, you want to throw up another liberal conspiracy theory regarding rigged elections, toss out all sorts on unproven allegations and pie-in-the-sky lawless possibilities by certain political operatives or politicians that are polar opposites from your ideological positions showing your clear agenda, where a president was thus elected that you despise with all the partisan hatred you can muster........and you want me to sit there and go point by point against your conspiratorial scenarios and dramatizations?
You're serious, aren't you? Wow.
I want you to tell me who these supposed Democrats are that had oversight over Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Your entire argument about the responsibility for the illegal butterfly ballot rests on that.
What I'd really like is for you to make a sensible argument at some point. You don't have any grounds to make declarations about the rationality of other people's arguments when all you can do is spout nonsense about how some unnamed group of Democrats is to blame for everything that Republicans did, how Dems should whine when they win, how pointing out illegality is childish, how noting that people with very strong connections to a candidate aren't objective is nutty conspiracy talk, and how anyone who doesn't agree with your blind defense is a dishonest elitist.
Are you any better than a troll? I don't see how on this thread. Make an actual argument, or develop some sense of self-awareness. Please.
Trolls are people who throw out baseless, unproven allegations and prop them up as facts in order to make their weak and ridiculous arguments palatable.
Sorry, unless you can prove the drivel you are spouting, I said prove, not cast doubt, then you are just trolling. Without it a jury, or a judge, would throw it out on its ear......so unless you can backup what you claim, your allegations are as hollow as your arguments, and just more whining.
You can haul out all your insults you feel like Brab, if that's all you've got.......you just look desperate.
"Trolls are people who throw out baseless, unproven allegations and prop them up as facts in order to make their weak and ridiculous arguments palatable."
Like arguing that Democrats are the ones to blame for the actions of Bush and Harris, without being able to say who those Democrats are? Who are those Democrats, again?
"Sorry, unless you can prove the drivel you are spouting, I said prove, not cast doubt, then you are just trolling. Without it a jury, or a judge, would throw it out on its ear......so unless you can backup what you claim, your allegations are as hollow as your arguments, and just more whining."
It's impossible to prove something if you're not open-minded about it. You have no interest in the evidence that's been given to you for years, and you're going to start now? As for me trolling, go screw yourself. I've always made genuine arguments, and you have no grounds to say otherwise here. Throwing out strawmen about being elitist or overwhelmed by partisan hatred don't mean anything.
"You can haul out all your insults you feel like Brab, if that's all you've got.......you just look desperate."
Sure, "Poodle", whatever you say. "What a tool", obviously your mother didn't raise you properly. Meanwhile, if you don't have any valid arguments, then you are actually being a troll, so you can't really "whine" about being insulted.
BRAB:
The overarching problem with the election of 2000 was that "THE SYSTEM" was not ALLOWED to work.
THE SYSTEM calls for all eligible voters to be allowed to vote. Jeb Bush and Harris conspired with a Texas "list making" outfit to disenfranchise thousands of Florida voters who were legal and eligible to vote, because their name were "on the list" (IN ERROR). The outcome? Harris said, in essence, "oops", and nothing happened to correct the situation.
THE SYSTEM called for hand counting votes if the election was close. The election was VERY close in Florida. The votes were NOT ALLOWED to be recounted.
THE SYSTEM called for a "clear intent of the voter" standard. That was voided, because recounting the votes was ended. Bush "won" by the original machine count, which was proven fatally flawed.
THE SYSTEM called for late absentee ballots to be disallowed. By playing on pro-troop sentiments, the GOP were allowed to count late ballots, against the clear law as written.
THE SYSTEM makes it a felony to interfere in the election process and vote counting. DeLay sent a mob from Washington D.C. to disrupt the vote counting in Florida, and they SUCCEEDED. Yet, there was no punishment, no indictments, no nothing.
THE SYSTEM makes it a crime for a precinct to favor one party/candidate over another. In Seminole county, GOP ops had full access to absentee ballots, while Dems were not. After trial, it was found this was INDEED a gross violation of the law ... but that there was no possible "remedy". Nothing was done.
THE SYSTEM called for state voting disputes to be settled in the STATE court. The Supreme Court intervened, and with no jurisdiction.
