Redstate

hugging people, bowling with them, and smiling. Now, those people are all bitter racists, ticked off because they lost the factory, whatever factory, who knows?

Do not take offense, Brandon. Consider the source and ask yourself why it matters what the junior Senator from Illinois thinks of you. And redouble your effort to make sure that sort of man with his ugly and dangerous attitudes does not defeat John McCain.

he might have been hugging and smiling, but he was definitely NOT bowling!

he forfeited. He obviously would have struck out and gotten a 127.

That still wouldn't beat the average junior bowler in Michigan, but...

more proof of having lived in a leftist Chicago-northeast cocoon.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

as a member of the so called leftist Chicago cocoon I can assure you we have plenty of bowling alleys. We even have those cool midnight bowls that turn the strobe light on. If Obama wanted to get better at bowling he needed to only go a few blocks and practice.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

in Chicago (I can't remember the name of the place, however call me a nerd but I thought it was COOL)

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Dude,
my dad has a theory about bowling:

Throw the ball as hard as you can.

That's it. No technique.

I took this on a few years ago and I haven't bowled under a 160 since.

unless you can demonstrate a 200 bowling average from at least one PBA recognized league. That is a little-known fact.

quiting after 7 frames? That is so [sputter --sputter] UN-American!

Of course, bowling is a religion to these people, an opiate to distract from their innate bitterness at having to play ten-pin with an accomplished person of color while their waiting there in Allentown, while they're closing all the factories down. (The last was from a way old Billy Joel tune.)

The talk shows will eat the man alive for that utterance.

I think that you may have gotten the wrong idea about what this site is about.

Bye.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

his veins. see his dreams book

He clings to weather underground terrorists and a hate america preacher.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

...people that "cling to religion" are really just knuckle-dragging hayseed hicks straight out of "Deliverence".

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

who basically claim that they went to church but didn't inhale.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

But throw in a little Marxism, a little anti-white bigotry, well, at least he'll stay awake through the sermon.

Proudly supporting John S. McCain for President (McCain/Romney?)

I don't live in the country anymore as I'm going to school in Lincoln Nebraska. However, if I get a job pastoring a church in rural areas I will be quite happy and not bitter.

.

William Kristol, in his recent column, said that Obama has "a touch of Harvard disease". Now, I know exactly what Kristol was talking about.

And it doesn't get directly vectored through Harvard, either. There are a large group of alternative pathways for disease. In this case, I think it's actually Howard Dean and his "God, Guns and Gays" assessment of the South, which was later extended into "Race, God, Guns, and Gays" (Human Events had a very good article on it) and has now been sampled and internalized by the Obama campaign and applied nationwide to small towns everywhere.

On a campaign level I suppose this now signals that Obama is directly cribbing his campaign speeches from Howard Dean. Good or bad?

having gone to an Ivy League college. Some of us were already inoculated by the time we got to HLS.

I will say that...well, I went to law school with more than a few people exactly like Obama and his wife.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

And you want to be my President?

Sheesh.

If you didn't come from a small town, you know someone who did or still lives in one.

Unless your a liberal Democrat running for President.

This has better legs than the Wright stuff--because all anyone is going to hear is the "stupid rubes clinging to their guns, Bibles and hate."

No matter how he spins it, you ain't going to polish the turd of "you hicks only go to church 'cause government won't give you a job."

Someone should point out to Obama that if there's anybody in America who is clinging to religion and hate out of frustration, it's Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and their angry black supporters.

The growth of virulent anti-Semitism among militant blacks, which was documented as far back as Theodore H. White's reporting in 1969, is the best example of frustration leading to hate that I can think of.

David123

I think what he's really saying is that if you don't support Obama for President, it must be because you're frustrated and bitter. You typical white person, you!

I think Obama has let all those cheering crowds go to his head. He's becoming quite a narcissist of late.

Because there are a lot of wealthy preachers whose flock are on the public dole and Obama knows that very well. And furthermore, Obama should have read the newspapers in his own "home town" of Chicago (which isn't really his home town) when Boeing first moved there. One of the pieces of advice given to all the new Boeing folks in the society pages there was to join a local church.

Now, nobody has any basis for saying that Chicago is a small town or that Boeing is a small company, or that any of its employees "cling to church" in the way Obama insinuates here, but hey, remember -- he's not a theologian, he's a politician!

you put way too much time and thought into it. What he was saying was;

"You'all are a bunch of redneck hicks who aren't gonna vote for me anyways to to h*** with you anyhow. Now I feel better, bein all self-righteous and all, and maybe I just guilted a few of you into votin for me."

