Does anyone think for a moment that if Obama hadn’t overseen the operation that resulted in bin Laden sleeping with the fishes, Mike Huckabee would have pulled out of consideration for the 2012 election?
What does that say about Obama’s chances in the eyes of the GOP if their current polling frontrunner doesn’t want any part of the next presidential campaign?
As an aside, I saw another poll recently that indicated that Sarah Palin had a name recognition value of ninety-six percent. I’m sure the reason for this has to do with rounding off answers to a lower decimal value or something, but taken at face value, it indicates that pollsters were actually able to find four percent of Americans who, when the name “Sarah Palin” was mentioned, said, “Doesn’t ring a bell.” That’s pretty astounding.
PAD
• 
Peter, while I think the disposition of Bin Laden was a potential game-changer as far as Obama’s reelection, the reason I don’t think Huckabee or Palin (or for that matter, Trump) would run for president is they’ll all simply making too much money. And in a choice between money and power, frankly I think money will always win out. That’s not to say those would-be candidates won’t court the spotlight whenever possible, but in the end, those big fat Fox News paychecks are too good to turn down.
“And in a choice between money and power, frankly I think money will always win out.” No. Often, yes, but not always. Wielding power over one’s fellow man has an appeal all its own. Money is just power given different form.
“First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women.” -Tony Montana
I will just point out that George HW Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in March 1991 and lost the White House anyway. Things can change in a hurry, voters have short memories, and there can always be that one candidate that catches fire.
I think Huckabee likes not being a fundraiser, and that he knows he is not far right enough to win his own party. Though I am glad as a Democrat that he isn’t running because enough of the media like him that he could have been a real challenge to Obama if he did get the nomination.
I will just point out that George HW Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in March 1991 and lost the White House anyway.
.
Not remotely the same. Saddam didn’t launch a direct assault on American soil. He didn’t then elude capture for ten years, including the best efforts of the GOP president. Plus he didn’t actually get Saddam out of power; he was roundly criticized for leaving the job uncompleted.
.
By contrast, Obama did what his predecessor couldn’t. He did something that the American people wanted and needed. It was easy for people to stop caring about Saddam back in the early 90s because he wasn’t on their radar in the first place and then disappeared just as quickly.
.
PAD
Bush Sr. wanted to continue the invasion and relieve Saddam, but was convinced by General Powell that the mission objections had been met.
C’Mon PAD — while the scenarios weren’t the same, I think the analogy is valid and still applies. In short, no candidate better get too big for his/her britches about one military or foreign policy success — regardless of how impressive it may seem at the time — ESPECIALLY when the country is still in the throes of serious economic problems. In 1992, Bush Senior kept denying there was a recession, and independents like me simply got fed up with his lack of action in that area — despite his earlier success during Desert Storm. Obama had better be dámņ sure he remembers that lesson and focuses on increasing jobs and lowering gas prices in the coming months. If he doesn’t, some nobody from the other party (as was Clinton in 1992) just may emerge from the pack and make Obama a one-term president.
I think if given the chance many of us would prefer to be part of that 4%. Thanks, John McCain. 😛
Well, yeah. It’s been pretty open speculation for a few months now that Huckabee was probably not going to run. Some of his former advisers had left to join other campaigns, he had raised little money, he was happy making money at Fox. A lot of the pundits I read like the folks at NRO and Andrew Sullivan, pointed out that he had made no effort to do the needed groundwork in the early primary states. here’s a reuters article from a month ago–http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110418/pl_nm/us_usa_campaign_huckabee_1.
.
It even mentions how Huckabee was critical of the pundits who were saying he was unlikely to run (ie, the ones who were right).
.
maybe I’m wrong about this but I always thought it was a long shot that he would run. Whoever runs against Obama will need a LOT of money and Huckabee is already way behind and has not shown to me any ability to raise the big bucks. Add into that the fact that his big government conservatism is not exactly what the GOP is looking for at this juncture and it kind of surprises me that he was ever considered a major candidate. he does have a solid group of supporters but not much evidence that he can expand beyond them.
.
But maybe he was about to throw hi shat into the ring, figuring it was now or never and the Bin Laden killing pulled him back. I doubt we’ll know. But again, to answer your question on whether anyone can think for a moment that his choice was made before Bin laden assumed ocean temperature; yes.
right after I posted this I remembered it was Howard Kurtz who had something on this a few months back: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-23/five-reasons-mike-huckabee-isnt-running-for-president/
.
5 Reasons Mike Huckabee Isn’t Running For President
.
I had doubts that Huck was running to begin with. This was for him, as it was with Trump, a great PR deal for his TV show and himself. It got his name out there again and got him and his show free publicity.
.
As for Obama and bin Laden…
.
I think it means nothing whatsoever. Bin Laden was symbolic big deal, but meant very little substantially to most people’s day to day lives and his death will mean even less by late next year. What will matter is the economy and the unemployment figures and which side can wage better PR campaign for themselves & wage the better propaganda campaign against the other side based on those two factors.
I think it means nothing whatsoever. Bin Laden was symbolic big deal, but meant very little substantially to most people’s day to day lives and his death will mean even less by late next year.
.
Well, two responses to that:
.
First, I think it means a lot more to New Yorkers than “nothing whatsoever” or it being merely “symbolic.” The bášŧárd blew up a chunk of our skyline. He killed family, friends and neighbors. So it means something to us. Then again, NY was going to vote Democratic anyway.
.
Second, a popular GOP tactic was to say that Democrats were soft on security, that they couldn’t mount a competent military endeavor, that they wouldn’t keep you safe. That card, at least for the time being, has been taken out of their deck. And if the economy turns around in the next year, and without being able to play the politics of fear that they did so successfully in 2004, the GOP will have an uphill slog.
.
PAD
I always found it funny when the GOP used that tactic saying that Democrats were soft. When one checks the history of the USA one finds that, excepting the Civil War, all the major wars were conducted by Democratic Presidents as the Commander in Chief, except for Vietnam which was started by a Democrat and lost by a Republican.
Gulf War 1 was a draw like the Korean war.
In the current engagement, part 1 is a win, part 2 is ongoing and part 3 is to be determined.
Totally agree. I remember part of the GOP’s campaign for 2004 was “a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism,” or words to that effect.
Now, it’s “a vote for Obama is a vote for the dude who helped take out Osama!” Has a catchier ring to it, I think.
.
“First, I think it means a lot more to New Yorkers than “nothing whatsoever” or it being merely “symbolic.” The bášŧárd blew up a chunk of our skyline. He killed family, friends and neighbors. So it means something to us. Then again, NY was going to vote Democratic anyway.”
.
And if this was a New York election I would agree. However, this is a national election and that’s how I was looking at the question and addressing it. This was also not an “October surprise” type of timing. We have a year and a half for the buzz to wear off over this. During that time we will see people dealing with (and some struggling with) the economy and the impact of gas prices on a daily basis. That is what’s going to have an impact by November of 2012.
.
And killing bin Laden was more symbolic victory than sustentative victory at this point. It wasn’t like bin Laden was the only driving force behind Al Qaeda or the actions on 9/11. Killing him is not removing the head and then watching the body of the snake die. The snake has been growing and grooming future bin Ladens for when he fully left the stage any how. And even if some of them are not 100% ready to step in, there is always some bloodthirsty bášŧárd ready to fill the power void.
.
And that matters here. Realistically we’re still dealing with the threat that we went into Afghanistan after in the first place. Yet, because we killed a man, there are already voices on the Left declaring that the job is done and that we should be looking at leaving Afghanistan; some talking leaving as early as by the time you finish reading this sentence. The part of the Left that hasn’t been happy with Obama for fighting the war in Afghanistan (like he said he would in the campaign but they were to stupid or indifferent to notice) are going to be less thrilled now that they can point to a dead bin Laden.
.
Killing bin Laden was a great symbolic victory after almost ten years of this and it was a great feel good moment when the news broke, but realistically it means nothing at all and changes very little at all anything from just a few days before the news of his death broke. The only thing it may have any noticeable change on is that the anti-war part of Obama’s base will be even more upset with him if we’re not showing major signs of being out of our military involvement in the Middle East.
.
“Second, a popular GOP tactic was to say that Democrats were soft on security, that they couldn’t mount a competent military endeavor, that they wouldn’t keep you safe. That card, at least for the time being, has been taken out of their deck.
.