THE SYSTEM called for disputes about the seating of delegates to be settled by CONGRESS. This is CLEAR in the Constitution. The Supreme Court cut this off, by determining a national election by a vote of 5 conservatives versus 4.
THE SYSTEM must be defended and protected, or else we descend into chaos. The problem with the election of 2000 was that the SYSTEM was systematically DISREGARDED by those who wished to have BUSH win.
We Democrats BELIEVE in honoring the SYSTEM. And the SYSTEM failed in 2000. THAT is the problem. Bush was illegitimate from the git-go. And he's proven to be a terrible president. The voting public, who went MAJORITY for Gore, had it right. The conspirators for Bush hijacked the election process, and have harmed America immeasurably.
"Get over it"? No friggin' way.
Brab,
It is absolulely about intense partisan hatred, or some overprotectiveness of your Democratic party, which is it?
I have made my criticisms against the party, the Democratic party, and its loyalists who won't stop whining and move on about Florida. Yet, you take it so personally that you last out like a child and tell me to "shut the hell up", call me a "troll", and then say "go screw yourself". And you have the audacity to sit there with your pompous, arrogant attitude and tell me you argue honestly; when you're so personally offended by my criticisms of a national political party that you offer up those "honest" and adult expletives towards me, for daring to be critical of your party.
Absolutely, undeniably, your retorts and namecalling either display a very unhealthy overprotectiveness of a national political party that criticism is met with gutter insults, or you are filled with so much hatred for the "other" side, you can't see straight.
You tell me.
"It is absolulely about intense partisan hatred, or some overprotectiveness of your Democratic party, which is it?"
It's about wanting fair elections, and your dishonest arguments.
"I have made my criticisms against the party, the Democratic party, and its loyalists who won't stop whining and move on about Florida. Yet, you take it so personally that you last out like a child and tell me to "shut the hell up", call me a "troll", and then say "go screw yourself". And you have the audacity to sit there with your pompous, arrogant attitude and tell me you argue honestly; when you're so personally offended by my criticisms of a national political party that you offer up those "honest" and adult expletives towards me, for daring to be critical of your party."
Pompous and arrogant? You are the one who attributed any disagreement with your wholesale dismissal as being "elitist". That's the only explanation in your mind, never mind the actual circumstances that warrant such discussion. If someone dares to express the radical notion that someone who works for Bush might not be all that interested in fixing an illegal ballot problem that favors Bush, then obviously they're whining elitists. And you talk about being pompous, arrogant, overprotective of someone? The projection is simply unbelievable.
"Absolutely, undeniably, your retorts and namecalling either display a very unhealthy overprotectiveness of a national political party that criticism is met with gutter insults, or you are filled with so much hatred for the "other" side, you can't see straight...You tell me."
If you have a valid criticism, go for it. Don't spout this crap about "elitism" and all the other idiotic arguments you are now unable to defend and then act as if your criticism is fair or reasonable. It isn't. You got called out on it, you can't defend your bogus arguments, so you have to try to attribute it to some partisan hatred when you're the one who labeled Democrats in the first place.
Do you have something intelligent to say in response? I doubt it.
My post stands.
You took it to a personal level with your "go screw yourself" childish insults and now you aren't even man enough to take responsibility for it, how sad. You have no moral authority to lecture anyone, particularly me, when it is you acting like a bratty 12 year old.
If you can't handle criticisms of your political party without name calling, perhaps you should do yourself a favor and not respond to me.
Have a nice day.
I have no problem taking responsibility for saying that to you. For you to say I'm "trolling" when I'm making a very clear and simple point is unacceptable. It has nothing to do with "defending the party", and I have no idea where you're pulling that from.
If you don't like the response, don't act like a jackass. You know me well enough by now that when you're reasonable, so am I. But when you go out of your way to create strawmen and attribute ridiculous ulterior motives to me, then I'm not going to tolerate it.
Get over it.
And it only confirms what many already know.
That liberals argue from emotion. Conservatives argue from facts.
Signed,
Your "trolling, shut the hell up, go screw yourself, jackass". (Did I cover them all, or do you have more?)
The ballot may have been different than what people were used to but....
If a person is so stupid that they cannot punch a dot next to the big arrow, or make the correlation of the arrow number and the the number of holes down the ballot, then that person's vote scares the hell out of me anyway - because the thought of them making this country's decisions are just downright absurd.