The thing is that now that Obama's chosen church (which he chose freely) has become a liability, the most important thing for him is to "level the playing field" by summarizing everyone else's for them.

The mainstream media will not touch this on their own.

However, Obama's opponents, Hillary and McCain, talk radio, and the 527s, if they are smart, will all use it, and Obama's other verbal blunders, against him.

we live in the 21st century media world. No longer is it necessary for the MSM to drive a story. It can be driven through numerous sources. Thus, again, do you think this will filter into the mainstream so that the MSM has to cover it.

By the way, after the ridiculous debate with MSNBC, I looked down upon Politico however they have recently broken a bunch of important stories including Soros' meeting with Begala and Brock, and I am finding that operation more and more appealing. Any thoughts on Politico.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

And HuffPo has the audio confirmation up.

_____________________________________________

- "Make love not war? Real men can do both!"

The Situation Room has a bunch of talking heads defending Obama's comments and attacking Hillary and McCain... headline reads: "Clinton's New Angle of Attack"

Sorry... they're not reporting it... they're burying it.

_____________________________________________

- "Make love not war? Real men can do both!"

Yes, please attack my choice of political analysts if you like, but I digress...

In any case, Dick Morris once made a very astute point. It really doesn't matter how the media presents an issue. All that really matters is what issue they present. Thus, CNN can attack McCain on this matter till they are blue in the face. If they drive the story it will ultimately damage Obama. People aren't stupid. If CNN wants to spin this as some sort of attack on McCain let them, as long as people hear about the comment that is all that will matter. The media's major power is by what they do or don't cover not the manner in which they cover it. As long as CNN is making this an issue it will be an issue, and that will be a problem for Obama.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

With the way that the modern media is developing, I think a lot of people will see this on the news and then try to investigate it further on the web. That should hopefully lead them to a little more insight than the talking heads that drool over the man.

Is it really a quote? I can't imagine anyone actually saying it. (Well, except maybe Gerry Ford.)

recently felt as stupid as you will likely to feel in a minute. The reason I use it as a tag quote is because I sent him that as a text recently and he came back with

No, it was the Japs, and of course it wasn't over the war just started

to which I had to explain to him and you that this is from the very, very, very, very, very, very (you get the idea) famous monologue of John "Bluto" Blutarsky, played by John Belushi (may he rest in peace)in Animal House when he tries in his own demented way to fire up the frat for one last monumental act of debauchery.

Of course it is followed by this exchange

Germans?

Forget it he's rolling

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

when he goes through the "when the going gets tough......................

the tough gets going" and his eyes are all over the place and he holds the silence for just the right amount of time, I am almost driven to tears. It is sheer comedy genius and the world will never know what he could have done. Just like James Dean...

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

but he does make good sausage.

was no comedian, however he was an actor of unmatched talent and skill, and after I watch his scene in Giant when Rock Hudson's character tries to pay him off rather than give him the piece of land and Dean is looking down and all the while he is swinging the ball and chain and the swing is slowly getting faster to add tension to the scene, after this scene, I am also on the verge of tears because that is acting genius and he could have done so much and the world will never know.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Threw his life away and james dindt make the best decision considering the other driver was never cited. But they both did have skills.

that doesn't really make it any less sad to watch their genius and realize the world missed out on so much of their talent. You are absolutely right that they did it to themselves, however that frankly doesn't make it any less tragic.

Those two scenes, I watch geniuses at the top of their craft, and then I realize that they had so much more of their genius to share with the world and we will never know.

No doubt, that they died because of foolish personal decisions, however it is still tragic.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Rebel Without A Cause??

I forgot the /snark tag

however despite only making three movies, James Dean is probably still my favorite actor and you got me going. Like I said, it is a terrible shame that the world never witnessed his full talent. His good friend Martin Landau still makes movies to this day. We can only imagine what his talents would have left the world.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

smackdowns and you are right that if it goes viral on the net it will make it to the MSM....on Politio I like you was unimpressed with their "fair and balanced" take on themselves but you are right that recently they have been better.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

anyone that has worked at any start up company knows that one thing you can be certain if is making plenty of mistakes. A news organization that is just starting up is no different, and thus, I think a lot of the problem we all found as it evolved were due to simple growing pains. I think they are starting to really find their voice and the op may wind up being quite a force in our society.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

....will keep this story alive in Pennsylvania.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Reuters has it. ABC News has it. Fox News has it.