No, that card is not only in their deck but it is being played even as we speak. People believe what they want to believe. If they want to believe that Republicans are strong on defense and strong on terrorism, then any success that hits the news was the success of the Republican POTUS in office and his strong policies. If they want to believe that Democrats are weak on defense and weak on terrorism, then any success that hits the news was the success of the military/intelligence operatives that did it and the Democrat in office was basically along to try and ride their coattails for some PR.
.
“And if the economy turns around in the next year, and without being able to play the politics of fear that they did so successfully in 2004, the GOP will have an uphill slog”
.
Two things.
.
1) We’re not going to see a huge turnaround by November 2012. We may see some improvement, but I doubt we’ll see any huge turnarounds until late 2013 or early 2014. I would love to be 110% wrong here, but I don’t believe that I am.
.
2) Let’s say that the economy does make some noticeable improvements. Who gets the credit? Realistically, the Republicans have done very little but make a lot of noise insofar as the economy. In all likelihood, that’s all that they will do for quite some time. But the Republicans have a much better messaging machine out there and a huge number of people out there don’t bother even trying to be actually informed by anything more than the loudest messaging machines.
.
We could have an economic turnaround in the next six months like no one has ever seen in the history of this planet and the Republican noise machine will amp up the messaging that their policies and actions were the cause. Will people believe it? Yeah, a lot will.
.
Right now you have a small army of people who believe that the Paul Ryan’s budget plan will reduce the deficit and bring about massive reductions in government spending despite the fact that reading the thing shows you that even the plan itself says just the opposite. Last year and throughout 2009 you had a small army of Americans believing every single lie that the Republicans were willing to throw against the wall about what was “really in” the healthcare reform bill as it was being written even if the sections they referenced didn’t have the first word in them about what they were claiming was in there.
.
But the messaging machine was louder than hëll and talking points became “fact” for many people.
.
Obama campaigned on the idea that he would refocus the war on terror on the terrorists and refocus efforts in Afghanistan. The Republican noise machine declared that he would have us cutting and running, being soft on terror and pulling out of Afghanistan as soon as we possibly could. Not only did that garbage become “fact” for many who opposed Obama or were on the fence about him, but then even Obama supporters acted shocked that he went against that image of him that they created and instead went on to step up action in Afghanistan, step up the number of drone attacks on terrorist targets, step up operations top hunt down terrorist and actually increased the annual average for high value terrorist body counts just like he campaigned on.
.
And they’ve got a year and a half to bang away on the noise machine about the economy, the war on terror and anything else they want to.
.
Osama bin Laden getting a bullet in the chest and the brain at the start of this month was a great symbolic victory. It gave a lot of people the release they needed and they stopped metaphorically holding that breath that they didn’t even realize that they were holding all of this time. The figurehead, the symbol for that attack and for terrorism around the world was dead and the Boogeyman that the previous administration trotted out as a scare tactic and political attack weapon was gone. But it means at this point nothing in reality insofar as the “war on terror” and in will mean even less politically by November of 2012.
Well, as PAD said, success has a thousand fathers. When the Iraq war was going our way there were pundits who tried to give Clinton credit. “He won with the army Clinton gave him.” or something like that. Since we go back and forth from Democrats to republicans in control and the choices each group makes has consequences down the line it’s easy to assign blame and credit as one wishes.
.
Unless there is another attack I don;t know how great running on the “I’ll kill terrorists” bandwagon will be. people seem more concerned about gas prices and their inability to get a good job.
.
A lot will depend on the Republican nominee and whether the Democrats go after him or her on the issues or just try to call them a racist. the other day they called Newt a racist for linking the president to food stamps. Anyone who assumes “foodstamps = black” probably has some issues to work out, since whites get more foodstamps than blacks. As if Newt doesn’t have a whole bunch of perfectly legit skeletons in his closet; it’s not a good sign that even in the face of so flawed a candidate a bogus race card is the line of attack.
.
Not that Newt will be the nominee. Obama should be so lucky, that would be a rout.
When the Iraq war was going our way there were pundits who tried to give Clinton credit.
.
Wait, what?
.
Considering the the fact that so many of us were screaming at the top of our lungs that we had no business in going to Iraq, I’m not sure how many pundits there could have been that sought to give sort of support by bringing up Clinton.
.
“Wait, what?”
.
Your memory can’t be that short. Many of the pundits on the Left were pointing out, when conservative pundits were playing the “Democrats weak on military/terrorism” card, that the military that went into Afghanistan and began to topple Al Qaeda & stormed Iraq and conquered Baghdad was the military, the new millennium, smarter, faster, technology savvy military, that was built under eight years of the Clinton Presidency.
.
Not entirely true, but not entirely untrue either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/01/opinion/winning-with-the-military-clinton-left-behind.html
.
Winning With the Military Clinton Left Behind
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2082499/
.
Bush’s Army—or Bill’s?
Should Clinton share the credit for victory in Iraq?
.
http://dir.salon.com/story/ent/col/fix/2003/04/27/white_house/
.
Al Franken to Paul Wolfowitz: “Clinton’s military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?”
.
To name a few…
The New York Times, jan 1 2002:
.
Winning With the Military Clinton Left Behind
.
Slate, May 2, 2003,
.
Bush’s Army—or Bill’s?
Should Clinton share the credit for victory in Iraq?
.
Salon, Apr 27, 2003
.
Al Franken to Paul Wolfowitz: “Clinton’s military did pretty well in Iraq, huh?”
.
To name a few…
Democrat Presidents kill and maim with the best of them. They tend to say that they won’t however.
Didn’t mean to repost–thought the sam filter ate the first one.
Your memory can’t be that short.
.
Well, it’s probably more that I’ve chosen to block it out considering I was among those who said from the start it would be a colossal mistake.
.
I certainly never thought to myself, “Gee, the current president fighting a war on two fronts would be good for the former president’s legacy.”
all the major wars were conducted by Democratic Presidents as the Commander in Chief, except for Vietnam which was started by a Democrat and lost by a Republican.
.
Not sure I’d say Gerald Ford “lost” the war. he was there when the final wreckage washed ashore but the ship was steered into the rocks by his predecessors. And one could argue that the war was such that the blame for losing it should be on those who got us into it in the first place, though putting it all on Johnson lets a lot of folks off the hook who should not be allowed to do so.
.
Gulf War 1 was a draw like the Korean war.
.
No. The goal was to repel the invasion of Kuwait. Mission accomplished. Some fo the same people who later snipped at Bush I for “letting Saddam live” were pretty vocal at the time that we not exceed our mandate (there were even those who called us “butchers” for the carnage inflicted on the Republican guard as they fled back to Iraq. Armchair generals, often wrong, never in doubt.
.
Korea is a stalemate only if you think McArthur was right and we should have taken the opportunity to push the North Koreans all the way to China…and then keep going. I’d say that keeping the people of South Korea from ending up in the hëll that a unified Korea (under the rule of their insane dictators) would have been should be an entry in the win column. It doesn’t have the happy ending of Kim Il-Sung chewing a cyanide tablet in a bunker while pressing the barrel of a gun to the roof of his mouth but life ain’t always a Disney movie.
I’d hardly call killing the mastermind behind one of the very few successfull assaults on US soil simply a symbolic victory. I, and I think most Americans, take an attack on any part of the country personally. Really don’t think it’s only a regional thing.
.
Gray, I loved the fact that we killed the bášŧárd. I was over the moon about it. You may have missed one of my more reserved posts on the web about the subject when the news was breaking. That would be this one.
.
.
******************************************************
Jerry Chandler
May 1, 2011 at 11:06 pm
.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, fûçkìņg yes at last!
.
OSAMA BIN LADEN IS FÙÇKÍNG DEAD!
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2011/04/29/somewhere-obama-is-breathing-a-sigh-of-relief/comment-page-1/#comment-357544
******************************************************
.
.
It was a big deal. People had been walking around and metaphorically holding their breaths for ten years without realizing it and when they heard the bášŧárd was dead… The flood of relief and release that people felt when they heard the news couldn’t be stopped. Osama bin Laden was the boogeyman supreme of the last decade. He was the face of the single largest attack of its kind on our soil in modern history. He was the political weapon that was trotted out to scare people with or to tar and feather opponents with.
.
He was THE face of evil in the hearts and minds of a lot of Americans walking around right now.
.
But, almost ten years after 9/11, what did his death do beyond the symbolic?
.