The thought of idiots who haven't got a pot to pi$$ voting Republican
I'm fairly certain that the overwhelming majority do NOT vote Republican. Anyone without a pot to pi$$ in is looking for a government hand out and the democrats are their best friends.
IMO....
1. Promoting Free Market economy.
2. Lower Taxes.
3. Hard stance on illegal immigration.
"1. Promoting Free Market economy.
2. Lower Taxes.
3. Hard stance on illegal immigration."
None of these issues are EXCUSIVELY CONSERVATIVE, try again. I'm asking you to convince me that Conservatives have good, admirable qualities/traits that are not present in Liberals. Please, give me just one or two.
Well seeing as how I am not a registered republican at all, and dont agree with everyting that "conservatives" by nature stand for, what is the point of me defending them?
However, one quality in a conservative that I like is that they dance around in the streets of san francisco in pink tootoo's promoting pot smoking and throwing eggs at soccer moms who drive SUV's.
"Well seeing as how I am not a registered republican at all, and dont agree with everyting that "conservatives" by nature stand for, what is the point of me defending them?"--Columbus1492
--------INDEED !
You guys are just too easy--and I'm outta here, see ya.
The point is, Rick, that I dont blindly defend or follow anyone. I have items that are important to me, its just happens that republicans stances are more in line with mine on a majority of them. However not all. Therefore, I will not committ myself to them.
"None of these issues are EXCUSIVELY CONSERVATIVE..." -Therick
Only that these issues are PREDOMINANTLY conservative in that they are considered in a manner i find to be accurate.
Well, i really cannot make such generalizations, since i do not know every convervative (and likewise every liberal) there ever was and thus i cannot ascertain whether they had the particular qualities i would otherwise outline.
however, i shall list traits that are PREDOMINANTLY conservative, these being a sense of nationalism, the realization of the relativism of dogma, and common sense.
"i shall list traits that are PREDOMINANTLY conservative, these being a sense of nationalism, the realization of the relativism of dogma, and common sense."
All of which are PREDOMINANTLY Liberal traits as well. One could also demonstrate that they are PREDOMINANT in Communism, Socialism, and Fascism. Many forms of government and many social systems lay claim to all of these.
Try again.
First, i must establish the fact that i am referring to contemporary liberals. Although some "liberals" are true nationalists, they are few and far in between, thus that trait is not "predominantly liberal."
The thing is that you cannot take credit for everything in history that was titled "liberalism," The beliefs you hold are rarely congruent with those of liberals of the past.
And finally, if liberals had any common sense, they'd be conservatives.
FIN:
"TRAITS" of "conservatives" seem to be NATIONALISM and support for "FREE TRADE".
In practice, these are mutually exclusive. NATIONALISTS seek advantage in every arena, including trade. A "ME FIRST" attitude towards trade is by definition in direct opposition to "FREE" trade.
Another example is the borders. Today's CONSERVATIVE is delighted to have a ready source of cheap labor who are compliant and make no demands on their bosses (lest they be deported). This is why BUSH is such an open-border guy, and why his stance is supported by a wide array of "businesses" and individuals who have grown to rely on cheap illegal workers. "Nationalist conservatives" want the borders shut down, and they vote for Republicans who in RHETORIC support closed borders, but in PRACTICE are just fine with that cheap labor source.
So you're really screwed. You're voting against your own best interests, or you are failing to see what really happens when you put Republicans in office. You're convinced that Democrats will not help you, but you've had demonstrated in no uncertain terms that Republicans will HARM you. Yet you keep seeing Republicans as the answers to your concerns. Because of their RHETORIC.
It's OK. Abused women often stick with their abusive spouse, hoping that some day they will change, and convincing themselves that "he really loves me." And so goes your love affair with Republicans. It's just sad.
"First, i must establish the fact that i am referring to contemporary liberals. Although some "liberals" are true nationalists, they are few and far in between,"--Finarfin
How did you come to that conclusion? That's simply a right wing talking point with no basis in fact.
"...you cannot take credit for everything in history that was titled "liberalism," The beliefs you hold are rarely congruent with those of liberals of the past."--Finarfin
I won't say Liberalism gets credit for everything in the past, just the good things. I also said it always wins. It always has, because you can't fight progress.