I'm sure that the Hillary and McCain camps won't drop it--it's a juicy sound bite for them to pounce on.

But more importantly, it's only April, and already Obama has put his foot in his mouth repeatedly. And the polls are showing erosion for him as a result.

We still have over 6 months till Election Day. Plenty of time for more gaffes out of Obama's mouth.

Obama has never run a national campaign against a strong opponent before. Never. He may have met his match this time.

Remember that in 2008, Mike Dukakis blew his candidacy mostly due to his disastrous answers during his October debate with Bush 41.

And in 1976, Ford's gaffe about Eastern Europe during his debate with Carter hurt him badly too.

....attempting to turn it around on McCain using class warfare on tax cuts.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

When a controversy arises, Obama "hopes" no one will notice, and when he's called on it - "change" the subject. (this is someone's philosophy I read somewhere - unfortunately, I do not remember where - but I thought it was right on target)

As I recall, there was some talk of a Clinton memo back in their WH years of "Deflect, Delay, Evade and Act Stupid" as the way to deal with tough situations.

It is useful information but, for it to work your first response has to succeed because the whole point is to buy time to allow you to think of your spin and for it to become the narrative before a negative spin takes over.

That's the whole point of Hillary's laugh. But it ain't working if you don't have some friendly press to cover the retreat.

Obama tried Deflect here. It,s failing because it was no better than "Is that a bear over there?" Deflection is the hardest because you have to really have something that is bigger than what you said. Think Seinfeld's "I'm thinking of buying a boat." Obama thinks his "look over there" hijinks will work. Audacious indeed.

"But, but, but, tax cuts for the rich!"

Obama is neither an empty suit, nor a fake, nor an idiot. I've read his policy proposals on his website. They are well thought out.

If Obama were just an empty suit, he would be a pushover. But he's not a pushover. He is an impressive public speaker (which McCain is not), young and vigorous (which McCain is not). And he is riding a wave of weariness over the Iraq War, for which McCain has proposed nothing really new. Obama is also riding demographic trends that are favorable for him: Many new voters who are Hispanics, or single women, or black, or college-age.

We got into very serious trouble in Iraq by underestimating our adversaries. Don't do it again.

except that McCain is also an excellent public speaker. He isn't anywhere the speaker that Obama is but he is an excellent speaker. That said, not all of his proposals are that well thought out. I read his foreign policy proposal where he wants to go on a "dignity offensive". He wants to work with dictators to bring dignity to their people even though it is the dictators themselves that are causing a lack of dignity.

Also, his policies are way far left and a good politician will paint them as such.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

I also don't think his policy proposals are well though out. Abbrogating trade agreements with our allies for one.

Also, I have serious doubts about Hispanics and single women being good demographics for Obama. Sure, he might *win* them, but Democrats probably need to clean up 2-1 in both of those groups to have a real chance. The dirty little secret in politics is that it is still the winner of the white male vote that typically wins elections. It's not politically correct, but it's true.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I seem to remember exit polls indicating Kerry only won them 55-45 in 2004. Are you expecting a big drop off in other Democratic constituencies to necessitate such a high level of Latino support? Barring a dramatic reversal, it would appear the G.O.P. has written off expanding on Bush's margin in this demographic in the foreseeable future. The political cost of opposing illegal immigration will only grow larger as the Hispanic population increases, especially in states like New Mexico, Arizona, and even Texas.

“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley

And that is the largest share any Republican has got in a presidential election. Given that McCain hails from a border state, regularly gets a big share of Hispanics in Arizona, and that he is not a hard-liner on immigration, I think that he will do quite well - especially if he is against Obama.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Thank you, and Adam, for your clarifications. McCain's record augurs well for our chances, but I fear the Republican coin carries little currency in the Hispanic community this November - unless I am overestimating the impact of the immigration debate on Hispanic voters who went for Bush in 2004.

It is because I value your insights that I am nitpicking here, but could you clarify why you doubt single women will vote for Obama. This seems to go against the grain as single (and young) women tend to be a core Democratic voting bloc. Do you think Obama beating Hillary will force them out of the election, or drive them to McCain? Anyone voting for Hillary would have little reason to vote for McCain, save to spite Obama, and even then, they would be repudiating 90% of what they likely believe in.