His death, as great as it was and as great as it made everyone feel, does not change what has happened in the last ten years. His death, as great as it was and as great as it made everyone feel, does not really cripple Al Qaeda or the Taliban or terrorism around the world. His death, as great as it was and as great as it made everyone feel, certainly does not end terrorism in any way, shape or form. His death, as great as it was and as great as it made everyone feel, does not get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan any sooner than we might have been getting out if he was still floating around out there somewhere. His death, as great as it was and as great as it made everyone feel, isn’t going to affect terrorism in the world all that much as they’ve been operating without him in many ways and they have already been grooming the next Mr. Most Evil Bášŧárd in the World to take his place; several dozen of them actually. His death, as great as it was and as great as it made everyone feel, doesn’t make us safer, doesn’t make us more secure and doesn’t mean that we can go back to the life we knew up until September 10th, 2001.
.
This wasn’t like a crushed German Army fighting a losing war on multiple fronts and finding out that Hitler decided to end it in his little bunker. This isn’t like a unified country’s armies falling apart and seeing their leader go down in flames. Terrorists and terrorism has never been a unified army and movement. The best you get along those lines is that various groups might jump on the latest bandwagon and claim membership if it’s mutually beneficial to both the smaller group and the new, hot brand name. And that simply means that, at best, they’ll go off and declare themselves as a part of the new hot brand and not actually go away.
.
At this point, bin Laden’s death means nothing beyond the symbolic and beyond the sense of relief and release that it gave some when they heard the news that night. It simply does not change the game we’ve found ourselves in.
.
It’s a great accomplishment to be sure. We had to get the bášŧárd or a part of us would never feel like it could heal for a generation or more. But that is not strong enough or meaningful enough to trump our daily lives and what we have to deal with to keep surviving. While we may see this as a great thing, it is not going to mean a hill of beans if the economy collapses or if the unemployment rate starts going up again. It made us feel wonderful, but it’s not going to mean much to the people that are teetering on the edge of debt thanks to a bad job situation and bad economy and then things go a little south again and they end up losing their house.
.
The issues that really matter are the issues that will decide the 2012 election and decide who will be facing off against Obama and who won’t be. This? Great feel good moment, but not even in the top 20 factors for who to vote for at this point.
But, almost ten years after 9/11, what did his death do beyond the symbolic?
.
I don’t know about you, but what I derived even greater excitement from than his death was the treasure trove of information on A-Q, its plans, dealings and personnel that the Seals took with them. This was not simply a symbolic death. Who knows what plots may be headed off, arrests made, and lives saved through aborted plots as a result, not just of his death, but the entire operation.
.
PAD
.
PAD: “I don’t know about you, but what I derived even greater excitement from than his death was the treasure trove of information on A-Q, its plans, dealings and personnel that the Seals took with them. This was not simply a symbolic death. Who knows what plots may be headed off, arrests made, and lives saved through aborted plots as a result, not just of his death, but the entire operation.”
.
There are two things with this.
.
1) I’m looking at that with some feelings guarded optimism. I’m hoping that we get something good out of that, but I’m not sure that it will greatly increase our operational knowledge or bring in completely new information to the degree that some others believe it will.
.
Just the basic factor of the knowledge that we raided the compound and took intelligence materials out of there is going to have rendered some of it useless by now. Passwords will be changed, code names for people and operations will be altered and tweaked, high value targets (for them and us) will be shifted elsewhere and timetables will be changed and scrapped. Other information will undoubtedly fall under the category of duplicate knowledge. We likely nabbed information on their activities that we already know and, being who bin Laden is, we likely nabbed basic information that they had on us in that region that, duh, we already know. Plus, we have raided high value locations where high level Al Qaeda operations were carried out before now. We will likely get new stuff, but it ill likely not be as much as people want it to be.
.
We’ll get to some usable information to be sure though. But it’ll probably be no more than 35% of what we took by the time we can actually decode it, confirm it through other sources and prioritize the information based on operational needs. Some of that should be easy and doable in the next six months. Some of that may take a year or more.
.
Of course, you also run into the problem of where some of that information leads us. I have no doubt that some of that information will lead us to discovering that more Al Qaeda higher ups and other high value targets are sitting safe and secure in the middle of countries that are our “friends” over there. We may not be able to pull too many more raids like this one where we enter a “friendly” country without their knowledge to pull off a military operation and the fact that Obama has shown that he will walk the walk on that one has likely put such targets in such places on higher alert footing for the foreseeable future.
.
We likely got good stuff in the raid. We didn’t get what a few pundits I’ve heard discussing it would like it to be.
.
2) Talking about how killing bin Laden is going to affect the election and who may be running in it and then bringing up the intel recovered is kinda moving the goalposts a bit. For the most part, no one in the general population cares.
.
People weren’t streaming into the streets that night and celebrating the fact that we got intel. People weren’t calling loved ones and breaking down because we recovered hard drives and master files. People weren’t high fiving each other at work the next day and sharing jokes about bin Laden’s last moments for a week after the raid because we got some codenames and operational data on Al Qaeda.
.
People were buzzed out of their minds with euphoria and relief because we killed bin Laden. Discussing the dry facts of operational intelligence for the average voter is like discussing numbers in detail when covering the budget or asking them to actually read most of the legislation that they’re attacking or supporting. The eyes glaze, the head dips and the snoring starts fairly quickly. Hëll, Clinton got intel, stopped attacks and put terrorist in jail in the 90s by getting info from several sources after the first WTC bombing. Most people didn’t care then or when it was discussed again in the 2000s.
.
People were buzzed because of bin Laden taking one to the chest and one to the eye. That’s what had everyone jazzed and jumping for joy. That’s what had everyone jumping out there to take or assign credit for. The vast majority of the voting population doesn’t care about anything beyond that and that vast majority of politicians out there know that. In the end, the fact that we grabbed some intel will mean far, far less to the general voting population on some nice November morning in 2012 than even the fact that bin Laden feeding the giant squid right now.
Keep in mind that we have literally no idea if the intell was awesome, puny or nonexistent. If the only thing they got out of the house was Bin Laden’s corpse and his stash of Hustler’s Barely Legal, we would STILL probably have announced that we had reaped a bonanza of goodies. Why not? maybe fear will drive some of the higher ups into ditching their safe locations and we will see them, maybe we just want them to be fearful.
.
It would be great if what we got foiled some ongoing plots though word is that only Bin Laden was big on those kinds of ideas and everyone else wanted to keep it small (evidently some of them noticed that big 9/11 events just tend to piss us off). Then again, maybe that’s what we want them to think we think…I think.
.
Given his total lack of any good plans to do in the event that his location was found I would not put it past ol’ dûmbášš to have had the names, locations and facebook passwords of every single one of his followers. The only sad thing about all the revelations is that they show just what a banal little nothing this guy was. We deserve a better super-villain. This guy was trapped in a small house with 3 wives and 18 kids and a pørņ stash. maybe he called the Seals himself; suicide seems a viable option given the circumstances.
But hey, we did get some pørņ out of the deal.
.
TAC
You know Jerry, I agree with you that Osama’s death was mainly a symbolic victory, with little real world relevance.
But given our culture today, driven by hyperbole and bumper-sticker sound bites, I really don’t see that making it less influential over the election.
.
If this was late October of 2012, I could see it having a substantial impact by giving everyone a happy buzz that they associated with Obama. However, not even being halfway through 2011 gives even an event like this the time to lose its emotional impact for most people.
.
Again, what people will be voting on and who they will be voting for is going to be based on what they have to live with each and every day from now until election day and that ain’t bin Laden getting killed. The biggest factor in the voting in 2012 will likely be based on economic reasons with are military activities at the time and some social reasons bringing up the rear. An event that’s a year and a half old, even an event like this one, just isn’t going to have the weight of those issues behind it.
.
Ahem…
.
… with our military activities …
.
😮
I think, in addition to all the possibilities mentioned above, Huckabee got out because he’s too reasonable. Right now the Republicans have an interesting quandry. For their primaries, the folks who are the most rabid, Obama-as-socialist-and-enemy-of-America, Tea Party-loving, extreme right-wing folks are doing the best. (It’s no surprise Donald Trump leads the pack in Republican primary polls; and if Obama hadn’t *both* released his birth certificate and gotten Bin Laden, I’m sure Birtherism would still be mentioned a lot in the primaries.) Unfortunately, they’ll also do the worst in the general campaign, when they face independents who don’t consider anything other than Fox the “lamestream media.” So any candidate would have to out-crazy their opponents during the primaries, then dial it back for a general election. I suspect Huckabee knew that, as a “reasonable” person, he’d have a tremendously hard time making it through the primaries.
As for killing Osama, before he was killed recent polls showed terrorism very low down the list of American priorities. I don’t think any Republican is strong enough to beat Obama, but Obama should focus on creating jobs, getting the budget under control, and lowering the price of a gallon of gas if he wants to lock the election down.