"And finally, if liberals had any common sense, they'd be conservatives."--Finarfin
Nice argument there sport. Your common sense has revealed itself in the failures of the last 7 years. You'd think someone with common sense wouldn't hand over a blank check to a retarded cowboy. These common sense jackasses have partnered in morally and financially gutting our country. These oh-so-smart voters have participated in destrying another country, and killing more than 4000 of our soldiers.
Yeah, you guys sure have common sense.
THERICK:
You can't really blame Rightwingers. See, they BELIEVED Bush when he said he was opposed to nation building. They BELIEVED Bush when he said he would bring change to the White House making it open and accountable. They BELIEVED Bush when he said he would be fiscally responsible. They BELIEVED Bush when he said he was for smaller government. The BELIEVED Bush when he said he was a uniter, not a divider. The BELIEVED Bush when he said he would shepherd in a new era of compassionate conservativism.
Bush LIED to these poor believers, and they got shafted. Betrayed.
Once in office Bush continued his lying to encompass such things as WMDs and mushroom clouds. We Liberals were not surprised; we knew Bush to be a LIAR from the start. But those, line FIN here, have "common sense" that is uncommonly WRONGHEADED.
They have a choice of how to describe how their "common sense" utterly failed. They are either dangerously naive, willfully ignorant, pitifully gullible, or just plain stupid. (When the Dems BELIEVED Bush about WMDs, I would categorize that as "pitifully gullible", believing the sitting president.)
They were warned, but did not listen. They could recognize the MEDIA complicity to give Bush a pass, and realize their guy had actually gotten NO vetting. They could have recognized the SWIFT BOAT guys HAD ZERO PROOF of their charges. They could have noted that GORE did not say the things the press said he said. But, in their "common sense", they decided to saddle America with Bush, and in turn they rendered any claim they might have to "common sense", MOOT. They have NONE, no sense at all.
So much for "elitism" and "being out of touch with the average American"--Stewie (Family Guy) Griffin had perhaps the best such putdown (you may still recall it):
This thing is beginning to remind me of the Wright episode, another day another media feeding frenzy that will blow over.
Obama needs to be less contrite, and I just hope he isn't over estimating the intelligence of the American people, like he might have with his speech about racism, because what he said about the bitterness was accurate and on target.
I just hope he isn't over estimating the intelligence of the American people
Werner, that's sort of been my perception of it. After Obama made his speech addressing the Wright issue, Jon Stewart made a comment about a politician talking about race as if we're adults.
Obama's recent comments about some small town voters is being framed as condescending,elitist and out of touch. I saw them as a rare example of a pol being pretty straightforward, not resorting to platitudes and feel good talk about Great Americans.
I consider myself a pretty regular working guy, middle class. I spent a lot of my younger days drinking beer and playing pool, and ran across pretty sharp people as well as complete idiots in my circle. I'm not that educated, I'm not rich, don't think I've ever been called "elite", but I think the media is full of so many elite, educated morons they can't help projecting onto "regular Americans".
LAURA BUSH has weighed in on what they will do upon leaving office. They're going back to live ... in DALLAS.
And they went to such effort to show how much of a rancher Bush was, with his Crawford spread, and the clearing brush nonsense.
His "COWBOY" persona, so carefully staged, must've WORKED, because he did get two terms as president. But it was all a LIE. A SHAM.
The one thing Republicans know well, and that's how easily voters are FOOLED by image manipulation. Now we have a "MAVERICK" running.
Not really. The first election I supported Bush. At the beginning of the second election I also supported Bush. But somewhere around the end of 2005 my opinion of him started to change. Im actually starting to think that I wish McCain would have gotten the nomination in 2000 or 2004.
So, in essence, it on took you FIVE YEARS to figure out what the rest of us already knew.
I don't think a person of your caliber should be allowed to vote.
Well, i think theres about 48% of the people who voted bush have changed their opinions of him, so thats why I say they shouldnt vote either...according to your logic.
And as for why it took so long for me not to like Bush....because until then, he didnt try to grant amnesty .... then he agreed to attend the Kyoto meetings. What a wash those are.
Not rolling back environmental regulations which protect our air, water, and land. Not allowing corporations to loot the treasury and outsource jobs at an unprecedented rate.