“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley

R percentage (roughly):

1992: 22%
1996: 25%
2000: 35%
2004: 40-44% (depending on which survey)

Short answer... Ds get 2:1 usually. Bush did well with Hispanics. McCain, hopefully, will be closer to Bush than Dole/Bush 41 with Hispanics. If McCain can win 40% that's awesome. He needs to win 35% to lock in the fact that Hispanics are a competitive demographic.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

The smartest conservative in the world. Are you kidding me? you want Mexicans voting? Illegals in the country all ready are running our kids off the streets with gangs and rape. Get a Life Adam.. The real conservatives are not encouraging any Mexican to be in this country at all. let alone allowing those cockroaches to vote. Go back to Hillarys campaign and tell her she is wonderful, you idiot.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

It was nice having you take a #2 in our living room, but please take your racist butt and get out of our house. Good Bye.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

you could at least have let me get my post posted before you whacked him!

I want to see Moe skin him alive..

He's sure enough of a race bigot to run with Obama.

Alas, that's not our game. Blam.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

This is a shoe-in for the "most obviously blammable comment of the month."

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

probably a lefty providing us a glimpse of his stereotype for the average Republican voter.

“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley

I think McCain will do pretty well with Hispanics. I wouldn't be surprised by 40% at all, I'm thinking 45% is doable, especially against Barry.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Perhaps my sources of information are not as good as yours, but I cannot imagine McCain is any position to capitalize on a large Hispanic turnout. He represents the party committed to tougher, though yet undefined, immigration enforcement measures. No matter how necessary and lawful the Republican position on is, many people with families and friends fearing deportment would not be irrational in voting a wishywashy Democrat into office. Hispanics prefer Hillary to Obama, but will they prefer McCain to the Democrat?

McCain needed to unite the party under the banner of securing the border to bolster support with anti illegal immigration groups active in our party. The Arizona senator's presidential campaign nearly died in the summer because of his vocal support for the Senate compromise bill (Bush's poll numbers also went further south that June and have yet to recover to their May 2007 levels, at least according to Rasmussen ). A strong stance against illegal immigration, followed by decisive action in office, is what a president should do, but it has political consequences, and perhaps grave long-term ones in the future for the Republican Party, especially if it alienates a natural pro-life constituency.

“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley

A majority of them, actually. Shows up in poll after poll, and when initiatives cracking down on illegal immigration are put on the ballot in states like CA and AZ.

This is idea that cracking down on illegal immigration will "doom the GOP with the Hispanic vote" is a Left-Wing talking point with no basis in fact. (The GOP lost the Hispanic vote in CA mostly because the Dems have turned CA into a welfare state gamed by a horrific patronage system, while simultaneously encouraging illegal immigration.)

It's truly disheartening that so many people on this site repeat this talking point.

Apparently, the Left does win most of the 'framing' debates. Even the ones that are counter-factual.

and if you could show me some polls or election results, especially since 2004, I'll be happy to abandon this point.

“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley

The candidates in 2006 that stressed "tough enforcement" lost. VA GOV (Kilgore), TX REP (Bonilla), and couple AZ seats were lost in places that lean Republican. All made being tough on illegal immigrants a big part of their platform. Conversely, no one who was tough of immigration won in lean D seats.

My theory is that if you ask about policy, people support a tough line. But people who make a tough line a major selling point come off as mean-spirited and lacking in compassion.

That and how you ask the question matters. Most people want the "rule of law." They oppose "amnesty." But they also oppose "deportation." So what do they support? Most polls show general support for some fine/penalty/back taxes in exchange for residency or citizenship.... otherwise known as comprehensive reform.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

the most pro-immigration candidate in the group. And even with McCain's endorsement of Enforcement First policy, his longstanding efforts to find a humane way to deal with illegal immigrants already in the country means he has a resevoir of support among Hispanics. B/c immigration is a big issue right now, I expect Rs to be hurt in that sub group. But I think McCain can win 35%. 40% would be huge. It would mean that Hispanics have gradually become a true swing group that is comfortable voting for a Republican for President repeatedly (not just exceptionally).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Anyone who believes that advocating gun control, abortion for teenagers, a trillion dollars in new spending, losing the war to Al Qaeda and Iran, socializing the economy, taxing the rich are all "well thought out policy plans" is on the wrong website.

We actually live in reality here- and as a conservative I think NONE of those policies are "well thought out". If I did think that, I would be a LIBERAL.

Obama is Jimmy Carter- only without the sweater.

... but I do think he is a doctrinaire liberal and a horrible Democratic candidate for President.