So, Huckabee got out because he wasn’t crazy enough?
.
Scary.
It looks like both Mike and Sarah are taking the smart path – why go through all the trial and trouble of a presidential campaign when you can get a lot more money and power by staying on the sidelines!
But, getting Osama will be a null issue by the time the elections finally roll around. It will be a talking point, but people will be saying “but what did you do for ME lately!”
Trump just shocked nobody by declining to run as well. frankly, this is all good news for the republicans–neither Huckabee or Trump are going to beat Obama so better they bow out now and leave the field to real candidates who stand a chance, however limited, of beating a moderately popular incumbent with an unprecedented campaign fund. Unless we get a double dip recession–and even then they have already laid the groundwork for blaming republicans–it will be very hard to beat Obama with the people they have now. None of them stir the base the way Reagan did in 1980.
Which is why they’re even now attempting arcane rituals to revive him from the dead and get him back in the race.
ZOMBIE REAGAN! 2012!
I’d vote for him more times than an ACORN member in Chicago.
Well, one shouldn’t sell a bear’s skin before having killed it, as we say in France. And the french presidential elections of 1988 are a good example of that. Long story short: despite having managed to bring back our hostages in Lebanon, and getting the GIGN to free some other hostages in New Caledonia, then prime minister Jacques Chirac lost the elections to president François Mitterrand. All this despite the fact that those achievements happened the same week as the vote (just before in fact). Were I Obama, I’d be very cautious.
Yeah, because we always mirror France
Well, one can say that the United States of the 2000s mirrored the France of the 50s, and not in a good way. But I only mentioned that fact to say that one shouldn’t depend on just one good thing to win an election, not if the people have the feeling that their needs are not taken into consideration.
Let me see if I understand this, Bill: You quote Al Franken (purely a comedian at the time) making a smart ášš remark in order to piss someone off…and a single NY Times piece that exists primarily to point out that a year previously, Bush had been running for office on a platform that Clinton had been derelict in prepping the army and yet now used that same army for success that he was now claiming sole credit for…
.
And you think that’s somehow the same as the raft of talking heads trying to give Bush credit for bin Laden’s death?
.
Really?
.
PAD
The same? No, but then again I never said that, did I? I pointed out that when things are going well people do what they can to get credit for their side, even in an example so seemingly preposterous that Craig could not believe his eyes. Then I gave some examples to assuage his doubt. Here’s another: http://www.dlc.org/print.cfm?contentid=251793 Clinton’s Military Legacy
President Bush owes a major debt of gratitude to his predecessor.
.
I’ll happily agree that there are more republicans trying to get Bush credit for the Bin Laden killing than there were Democrats trying to get Clinton credit for Iraq, if that will make you happy.
I think it’s funny that Republicans are trying to give Bush credit for anything since so many tried to distance themselves from him. Just like the “drill, baby, drill” soundbyte was being pushed and then vanished when the BP disaster happened.
And with the prices of gas so far up the “drill baby drill” meme is back with a vengeance. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/15/us/politics/15address.html?_r=1&ref=politics
.
President Obama, facing voter anger over high gasoline prices and complaints from Republicans and business leaders that his policies are restricting the development of domestic energy resources, announced Saturday that he was taking several steps to speed oil and gas drilling on public lands and waters.
.
If prices stay high or go higher–imagine if there were a war in the middle east, as far fetched as that may be–“Drill baby Drill” will be the campaign theme of 2012.
So, any guesses as to who will be the GOP candidate?
.
I’d do the long winded thing of listing all of them and why I think they won’t run or won’t get it, but for a change I’ll just do the one (basically) word thing.
.
Out of the field that we know are looking at it now?
.
Mitt.
yeah, he just raised a little over 10 million in one day. Whoever gets the nod will need to do a LOT of that.
I don’t know much about him, except that he is the uncharismatic Mormom dude that used to be sort of pro-gay and sort of pro-choice, and then turned around.
.
No way in hëll can he take Obama, right?
.
“No way in hëll can he take Obama, right?”
.
Outside of Obama being caught in a compromising position three days before the election in a hotel room with an underage male farm animal?
.
Not really much of a chance, no.
Mitt has more of a chance than you think, I think. His biggest obstacle is too many people view him as inauthentic and lacking a true core. If he can convince people otherwise, he is a good speaker and has a hëll of a resume.
.
Well, sarcasm aside, Mitt does have a chance, i just don’t think that it’s a significant chance. He’s (obviously) not getting the more left leaning voter base, I’ve not seen him lighting the moderates on fire and he certainly doesn’t set his own base on fire. Hëll, he was getting killed in the 2008 Republican primaries.
.
If he gets the nod for his party, he’ll certainly get a good chunk of the base vote and, depending on how left or right he chooses to run, he may get a good chunk of the moderate votes as well. But I don’t see him getting the brass ring unless Obama really, really nosedives in the next year and a half and we see a large voting block voting against Obama rather than for Mitt with a lot of Obama’s disenchanted base sitting 2012 out.
.
But, hey, all things are possible. Six months can be a lifetime in politics, let alone just shy of 18 months.
Mitt’s multiple, well-documented, and obvious flip-flopping will be a hëll of an obstacle for people to overcome in order to accept his authenticity. I haven’t heard him enough to comment on his speaking ability, but considering that the biggest accomplishment on his resume (RomneyCare) is currently his biggest liability, I wouldn’t give him a snowflake’s chance in Hades in the GOP primaries.
.
“I wouldn’t give him a snowflake’s chance in Hades in the GOP primaries.”
.
Oh, I would give him a very good chance this time in the primaries simply because the competition is so uninspiring. It’s the election itself I see as a long, uphill battle for him.
Still not seeing it. Mitt has the taint of not being ideologically pure enough for GOP primary voters IMHO.
You could’ve said the same of McCain though. If Romney wants to be president, he’ll take the same path as McCain and court whomever he needs to court to get the nomination, regardless of what he’s done in the past. He’ll tell people he’s changed, that he made mistakes, etc, and odds are that most Republican voters will still vote for him simply because he has the R next to his name.
.
But then, we are now several years into the Tea Party silliness, and the GOP has willingly taken a hard right turn in an attempt to keep their vote. Considering the Tea Party seems to want to vote out as many Republicans as Democrats right now, the Republican Party may have ruined the chances of anybody from the right with even a hint of moderate thoughts.
.
“You quote Al Franken (purely a comedian at the time) making a smart ášš remark in order to piss someone off…”
.
That’s not entirely true. Franken had by then written several books and commentaries that put him in the position of political commentator. He was also getting invited onto various chat shows from time to time as a political commentator by that point.
.
and a single NY Times piece that exists primarily to point out that a year previously, Bush had been running for office on a platform that Clinton had been derelict in prepping the army and yet now used that same army for success that he was now claiming sole credit for…””
.
Well, he did also include a Slate piece and add on “To name a few…” at the end. He may have just been pressed for time earlier. I know I saw the idea that Bush won Iraq with Clinton’s army put forward and argued for on Crossfire by Begala, Carville and a few other left of center guests. Alan Colmes presented that idea on both his radio show and when arguing his side’s positions on Hannity & Colmes. And I know I heard that drum beat on more than just a few times that year on MSNBC. Finding those transcripts is a pain in the butt though since the key words that you might use in a Google search are generic enough that you’ll get thousands of hit not even related to what you’re looking for. I’m amazed he got three that fast.
.
“And you think that’s somehow the same as the raft of talking heads trying to give Bush credit for bin Laden’s death?”
.
I don’t think he was fully saying that, but it’s certainly comparable in the fact that you had pundits on one side pointing to the fact that their guy presided over and built the military for eight years that the other side’s guy used for a major success less than three years into his term. Seems comparable to me.
.
Now, did we see it on the same scale that we’re seeing it now? No, of course not. Despite the most cherished talking points of the Right, there has never been the giant, liberal news machine in this country’s television and print media pushing liberal talking points 24/7 in the place of news and facts. In the meantime, talk radio has been mostly conservative to almost exclusively conservative during the time period of these two events and the cable television news has gone much harder to opinion entertainment VS actual news. Throw in the growth of the internet and you have a lot more voices in the public square arguing the one now than the other then.
.
But, yeah, it’s the same cheer leading by one side against the other over pretty much the exact same talking point.
Wow, you defend me better than I defend me. How about I just lease you the “Bill Mulligan” name and you do with it as you will…probably work out way better for me. You laugh, but those guys who had “Seal team 6” locked up and let it lapse must be on a ledge somewhere right now. You never know.