Unbelievable.
What's galling ... and humorous in a way ... is the EXACT SAME people who were telling us how great Bush was going to be, supporting and defending him, attacking others who dared criticize him (Dixie Chicks), are now repentant. They don't REALLY support Bush any more, they wish someone else had won the nomination, they're disappointed to find he's not really their kind of "conservative".
How does that repentance reveal itself?
That's the funny part. As if nothing had happened, they are STILL experts on politics, and who is good and who is crap. The DEMS are still the villains, and the GOP guy, McCain, is the new savior. We can BELIEVE the same folks who saddled us with Bush, because ... well, because they TELL us so. They say THEY are the smart ones, the savvy one, the ones in touch with the American people. THEY know what's best for America (they told us, remember, it was BUSH for a decade now). Now they're ready to extend their run of "intelligent" political analysis, and instruct America what's really BEST for us.
I don't know about the rest of you, but once a person has proven beyond any doubt that their JUDGMENT is terrible, their thought processes are wacked, and their predictions are consistently WRONG ... I don't listen to them AT ALL, as they pontificate about ANY subject.
The BUSH BACKERS are BACK, and they've got a NEW pony in the race. The BLOWHARDS are still blowing, and hard, and it's the exact same ill wind that blew Bush into the White House. These people have ZERO credibility, and if they had any pride or common sense, they'd shut the hell up.
As an Obama supporter, I want to agree with the Senator that those poor dumb boobs who live in small towns only cling to their stupid religion and guns and blame NAFTA for their troubles because of their bitter and idiotic feelings.
But that does NOT make Obama an elitist. It makes him a panderer. And this is what we really need in the White House.
Go Obama!!
I wouldn't call them poor dumb boobs and neither would Obama. They just have their anger misplaced. They should start placing the blame where it belongs: on conservative economic policies; and they should stop voting for people like McCain who admits that economics perplexes him.
Most voters agree with liberal policies. Conservatives are way out of the mainstream of America.
If you think about it, really THINK about it, you'll realize that, almost without exception, the liberals have always been right. It just takes conservatives fifty years to admit it.
So let me get this right....if a democrat is in office, we wont be living paycheck to paycheck, wont have any debt, and people will all the sudden become brilliant financial planners? Sorry, not going to happen.
It'll happen gradually if people start voting for economic populists instead of the candidates who are against "the gays".
I gotta' disagree with you, Kevino.
Franklin Roosevelt was undoubtedly the greatest American President of the 20th Century. Even now... some 64 years after his death... Republicans are STILL whining and kvetching about him.
The arc of their intellectual growth flat-lined somewhere around 1920.
NAC,
Ready to discuss McCain's voting record yet or are you still too busy being a clown?
friedbergboy1422
Ready to discuss McCain's voting record yet or are you still too busy being a clown?
First, I do try to stick to the carefully crafted topics at MMFA, and avoid getting "off topic". But I wouldn't mind discussing McCain's voting record - but I'm not really an expert on that topic being an Obama supporter and all.
Go Obama!
On the other topic, I gave you links of him voting against vets' benefits. In fact, I gave the links to you on more than one thread. You accused me of saying McCain hates the troops which I never did. I posted them on another thread where it was relevant and you, again, declined to discuss them with me.
Why?
friedbergboy1422
FYI - as someone who comes to MMFA with a "minority" position, I am barraged with numerous challenges. To be honest, the topics move to fast that I'm not able to trace every thread where I post - and soon they get archived. Many times I simply have to let things go.
Anyway, you bring up McCain's voting record. OK, have a discussion. Why do you think McCain votes the way he does?
You want my position? I think that as a Vet himself McCain probably wants to do the best for the troops that he can.
What exactly is your point about McCain. I don't really have time to guess.
Oh, and GO OBAMA!!
Your ignorance of McCain's voting record against Veteran's benefits proves that you don't know what you're talking about.
You may think this is all great fun, but when Bush/Cheney/McSame's policies finally come home to roost for you in the most direct way possible, you may realize that this isn't a game. (Even then, you might not see the connection)
I really only like to respond to honest questions. And I'm not going to waste my time on trivial issues.
enough said
Poof! And with that, another wingnut cuts and runs...
Obama supporter my azz.....