There are a number of reasons I think this. Obama keeps making these unforced verbal errors, showing that he is very undisciplined, and not accustomed to a real campaign. That is because he has only had one real federal campaign, a House race in 2000, which he lost. (His Senate seat he lucked into.) He also has questionable judgment, as demonstrated by his long time membership in the Wright church. And he is not a very good debator, contrary to the conventional wisdom. Check out his match ups with Hillary - she usually beat him. He is also not accustomed to dealing in an uncontrolled environment of a press conference or a town hall meeting. This is a major problem, because his lack of such exposure has hindered his development of the ability to think well on his feet; both Hillary and McCain have developed this ability.

I must strongly disagree with you about the following statement: "Obama is also riding demographic trends that are favorable for him: Many new voters who are Hispanics, or single women, or black, or college-age." This is true of a generic Democrat, but not of Obama. Obama has little appeal to Hispanics, who tend to see themselves as rivals of the black community. And he also has major problems with blue collar Dems in the East and South (or in any state where there is a sizable black population) who would be safe bets voting for any other Democrat. And his appeal to Jews - a normally solid Democratic group - seems questionable, considering his many anti-Semitic and anti-Israel friends and associates. In fact, I think the demographic trends favor McCain in this election (but only against Obama).

Now, Obama may improve as we go on, but I don't think he will get that much better in the next seven months till the general election. For this reason, I am concerned that Hillary may yet win the nomination, and I now believe that she would present a much tougher, more experienced, more disciplined opponent in the general election. Hillary starts off as more disciplined person, plus she has had two federal races under her belt - the first being competitive, plus she had ten years before that operating under a national microscope.

Obama's "unforced verbal erros" aren't because he "is very undisciplined, and not accustomed to a real campaign."

He commits off-script gaffes because it's very hard to keep your facts straight when you're not telling the truth. What Obama wants your perception of Obama to be is very different from his reality as a race-baiting, liberal partisan hack.

Obama has spent a lifetime kowtowing to his fellow condescending pseudo-intellectuals and radical supporters by demeaning the United States and casually dismissing those "unenlightened" dissenters as simpletons. It's now very difficult to change gears when he is on the public stage 24/7 trying to convince those same simpletons that the Obamessiah is on their side with a candy-coated placebo of Hope, Change, and Kumbayah.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

...is Socialism, Surrender, and Stereotyping.

See, Howie doesn't have a monopoly on alliteration.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

I like it!!

...it's not often one can mix racism, ageism, and mobyism all in one post. Maybe RoPaul still has a seat on his blimp for you.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

A recent Zepplin compilation is entitled Mothership. It's a cool CD. Maybe that's also a good name for Rupaul's blimp. The Mothership.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

Enjoy the Constitutional Party or whatever. Us "idiots" are busy trying to make sure our troops are supported, our taxes aren't raised, this earmarking culture ends, and good judges are appointed.

You idiots can go do whatever it is you do while throwing your toys out the window.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

"We are busy trying to make sure our troops are supported, our taxes aren't raised, this earmarking culture ends, and good judges are appointed."

That, my friends, is a winning platform. You channeled your inner Reagan there.

“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley

This guy has to be the worst troll in the history of the internet.

Or at least since I spent about half-an-hour trolling on DU saying how much "real liberals" hated Kerry in 2004. :)

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Hey at this rate I might be really enthusiastic by November.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

And I say it not because it's any major revelation of a secret, but one of the attendees at said Dean's reception ceremony at her house in Chicago after she successfully converted to Judaism was none other than Viktor Mayer-Schönberger from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, who I met and talked with personally while I was there.

I don't think Dr. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger attended that reception because he thought religion was her crutch, or her opiate. In fact, they co-authored a paper together on the WWW back in 1997. I can tell you from firsthand experience of Foster's level of understanding of the internet that Dr. Mayer-Schönberger was the principal author of that paper for a very good reason.

I digress this way only to show that even people who consort with Harvard professors and who are deans of law schools can and in fact do have deep and profound religious beliefs.

Obama has just managed to slur the entire country, if not the world.

There are three kinds of people on the left:

1. Those who don't know better yet are the votes. Leftism sells well because it is easier simply to absorb an ideology than it is to learn to think. I suspect most people find themselves in this phase early in their lives but graduate as their critical faculties develop. I include those who never get around to applying critical faculties to their political beliefs in this category as many of these folks are one "mugging by reality" away from escaping leftism.