.
I still can’t believe that Disney has applied for the trademark on the name “SEAL Team 6” and that the application is being treated seriously…
.
What’s going to be a bigger issue for many come November 2012 than bin Laden getting ventilated? Stuff like this.
.
.
U.S. dipping into pensions as it hits debt limit
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/business/chibrkbus-us-dipping-into-pensions-as-it-hits-debt-limit-20110516,0,4261532.story
.
U.S. budget deal costs $3 billion more in short term
http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/business/chibrkbus-us-budget-deal-costs-3-billion-more-in-short-term-20110516,0,539633.story
.
.
The only question is who is going to be able to spin it better for their side and what the people being fed the spin want to believe more.
The only question is who is going to be able to spin it better for their side and what the people being fed the spin want to believe more.
.
Is it even in question what the answer is?
.
No, but I thought I would be nice to my friends who are a bit more to the left of center than I am and not just outright kick their hopes in the nards.
Nah – i think it means that 4% of the USAian public have repressed those traumatic memories.
.
I’m sure regression therapy could pull them to the surface again.
The Howard Kurtz piece on The Daily Beast alluded to above implies that the timing of Trump’s non-surprise was influenced by the fact that the NBC upfronts are tomorrow, and they wouldn’t include “Celebrity Apprentice” (or nobody would buy it) if there was any chance that he might actually be running, which would trip the Equal Time rules…
.
I actually have a (what I think may be) more interesting (or more insane) twist on the entire 2012 thing. I wonder if we are seeing to a degree the idea on Republican electability that was openly voiced back in early ’08 by various conservative talking heads before McCain took the nod. I heard a few discussing how it might actually be better to have a Democrat take the White House in ’08 because they could see the economic collapse being long and painful no matter who was in the White House and that it might actually be better to have a Democrat in there taking a hit for it from 2008 to 2012. And, of course, while the Democrat was taking the hit for it they could ride the voter discontent in to congressional control.
.
So what if a lot of the Republicans who might be strong contenders are still looking at that factor as a possible issue through late 2014 or 2015 and looking at what seems to be a moderately popular incumbent who is taking hits for this stuff, but not the damaging, politically lethal hits they had hoped for? Right now the Republicans are not getting their plans a lot of popular support outside of their more rabid base and no Republican is going to not run to that base. Right now, that’s suicide for a 2012 presidential bid. They either run to the rabid base and turn off most of the voters who might be up for grabs or they run to the more moderate and mainstream voters who might be up for grabs and turn off their base.
.
Any serious candidate might be looking at this situation and seeing this as a major problem.
.
Obama isn’t as easy a picking as they would have hoped for by now. The general public isn’t embracing the things that the Republicans are trying to do out there the way the rabid base is. Who is going to win the PR battle with the public over the debt ceiling and the budget battles isn’t leaning their way as much as they would have hoped for. Obamacare hasn’t become the end of the world disaster that they predicted it would become the day after it was signed into law. They’re just not in the position that they might have wanted their team to be in right now and that may be causing some of them to pause a bit before diving into the race.
.
And maybe that’s why we’re seeing joke candidates, uninspiring candidates and candidates who have no hope whatsoever of winning. Strategically, they may see 2012 as a write off election.
.
It’s possible that they see Obama as too big of a fight to risk someone they don’t want to have politically damaged. But, they may see three or four more years of Obama in the White House and a sluggish economy as the keys to more congressional and gubernatorial gains in the next round of elections. Then, in 2016, they have a wildcard election.
.
Biden isn’t running in 2016 and if he does it will be the best thing that the Republicans could possibly hope for. With so many Democrats going down to defeat (they would hope) on the state levels, that would reduce the number of wildcard rising stars out there to step up and run against them. So who does that leave on the Left? Hillary maybe? Not as much of a chance for the Democrats winning if she runs in 2016.
.
So we’re seeing the third string and fourth string candidates lining up for their run. We’re seeing the sacrificial lambs getting trotted out for slaughter. We’re seeing the guys who they might not mind seeing getting in on a miracle win, but mostly prepping for the midterms in hopes of greater gains there while keeping the real hopefuls in reserve for a likely non-incumbent presidential election in 2016.
.
Granted, it’s still relatively early in the 2012 election cycle (not being even halfway through 2011 and all that,) but it’s odd that there are just no real Republican rising stars that seem to be getting out there and declaring their intent to run. So far, the only people we’ve seen making any sort of real moves towards running are people with less of a chance of beating Obama than McCain had in 2008.
.
I mean, let’s face it… Mitt is the best guy in the announced crowd so far and Mitt has so much baggage and so many issue to overcome that he’s starting out 100 yards behind the starting line. Michele Bachmann is teasing that she may enter the race, but, please, Palin has a better chance than her and you all pretty much know my thoughts on Palin’s chances.
.
It’s a really thing crowd of prospective candidates that even qualify as having an even moderate chance at success. Unless we see wildcard rising star come out of nowhere by January, I’m thinking the Republicans are looking at 2012 as a write off election that they hope will bring them gains in the midterms and possibly position themselves better for 2016.
I’d really like to believe that writing off a presidential election is beneath the GOP.
.
But then, this is the group that thinks the country’s debt problems can be solved by reducing taxes on the rich and that our energy problems will be solved by simply drilling for oil anywhere and everywhere.
Maybe 4% is their margin of error…Or maybe 4% or Americans live in caves in deeply secluded parts of the country…
Sarah who?
I’m not sure the GOP can ever give a presidential election a miss. One never knows what could happen during that four-year period, including the possibility that the Democratic president could end up appointing another Supreme Court justice or two during his term. While it doesn’t seem hugely likely as we talk about it in 2011, who knows what could happen by 2015 or 2016?
.
I don’t know, Joe, because I can’t figure out any other reason that the Republican crowd of potential candidates looks so dámņëd goofy. There are Republicans out there that could be strong candidates for their side who don’t appear to be making even the first move towards it this go around.
.
It could be that they see the keys to power right now being more state level positions and the congress. That would actually make sense looking at the agendas they’ve been pushing since the 2010 elections as well.
Who would you suggest should be running but won’t? I see some good governors but they need a few more years to rise or fall–too early to tell yet. Daniels and Pawlenty are ok, nothing great but neither was Clinton at this point in time. The focus on goofy candidates–and is trump or Gingridge or even Palin any more nuts than Jesse Jackson was?–is something campaigns go through because we like to think that some Mr Smith long shot will come in and be the Great President we all want and secretly realize we will probably never get, given the realities of what it takes to be a successful politician these days.
.
“Who would you suggest should be running but won’t?”
.
Honestly? It’s a tough call. I don’t think that there’s really one guy out there that just screams of being the one to run right now as much as I can see people who fit the description of what I said two years ago was the likely best candidates to run against Obama. They have a nice crop of fresh and fresher faces who don’t have baggage, don’t have bad records (or any real records) to hold against them and do have some natural charisma. Basically, there are a lot of potential Republican Obamas out there.
.
Now, a good chunk of them have already hurt themselves by pandering to the extreme fringe and by very visibly backing the recent examples of republican overreach and stupidity, but not all of them have. If you’re the Republicans, roll the dice and put some of those guys out there with a lot of behind the scenes help and a good PR effort. Hëll, Palin was 90% that without very much substance and they made her a megastar in the party fairly easily. Most of these guys have more substance than she did (it would be amazingly hard not to actually.)
.
If I were laying out their strategy, I would risk losing a few of those guys now since A) they might have a better shot at winning against Obama than Mitt and the rest of the reject brigade and B) they have enough of them to lose a few now and have some in the background to be groomed for 2016 and 2020. But the crowd of misfit toys standing up and getting the attention right now? Even if you refuse to acknowledge complete joke campaigns like Trumps, it looks like they’re either giving up on 2012 or that they’re legitimately a party with nothing at this moment to hold up as their future beyond desperate hopes.
I think the Obama campaign is probably disappointed that Huckabee isn’t running.
As a Dem. I actually disagree. In the general, Huckabee could be quite formidable. He’s exteremely likeable, He’s not a scary demegog(I know I spelled that wrong), and comes accross as fairly moderate in most areas. His problem would be winning the reactionary base in the primaries, which is neccessary to win them.
With the exception of his stances on gay marriage and abortion, Huckabee’s record is as liberal as that of John Edwards. Obama generally is most successful in elections against candidates who either withdraw completely (like Jack “I took my wife to a strip club” Ryan) or candidates who refuse to draw a contrast between themselves and him (like John “reach across the aisle” McCain). Obama would much rather have ran against Huckabee than the likes of, say, Sarah Palin or Chris Christie. Obama and his campaign already know how to win against a candidate who has not shored up the conservative base of their own party. Against an unabashedly conservative candidate, well, that’s not something they’re used to.