So, atually voting against supporting our troops is trivial. You guys are amazing.
NAC, Here are your posts:
friedbergboy1422
I'd love to answer that question - but first tell me why you think that I would be impressed by that hack web site you linked to just because they pinned the word "veterans" to the title?
Oh, and Go OBAMA!!
friedbergboy1422:
Are you seriouisly suggesting that someone who served his nation with as much distinction as McCain "hates" the troops?
Is this really the brilliant strategy you have? Is this really all you got!
I think that most people would find that assertion to be pretty bogus unless you had, oh I don't know, maybe video of his preacher screaming and cussing like a wild-eyed crazyass, "God Damn AmeriKKKa" or video of his priveledged wife talking about how much she hates this nation and was never proud of it.
Go Obama!
From another thread:
friedbergboy1422
I'm afraid that you caught me at a bad time. But I'm going to have that answer in the mail for you first thing in the morning.
Honest.
And from a third:
friedbergboy1422
I'm going to just be honest with - I'm afraid! You are such a genius that I'm worried that I'll just be crushed by your brilliant logic. Obviously, most of the other people who post at MMFA are just dumb. But not you. You're smart.
You have been confronted with this information, you gave your word you would respond and have ducked any type of reasonable discussion at every turn. Why?
NAC,
I posted numerous links over and over for you. One of your posts said that you were "afraid" of me.
McCain, in the past 8 years, has consistently voted against more Federal benefits for vets which directly goes against your post on this thread that he looks out for them. You criticized the link I gave so I put every single link from the linked article and you got out of it by saying you were "afraid" of my links etc and opted out. You were aware of the links, you acknowledged them and wouldn't read them after saying you would be happy to explain your political philosophy after I explained the link. I did, you didn't. Here they are again:
In 2007, McCain only showed up for 4 of the 14 Iraq votes. He was the only political candidate to miss one vote on Iraq, much less 10:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccains-missed-votes-on-iraq-trigger-reid-rebuke-2007-05-17.html
In September 2007, he voted against specified times between deployments for the troops:
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00341
He was only one of two Senators to MISS a vote about troop drawdowns
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00075
He voted against providing, with an offset, $20,000,000 for the Department of Veterans Affairs for Medical Facilities:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00111
He was one of ONLY 13 Senators to vote against an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00098
He voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00041
He voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00040
He voted to table this one which was To appropriate $1, 047,000,000 for procurement for the National Guard and Reserves.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00116
To provide an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00376
In August 2001, he voted against this one:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00263
McCain has consistently voted against increasing federal benefits to vets. When I brought this up on another thread, you accused me of saying that McCain hated the troops and Vets which I NEVER said. Then you just said that you were "scared" and opted out of any serious discussion. To say you don't remember this is equally disingenuous as I brought it up to you on more than one thread and you decided to avoid it, why?
NAC,
Could you please respond to my honest question for you? You just said that you think McCain does all he can for vets and I posted his votes to the contrary. I have no idea why McCain votes this way, and maybe you should try to have some honest debate here.
You have promised to answer this more than once and you disappear. If you are here to encourage dialogue, at least try.
Obama needs to get with the program. Virtually all politicians are elites, but they have to pretend to be your regular average Joe (i.e. pander like there is no tomorrow).
I actually wonder how most people would react if Obama was as articulate and well-read as our current President. Would they find him more appealing?
This fella, Jonathan Martin must be a regular guy because he was on a national news show but he wan't wearing a tie. I think that's the real indicator of a newsman whose a regular guy. If he had a tie on I would have known that he was an elite newsman, but that no tie, open shirt thing said regular guy to me.
Wealthy Republican "pundits" know eletists when they see them.
After all, they do have mirrors.
Conservatives are getting away with a lot by allowing themselves that name.
Perhaps the Democrats are also getting away with alot by not naming themselves correctly....Socialist Party would be more on target.
Go back in history, and find one instance where Liberalism (progress) has lost out to Conservatism (regress/stagnation). You'll find that Liberalism always--always wins. Your biggest problem is that you have a very skewed view of what Liberalism actually represents. The media, led by Limbaugh and those like him, have done a very good job demonizing Liberals and Democrats. The last 7 years are hard proof of how Conservatism destroys Nations.
