In the words of our beloved leader, "fool me once..."
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Never saw the movie, and dial up and video don't work that well together. Thus, the epiphany will have to escape my notice. However, as the race moves slowly and inexorably toward November, the list of legislative and declarative venal and mortal sins, betrayals and finesses will grow quite large, yet the facts will have no effect upon the vote, or very little. Also -- I am the very opposite of an intuition man in all things. I do find merit in subconscious connection of the dots however and will go along with that, but it is essentially a logical process. I do think your facts about Obama are unassailable {as of yet a rather thin catalog}, but the complete distrust you have for the man seems rather premature. He is, after all, a politician. One may only have a certain degree of faith, and no more, in this genus. Plainly, of the remaining viable candidates {I believe McCain is viable, but that may be an assumption} he would be be preferable under a wide range of analyses. We are looking for the least problematic result; we are not investigating a Beatification. Soon enough after the inauguration I am sure Obama will trip and maybe even have a bad fall. His honeymoon over, he and the country will have to deal with whatever sour realities come along. McCain would be in the same position. I seem to remember that George Bush was adamant about the fact that HE wouldn't be caught dead doing any nation building. Sincerely, were there a different candidate facing Obama I might be much more interested in seeing which one was the Janus. But no sense in going there with McCain. Let's pay attention to the next big question: what do Obama and McCain know about the mortgage bailout bill and when did they know it?
David - a great link I found on Juan Cole's blog on the ignorance of the American voter.
"One can't imagine Franklin Roosevelt being judged by how badly he bowled or how convincingly he knocked back a tumble of scotch. Indeed, studies show that the speeches presidents gave a half-century ago were pitched at the 12th-grade level - five grades above the level of speeches given by presidents over the last generation."
I tend to agree. Bush and the Republican Party have fostered a "What? Me Worry?" regime that has survived two elections. What we'll see in the next decade or so is the blistering, screaming hangover, which the President-elect will inherit come January 2009. This is why I felt that Hillary was the better candidate. She is steely and politically-talented enough to right the sinking ship herself while everybody else jumps overboard or plots mutiny.
4 comments:
Never saw the movie, and dial up and video don't work that well together.
Thus, the epiphany will have to escape my notice.
However, as the race moves slowly and inexorably toward November, the list of legislative and declarative venal and mortal sins, betrayals and finesses will grow quite large, yet the facts will have no effect upon the vote, or very little.
Also -- I am the very opposite of an intuition man in all things. I do find merit in subconscious connection of the dots however and will go along with that, but it is essentially a logical process.
I do think your facts about Obama are unassailable {as of yet a rather thin catalog}, but the complete distrust you have for the man seems rather premature. He is, after all, a politician. One may only have a certain degree of faith, and no more, in this genus.
Plainly, of the remaining viable candidates {I believe McCain is viable, but that may be an assumption} he would be be preferable under a wide range of analyses.
We are looking for the least problematic result; we are not investigating a Beatification.
Soon enough after the inauguration I am sure Obama will trip and maybe even have a bad fall. His honeymoon over, he and the country will have to deal with whatever sour realities come along. McCain would be in the same position.
I seem to remember that George Bush was adamant about the fact that HE wouldn't be caught dead doing any nation building.
Sincerely, were there a different candidate facing Obama I might be much more interested in seeing which one was the Janus. But no sense in going there with McCain.
Let's pay attention to the next big question: what do Obama and McCain know about the mortgage bailout bill and when did they know it?
David - a great link I found on Juan Cole's blog on the ignorance of the American voter.
"One can't imagine Franklin Roosevelt being judged by how badly he bowled or how convincingly he knocked back a tumble of scotch. Indeed, studies show that the speeches presidents gave a half-century ago were pitched at the 12th-grade level - five grades above the level of speeches given by presidents over the last generation."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/15/the_dumbing_down_of_voters/
Obama was a professor of constitutional law. He could very well have pitched his campaign at a much higher level. He knew that would not have worked.
All the positive energy that Bush has generated is going to be defused by Obama.
I tend to agree. Bush and the Republican Party have fostered a "What? Me Worry?" regime that has survived two elections. What we'll see in the next decade or so is the blistering, screaming hangover, which the President-elect will inherit come January 2009. This is why I felt that Hillary was the better candidate. She is steely and politically-talented enough to right the sinking ship herself while everybody else jumps overboard or plots mutiny.
Post a Comment