.
Right… Because Alan Keyes ran so hard towards that moderate base of voters out there…
Wow, that’s the best you can come up with is mention Alan Keyes? The guy who reluctantly ended up in the race with less than two months to go before poles opened? Thanks for proving my point for me.
(Okay, it was under three months before the election, not two. Same difference, however.)
.
In this case the timeframe matters very little. Obama danced circles around Keyes, pulled his underwear up over his head and gave him a swift kick in the backside just for the hëll of it. Beyond that, you didn’t really have much in the way of a point anyhow. McCain was hardly running to the center to play nice-nice with Obama in the election and certainly Palin was going full on attack for her part of the campaign. I realize that you would have likely been more happy with McCain if he had embraced the birther talk, the stealth Muslim garbage and gone as far into making stuff up and pretending it was the truth as Palin, but his not doing that hardly means he was refusing to draw a contrast between himself and Obama or that he was trying to meet Obama and the Left in the middle during that election.
.
If you really think that, you were on some really fun drugs in 2008 or else you’re on some now.
Yeah, Jerry, as usual: You have no idea what you’re talking about. Obama’s hardest fought campaign was against Hillary, and he only won by virtue of the super-delegates. If you’ll recall, the last several primaries were taken by Hillary. Media figures were actually upset with Obama, asking him why he hasn’t shored up his victory in interviews. But getting back to Alan Keyes: you missed the part where I said “Obama generally is most successful in elections against candidates who… withdraw completely.” That would be the election where he was supposed to run against Jack Ryan, but Jack Ryan had to drop out after his divorce records were made public and his strip club habit came to light. So the local GOP goes through a couple of reluctant candidates before finally managing to convince Alan Keyes to run with only about 86 days left to go. Keyes did not enter the race with a very strong foundation to begin with. This is what I mean when I say Obama is most successful in elections against candidates who withdraw or do not contrast themselves enough with him. The whole Jack Ryan/Alan Keyes debacle totally supports my statement rather than refutes it. I presented a point, and it was so dámņ good that you accidentally patted it on the back when you meant to blow it away with some snarky witticism. Now about McCain: The whole reason he got Palin on board was because McCain was having serious (and in my opinion, well deserved) problems shoring up the conservative base of his party. Palin was the only reason a conservative even HAD to legitimately pull the lever for McCain. And, as some choose not to recall, Palin was getting higher crowd numbers in the months and weeks before the election than Obama had back in the days when women were fainting in the crowd. Now I’d like to ask YOU; what brand of cheap recreational pharmaceuticals were YOU partaking in during the elections of the last 10 years?
.
See, this is why you look like you’re on some sort of heavy duty drugs, Darin. You claim that Obama and his people would have liked to run against Huck since he does best against candidates who refuse to draw a contrast between themselves and him. You then put McCain into that category despite the fact that McCain took hits from previous supporters because he ditched some more moderate positions that he had held for some time prior to running and ran to the more conservative parts of the Republican base. McCain most definitely drew a distinction between himself and Obama and Obama worked hard to define the differences between himself and McCain.
.
You then, it what must be one of your funnier statements in some time when you consider that it was made to back your prior statement, point out that Obama’s biggest fight was against Hillary. Hillary, the candidate who had an almost identical campaign platform and who was more often than not running on positions that were far more closely in line with Obama’s than McCain’s were.
.
You put forward an idea and then tried to support it with a slight rewrite of history and an example that is a complete 180 from what you are saying the “facts” are. Seriously, do you enter kitchens and declare that you know for a fact that the water is cold because you can see it boiling? Do you walk into rooms and declare that the place is too dark because the light is hurting your eyes? I mean, hey, we already know you think lies are the truth.
It’s statements like this that betray the extent of your blood toxicity. To say that ‘McCain most definitely drew a distinction between himself and Obama” is the same thing as saying “I wasn’t paying attention to McCain’s campaign during the election.” Obama would come out and say he was for x, y and z. McCain would come out and say he would work with Democrats. That’s not drawing a distinction. Conservatives didn’t want someone who would acquiesce with liberals. They wanted someone who would oppose them, and that just wasn’t McCain. McCain was also obsessed with the superfluous illusion of running what he called “an honorable campaign.” The essence of strategy is “attack weakness” and what we eventually found out was that McCain had no intention of doing so. Hillary Clinton actually drew a bigger contrast from Obama than McCain did attacking his inexperience and first seeding the birther controversy… not to mention invoking the name “Bill Ayers” when McCain’s “honorable campaign” made that name off limits. These are facts, Jerry. They destroy the flimsy ideas put forth by those who rely upon The Daily Show and maybe a little MSNBC and MoveOn.org for the bulk of their knowledge. I call such people “low information voters.”
.
Of course, Darin. To be a true Republican, McCain should have been declaring that everything Obama said was 100% wrong and then declared that he was going to do the exact opposite of what Obama said he was going to do.
.
Obama declared that he was going to try to address the failing economy? Why, McCain should have been a true Republican for Darin and declared that Obama was wrong and that President McCain would crash and burn the economy.
.
Obama declared that he was going to try to address the rising unemployment situation? Why, McCain should have been a true Republican for Darin and declared that Obama was wrong and that President McCain would drive up unemployment to levels never be seen in this country and that would never been seen again in anyone’s lifetime.
.
Obama declared that he was going to be more efficient and focused fighting the War on Terror than the Bush Administration had been? Why, McCain should have been a true Republican for Darin and declared that a McCain Presidency for this country would see him asleep at the switch insofar as the War on Terror was concerned.
.
Obama declared that he was going to redouble the efforts to get Osama bin Laden? Why, McCain should have been a true Republican for Darin and declared that McCain would pardon Osama bin Laden if he even bothered to think about him at all.
.
Obama declared that he was going to address trade imbalances with other countries so that they were more favorable to us? Why, McCain should have been a true Republican for Darin and declared that by the time a McCain Presidency was over we would be exporting nothing and importing everything from everyone else in the world.
.
I could keep going, but it would just begin to get monotonous and begin to look like I’m enjoying kicking the cripple here.
.
Darin, you are a grade-A, full fledged moronic cliché of stupidity in talking points. Of course McCain and Obama agreed on many things that needed to be done. Hëll, boy, Reagan and Carter agreed on things that had to be done. What defined the differences between the men was how they said they would approach such goals and what steps were the right ones to take.
.
Seriously, if you and I are a part of a group that wants to go from New York to California and I want to travel by car and take some extra time out to experience the country along the way while you want to fly so as to be able to spend as much time in California as possible with the time we had; I don’t think anyone else in the group is going to say that we’re exactly the same in what we want to do. We both want the group to go from New York to California, but there is no way anyone other than a complete mouth breather is going to say that our ideas on how to get there are even remotely the same.
.
“… not to mention invoking the name “Bill Ayers” when McCain’s “honorable campaign” made that name off limits.”
.
You really are a completely misinformed dûmbášš who completely swallows the conservative talk radio spin and rewriting of history as if it were facts, aren’t you?
.
This is an actual campaign ad put out by John McCain in October of 2008.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONfJ7YSXE5w
.
The entire thing is about Bill Ayers & Obama and McCain and Palin both mentioned Ayers in stump speeches more than just a few times. Seriously, Darin, you’ll look much less the complete fool (well, in your case a little bit less the complete fool) that you actually are if, when while saying that others are “low information voters,” you can avoid saying something that the video records and news archives can show clearly and definitively to be 100% wrong in every way.
.
You are at best an idiot and at worst a troll deliberately being dense and obtuse in conversations. As such you may flail about aimlessly and make up more fabrications for your next post as much as you want without me. Feel free to have the last word(s) on the matter. Pointing out that you’re wrong about something is pretty much a full time endeavor and one so simple and easy that repeated demonstrations of your wrongness do tend to start looking like kicking the cripple while he’s down. In other words…
.
Done with you now.
Oh for your sake, I’m glad you’re done with me. Each of your posts exposed you more-and-more as the “grade-A, full fledged moronic cliché of stupidity in talking points” here and there doesn’t appear to be anything you can do to alleviate it. Seeing you desperately groping for something… anything… to use to respond to my assertions has been a real exercise in the observation of your depravity and highly selective obtuseness. You’ve managed to make me smile today and it feels great.