2. Those who do know better are the con artists perpetuating leftism and are found in all lefty castes. The ones at the top know that they can leverage the votes from the "don't know better yet" to achieve power and profit from graft. The ones at the bottom know they can leverage the votes from the "don't know better yet" to rob their fellow citizens through bread and circuses schemes.

3. Those who should know better but can't are the mental defectives whose critical faculties never mature enough to prevent them from donning tie-dye to carry signs at protests in Berkeley.

I think you are giving Senator Obama too much credit by seeing him as a "does know better" leftist. The gaffes into which he's blundered make sense if I think of him as a "doesn't know better yet" who isn't really in on the joke.

That's as good a concise description as I've heard so far, and I'll add to #1 also:

Almost everyone young is rebellious, or go through a rebellious phase when they're young, because they're striking out on their own and forming an identity and learning about the world. And they're full of hormones and they're full of idealism and love and their minds are as sharp as they're ever going to be, and their perception just waking up in the morning seems expanded beyond normal bounds, and the more they learn the more expansive it becomes. And when you come right down to it, a lot about the world is contradictory and -- dare I say it? -- hypocritical and in a few cases downright dreadful. In the scheme of things it's a little bloated orb approximately 8,000 miles in diameter and a lot of the time it seems like you can grab the whole world in your hand, look at the rotten parts, and identify exactly what's wrong.

They teach people how to do this at Harvard, at Johns Hopkins, and at a lot of other places where they take the best and most talented young people from all kinds of backgrounds and present them with *problems*, hoping they'll come up with an answer.

I don't fault them for trying. I do, however, fault them when they're wrong, and I fault them when they ignore the very basic fact that even the best educated and most sophisticated people in the world are interested in religion. It's enormously condescending and it's at that point they begin to believe that their abstractions are more important than who they are themselves -- limited, flawed little human beings, albeit with bigger brains than a lot of their peers, but not so much bigger.

Thank you, Kowalski. You've highlighted one thing I've never considered and probably nearly emptied my category #3: The drive to preserve or recapture the vigor and innocence of youth would allow for those prone to magical thinking to cling to leftism well past the "should know better" stage.

On second thought, stick 'em back in category #3. Confusing correlation with causation is insanity. :-)

I get sick of hearing that x leads to y because x and y happen to move in the same direction.

We had this "logic" at use on one of our local talk radio shows this week. The guest on the program was a lawyer that was attempting to point to a statistic that said that cell phone use leads to more accidents. My problem with this reasoning is that even if a factor is the number one cause of something, the studies fail to account for the overall existence of the factor. It takes nothing into account considering the percentage of cell phone users while driving having accidents.

Thanks for giving me a name for this type of thinking.

If what happened to Kerry is Swiftboating, then Swiftboating is the exposure of inconvenient facts about a politician, facts that undermine the politician's chosen campaign themes.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

In my opinion, the difference between a bullet-induced scratch and bullet-induced death is only in the aim of your enemy, not in the courage of the person being shot at.

Kerry was a horrible candidate. The Dems are very proficient at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Anytime the Dems try to paint themselves as fielding a "warrior candidate" it is always a joke (Ducacas, Kerry). That said, I think the swiftboating attacks were equally dishonest. Kerry lied and exaggerated, and he was countered with equal but opposite exaggerations.

In any case, Bill and Hillary have already cracked down BO's saintly aura. Let them continue to do the work, I say. Lord knows they have plenty of money for it.

Because from where I stand it seems that Kerry has a lot of explaining to do about his war record.

At the very least he needs to explain how a man who spent three months in theater wounded himself once and shot a fleeing man in the back rates those awards.

Let the Ragin Cajun and the Clinton slime machine spend their money on it first :)

I'm not sure who I would rather be against for the Dems. Obama is seen as the more dangerous candidate, yet if you get into a McCain-Clinton battle then there is a lot of mud being thrown which is unbecoming for McCain. I think McCain shows more appeal when he is having a gentlemen's debate, which I think is what Obama would at least offer on the surface.

In either case, if it become a war of character attacks obviously McCain would endure it better. Many people have already tried with him as he has been through many elections, and most Americans have already formed a very positive opinion of his character (if somewhat less for his policy positions).

I think they are reluctant to really speak the truth. She made the mistake of trying to scramble to the left and got outflanked. If she would have stayed in the center, portraying Obama as too far left for this country, she would be winning right now.

as a candidate that they would have shilled for him over Hillary anyway. Besides, the fact that Obama has the number of far leftists and lib. elites drooling over him says that Hillary's staying in the center might have done her in anyway.