By the way, your view that Socialism=Liberalism is another Limbaugh and Republican skewed teaching (brainwash). Look around you, and you'll find many "socialistic" programs/services that produce a positive outcome for our society--programs/services that as individuals, would be impossible to afford or impliment.
Unregulated free market will never work for the good of society for many reasons. The proof is in the industries which have been deregulated during the Reagan administration. A few examples are airline falures, health care and drug industries which have become a luxury for the average U.S. citizen, and unavailable for the working poor.
I asked earlier if you could name good Conservative traits, and you couldn't. The fact is, Conservatives and Liberals basically have the same goals with different ideas about how to achieve them. You mentioned that you didn't want "your hard earned money" going to social programs. It makes me infer [your improper usage of 'infer' a couple of days ago was my first clue that you were Tommy, but the dead givaway was your "I could care less," another often improperly used Tommyism] that you believe these poor people just need to get a job, and quit being so lazy. To which I would ask; Where, and how, when there's no jobs to be found? It's swiftly becoming this way.
It's time for all of us to wake up and take good look around, and think of those who ARE WORKING, and doing the best they can to keep paying the price that enables the wealthiest to receive huge tax cuts. It's painfully obvious who's really getting the shaft.
So, what have we learned from "Columbus'" postings?
That he despises so-called Democratic elites while simultaneously supporting the interests of true economic and social elites who have busied themselves for the last 7 plus years with bleeding the economy dry by using the US government to transfer (through massive elites-oriented tax cuts, privatization, and unparalleled deficit spending) as much wealth as they can get their greedy, clutching, sociopathic hands on upwards to the people who already have the most and need it the least.
That... as a key element of his opposition to so-called Democratic elites... he would like to see people that he considers intellectually inferior to be disenfranchised.
That he despises poor and working class Americans.
That he is clueless about the definition of the term 'socialism', but merely resorts to parroting the bizarre and dishonest talking points of Limpbaugh, Insaninity, and O'Lielly that liberalism and socialism are synonymous terms.
That he is (or pretends to be) stunningly clueless about the level of out and out lies that the neo-con Bush Maladministration has been documented to have told in their hair-brained scheme to control the world's oil supply by militarily seizing much of the Middle East's oil reserves.
Anybody here convinced by his 'reasoning'?
Other than Fins and Justanotherconservative, that is.
He does make posts from time to time that are logical and even compassionate, but the majority are just nickpicking and argumentative and obtuse.
Socialist Party would be more on target.
No it wouldn't.
Jonathan Martin is clearly an elitist--like Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton! Does he not have a clue that Barack Obama was raised by a single mother and her working class parents in an apartment in Hawaii? And that Hillary Clinton was the product of an "elite" background--living in Lake Forest, Ill., with a father who was hardly working class? Both Obama and Clinton went to Ivy League Schools--Obama on scholarship, Hilllary not! Both went to Ivy League law schools, Obama on scholarship, Hillary not! Let's get real, people! Politics is politics, but the TRUTH is the TRUTH!!!!
Kate Madison, Depoe Bay, Oregon
Later on the same show, guest host Kitty Pilgrim asked Roland Martin and Errol Louis for their thoughts on how this will all play out .
Here's what Roland Martin said:
MARTIN: Look, the way this story is going to turn is all based upon exactly the people like me and Errol and others who are going to spin it. So talk radio, the folks on television, how do we somehow move it and shift it? That's what it's going to boil down to.
Wow .. what a revealing statement. Media matters indeed!
Socialism is a very politically charged word which elicits knee jerk reactions from many in the "conservative" school. If one means that Socialism means complete control by government of all economic resources, then i would say that is not the liberal position at all. If it means to give most people a chance to overcome challenging life problems by having a more level playing field, then that is closer. Concentrating the wealth of our nation in a small percentage of people who use their influence to make themselves richer is a right wing position that seems to make sense for only the very wealthy.
In our society today one must have housing, health care and transportation needs to met in order to survive and thrive. Liberals would like to give more people a chance to navigate these needs successfully.
Mediamatters is giving CNN's manufacture of bull-flop an open stretch to run its course without letting us lambast it here.
If anything is elitism and peerage and nepotistic despotism it is the Chilly-Willy ticket and their whole crown royal pedigree kink.