Let me get this straight, Darin. Your problem with McCain was that he wasn’t enough of a scumbag to be a Republican and worried too much about such quaint things as honor?
Let me get this straight, Darin. Your problem with McCain was that he wasn’t enough of a scumbag to be a Republican and worried too much about such quaint things as honor?
Well, no, Renee. As my posts have quite clearly stated, the problem with McCain was that he did not do enough to contrast himself with Obama… mostly due to McCain’s stated desire to run what he called “an honorable campaign.” The other, more obvious reason for his failure to adequately contrast himself with the Democrats (which was why I didn’t feel the need to mention it until now) was due to McCain not being a conservative. Liberals and leftists like to call McCain a “conservative,” but the truth of the matter was that McCain was the has-been-media’s favorite Republican guest on Sunday talk shows precisely because he could be counted upon to not espouse conservatism. There was no threat there. The professional left knew McCain wouldn’t be supported by the conservative base of the Republican party. Meanwhile true conservatives were listening to things Obama said (particularly when off-teleprompter, like his “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe The Plumber) and then having to listen to how the Republican candidate intended to “reach across the aisle” and “work with” the opposing party. McCain was precisely the kind of RINO Republican opponent that the Democrats were hoping for precisely because his political views sickened his party’s own conservative base.
.
Rene, he has no real points. I usually disregard the comments about anyone here thrown into a thread by a one-and-done-and-run poster, but I think there’s more truth to this one-and-done post at this point than 99% of the others we’ve seen around here.
.
——————————————————————
“andrew johns
April 24, 2011 at 2:55 am
I’d suggest to anybody reading this to not bother with Darin, even insulting him. On another board (I’ll link it if you want to see for yourself) he was so utterly toxic with his talking points bûllšhìŧ that by the time he left it was a semi-weekly event where a thread would descend into people mocking him for doing it. A lot of times it was on non-political threads too. The only reason he didn’t get banned was because he was pals with an admin who’s similar politically.
And regarding lying, Darin:
“When I was in grade school, I had text books that clearly stated that our solar system has 9 planets in it. Today, it’s an accepted fact that we have 8 instead. Were those text books from my grade school “lying?” Of course they weren’t.”
Here’s a relevant quote from Darin regarding his thoughts on lying and science.
“(It’s based upon the fantasy of evolution, after all.)” – Darin”
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2011/04/12/not-intended-to-be-a-factual-statement/comment-page-2/#comment-349128
——————————————————————
.
Even when this idiot thinks he has a point, he backs it with nothing beyond talking points and statements of “fact” that are devoid of any actual facts. Hëll, the conservatives that post here have asked him to stop trying to represent their side of the discussion in the last few threads that he’s been in.
.
Really, I think those facts say all that really needs to be said about him right now.
You’re done with me, Jerry. So either go find a book or recant said declaration.
Darin, when you make a statement “… not to mention invoking the name “Bill Ayers” when McCain’s “honorable campaign” made that name off limits.” and jerry responds with a McCain ad that mentions Bill Ayers, calls him a domestic terrorist, and goes into detail of his relationship with Obama…he wins the argument. Not acknowledging that and coming back with the accusation that he is “desperately groping for something… anything… to use to respond to my assertions” just makes his victory all that more obvious.
.
You can argue you are right on matters of opinions but you just got nailed on the facts here. He’s right. You were wrong. Refusal to accept that and learn from it does not do you any favors.
Oh, and the old “hey I thought you said you were done with me but now you just responded to someone about me, I’ll ignore what you say and just focus on the fact that you are saying anything” bit was previously popularized here by another poster who shall not be named lest it triggers some google search results and/or works the same way Bloody mMry and Candyman do and I just want to say you really don’t want to be in that sort of company.
.
“by another poster who shall not be named lest it triggers some google search results and/or works the same way Bloody mMry and Candyman do”
.
Oddly, I actually thought about him and that was a part of the reason I decided to stop going around and around with Darin’s stupidity so early in this thread. Maybe I’m just getting old, but it seems like the quality of troll/obtuse brick wall posters the blog has attracted in the last couple of years has gone down quite a bit. They’re all either hit and run flamers or just the standard “I deny the facts in front of me” types. No great style to any of them lately and as a result there’s certainly no enjoying poking them with a stick and watching them dance.
.
They’re just sort of there and pretty much just… blah.
For the record, I never thought Huckabee had a chance at getting elected president — Palin either. As a matter of fact, there’s no one right now on the Republican side who I think has a chance at beating Obama. Amongst the current pool of most-often discussed Republican candidates, the couple of guys I thought might, qualification-wise, be viable candidates against Obama, are, in their personal lives, carrying more baggage than a Third World bus. This makes them unelectable, in my opinion. Still, there’s a long way to go before the election, so we’ll have to wait and see what shakes out.
I just wish Colin Powell wanted to run. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat
Powell is an example of a good candidate who felt that his marriage and family was much more important in the overall scheme of things than was a stint in the White House. I think he knew his wife could not handle such a high-pressure and high-scrutiny ride to the Oval Office, and I find Powell’s loyalty to her both refreshing and commendable.
R. Maheras says:
.
“Powell is an example of a good candidate who felt that his marriage and family was much more important in the overall scheme of things than was a stint in the White House. I think he knew his wife could not handle such a high-pressure and high-scrutiny ride to the Oval Office, and I find Powell’s loyalty to her both refreshing and commendable.”
.
ME:
I agree 100%. That was just one of the many reasons I felt he would have been a great choice.
Unfortunately, Powell would not be welcome in today’s Republican Party.
Powell was never a hard-core Republican. When he retired from the military and his political views became more apparent, it was clear to me he was more of a centrist than anything else — which, to me, was part of his appeal. I think he could have worn equally the labels conservative Democrat, Independent, or liberal Republican.
Speaking of potential Republican candidates – did you see that Santorum, attempting to prop up the “It was torturing prisoners that let us get him, so the Shrub deserves more credit than Obama” meme, has said that McCain doesn’t understand the facts of harsh interrogation techniques?
.
Whatever he’s smoking, i want some.
.
Ask Darin for some. He’s got plenty.
Santorum. there’s another guy who has 0.0 chance of getting the nomination. The GOP can do stupid things but nominating a guy who lost his re-election for the senate (and lost big time) ain’t one of them. No evidence of national support or even LOCAL support and he wants to be president??? Must have a book to sell.
.
Oddly, I was in the hospital waiting room this morning and they had news about Santorum on Fox News. They were giving him mad props and pretending that he has strong support out there. Made one wonder who was on more drugs. Was it the people get operations in the hospital or the guys in the Fox News studios?
Well, it’s obvious that Faux News doesn’t do drug testing, or everybody working there would fail miserably.
.
I wonder if they would’ve trumpeted Santorum if Santorum had said this about Gingrich, rather than somebody who isn’t running for president?
.
But it seems the goal for all of the potential GOP candidates is just to see who can say something more ridiculous than the last (knowing that Palin has quite the head start).
Of course they do drug testing at Faux News.
.
If you test negative, they give you some, then keep you away from the editorial department until the stuff kicks in.
“Oddly, I was in the hospital waiting room this morning and they had news about Santorum on Fox News. They were giving him mad props and pretending that he has strong support out there. “
.
Maybe Fox is planning on hiring him and giving him his own show?
.
They shouldn’t, IMHO. They probably don’t want people Googling his name to find updates on his show.
.
Theno
.
Kiera Knightley Googles Rick Santorum: ‘My Innocence Has Been Taken Away’ (VIDEO)
.
http://www.tvsquad.com/2011/05/10/kiera-knightley-googles-rick-santorum-daily-show-video/
.
Kinda creates a entirely different mental image in your mind when you here the news discussing his bid for the presidency and talking about a Santorum Exploratory Committee, doesn’t it?
.
Eewwwwww…
Santorum has a shot. Not a great shot, mind you. But he does have experience – yet doesn’t seem a relic of the ’90s like Gingrich and Hillary – definitely speaks what he believes and is undoubtedly conservative.
.
And he did win two terms and picked up friends and favors along the way.
.
Plus, he comes from a key state. So if he can somehow win the nomination, that could be key. Yes, he lost big in 2006, but PA is going through their conservative phase now – they elected a Repub. governor and a lot of those Reagan Democrats are disenchanted with Obama.
.
Right now, he could be John Kerry – or he could be Sam Brownback. Time will tell.
.
My pick right now is Bachmann, especially if Mrs. Palin skips the race.
.
I don’t think that Santorum has much of a shot. His best chance at winning is getting stuck in traffic and showing up late for the debate where a gas leak cause an explosion that wipes out the rest of the field.
.
Palin isn’t running.
.
Unfortunately, I believe that Bachmann has a pretty good chance of getting the nomination. I say “unfortunately” here because once it goes to the general election… Obama will slaughter her in the final vote counts.
Wow, both you guys think Bachman is a serious threat to win? I don’t see it, but I was hoping for a Daniels run so what do i know?
.
I think she has a chance to win the Republican Primaries and get the nod. I think she’d be toast in the general election. Interestingly, it’s the same single reason for each of those two things.
Santorum is just too extreme and intimidating for anyone who’s not an ultra-conservative. I doubt he could ever appeal to a large portion of society.
.
Bush and Palin are also ultra-conservative, but they have some folksy levity, some charm. Frankly, Santorum looks and sounds like the very stern father of your girlfriend that makes you terrified of family dinners at her home.
Well, if there’s anybody out there who can make Sarah Palin look a little sane, it’s Michele Bachmann.
.
Which still isn’t saying anything good for the GOP as a whole right now.
.
Well, Mitt is kicking his own chances in the @$$ more so than usual. After being a part of the chorus of Republican voices who attacked Obama over the automotive bailout, he’s now looking at the (mostly) successful results and leaping out to claim some sort of partial credit for the idea. He’s going to turn off the moderates and independents who can see him on video attacking it and then claiming credit for the basis of the idea and he is certainly going to turn off Republican voters who still attack the thing as a part of Obama’s wasteful spending/socialism/communism/government takeover of the private industry/creation of acne on teenagers/whatever.
.
Not helping his cause at all.
I’ve gotten no less than four “money bombs” e-mails from Bachmann this week. She is almost definitely running. Then, her ability to appeal to both the Tea party and evangelicals will allow her to win a tough fight for the nomination. hen the GOP will have the populist theme of “making history” with the first female nominee.
.
She has most of Palin’s charisma but will be far more unlikely to fall on her face or get tripped up by questions/issues.
.
She can beat Obama.
.
Actually, I think the hard swing she’s been taking toward the evangelicals will play great with them (duh) and some of the Tea Party crowd in the primaries, but that same turn will hurt her in the general election. It’s one thing to have the typical “Family, Faith & Values” quotes floating around out there. It’s another thing entirely to have video of yourself discussing the need to make foreign policy decisions based on biblical passages/prophesy. Bachmann has been doing a bit more of that kind of thing lately to gain popularity with the Tea Party and the fundamentalists, but talk like that will make her look like a fanatic and/or scare away a lot of moderate voters of every stripe.
Here’s my question:
John Huntsman — does he seriously think he has a prayer?
Why NOT Huntsman, Sasha? A governor AND businessman, he could take away the Mitt voters who still aren’t crazy about Mitt? The GOP could do a lot worse.
His positions and perceived closeness to Obama are anathema with the GOP mainstream. I see no way how he can so much as place in the primaries without going full-metal wingnut.
.
Best theory I’ve heard about his candidacy is that he’s putting his name out there for 2016 when (hopefully) crazy stops being the default GOP setting.
I actually like what I’ve seen of John Huntsman. He looks like he’s actually what a lot of Republicans and Democrats claim to be but aren’t; mainstream.
.
So, of course, based on who they went for in 2010, The Tea Party voter block will insure that he never gets near getting the nod.
I’ll bet Palin knows it’s not 2008…
Considering her reactionary thinking, she probably thinks it’s 1908.
We’ll have to wait and see about Palin, but we already know what year Obama thinks it is.
That was a silly goof on his part.
I’ll also bet Palin knows how to give a toast.
Ideally with butter.
meh, i thought liberals were looking foolish when they made big deals out of things like this when bush was in office and I think conservatives will look foolish if they make a big deal out of it with Obama. Now I’ll grant that Darin is probably just doing some playful teasing, which is harmless and I do see the value from a tactical standpoint in mocking someone who has a bit of a thin skin but I would suggest that any attempt to beat Obama in 2012 will have to focus laser like on issues and leave the silly stuff behind. I don’t think any of the republicans likely to get nominated will win in a campaign that is not 100% focused on the basic question of whether people are feeling like the country is being led in the direction they want it to go.
It’s not just scoring political points. Many of Bush’s gaffes were too hillarious, they deserve to be preserved for posterity.
Of course, Bill… it’s not like I’m an influential member of the media or anything. Just attempting to equalize.
Once you can fill a daily calender with truly jaw-dropping material, then you might have a hope of finding equity.
.
Good luck with that.
If you include Joe Biden you could fill up an entire decade.
.
And it’s only taken Palin three years on the public stage to amass a list of truly jaw-dropping material that rivals Biden’s decades long list of jaw droppers.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-25/news/29582700_1_vice-president-joe-biden-brain-research
.
Biden to visit Boston for brain research launch.
.
I wish him well.
It’s too bad that making fun of presidential gaffes has gotten so mean spirited and seriously put forward as evidence of stupidity (because none of these critics would EVER look foolish if all their words were made public) because some are genuinely amusing, like this acknowledgment by Obama of the rising zombie menace: “On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.” or when he accidentally makes an argument for the other side “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” (this was an alleged defense of the government taking a greater role in health care).
.
It’s funny stuff but people always have to ruin the fun by pretending (or God help them, actually believing) that these mistakes somehow convince them that they are sooooooo much smarter than the politician in question. Even Joe Biden is no dummy–just not as smart as he thinks he is. In fairness, Stephen Hawking is probably not quite as smart as Joe Biden’s self assessment.
Why exactly do we accept Stephen Hawking as smart anyway? Has he discovered/invented something or merely put forth a bunch of popular theories? Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity. Isaac Newton invented the refracting telescope. What has Stephen Hawking done?
It’s too bad that making fun of presidential gaffes has gotten so mean spirited and seriously put forward as evidence of stupidity
.
I think you’d be hard pressed to find another president who goofed and gaffed as much and as often as Bush did. And I say that regardless of the fact that technology today records all of it.
.
Yes, screwing up your speech to the point that saying that OB/GYNs need ‘loving’ is evidence of stupidity.
.
Why exactly do we accept Stephen Hawking as smart anyway?
.
For the same reason we accept that you’re a habitual liar: the evidence is plain for all to see.
.
What has Stephen Hawking done?
.
Speaking of stupidity on display…
I get it.
.
“Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB/GYN’s aren’t able to practice their love with women all across the country.” = evidence of stupidity
.
“Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee — which is my committee — a bill to call for divestment from Iran as way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.” –Obama was not, in fact, a member of that committee– = simple misstatement that only a real jerk would try to make a big deal out of. Possibly a racist as well. Racist jerk. It’s an easy mistake to make, why only last week I thought I was a member of the school board. Boy was my face red when the cops dragged me out of the closed door meeting, kicking and screaming.
.
But hey, people are free to make what hay they wish out of whatever they wish. Me, I’ve always thought it was incredibly dumb to portray one’s opposition as incredibly dumb. Especially when they beat you…repeatedly. I mean, what does that make you?
In point of fact, Darin, I suspect that doing the kinds of theorems that hawking has done might require a huge amount of brain power, as opposed to inventing things, which a moderately clever and/or dedicated person of average intelligence might accomplish. there is nothing “mere” about putting forth theories. Not to take away anything from newton, whose greatest work was in theories (and was a nut as well, crazy and genius not being mutually exclusive) and Franklin who may not have been the most brilliant man ever in any particular field but was amazing in the diversity of his talent.
.
If you don’t like any of his opinions on God, heaven, extraterrestrial life, etc, you don’t have to disparage his obvious intellect to do so–those are mere opinions and no more valid than your own. A person can be brilliant and wrong but it’s foolish to try to argue they are wrong by claiming they are not brilliant.
I mean, what does that make you?
.
As somebody who voted against Bush, it makes me one of the smart people.
.
It makes me realize that I’m surrounded by stupid people, that suckers truly are born every minute, ‘stupid is as stupid does’, and so on.
.
But then, apparently I need to repeat myself: I think you’d be hard pressed to find another president who goofed and gaffed as much and as often as Bush did.
.
Bush is full of stupid, and it was sadly on display to the world for 8 years.
well, it has a certain appeal I guess–if your candidate wins you’re a winner! If they lose–you’re surrounded by stupid people! Winning!!!
Spare me your false indignation. Going into the 2000 election, I didn’t think Bush or Gore were particularly bright men and didn’t think either of them would really have much of an impact, so I didn’t vote. Boy, have I never been so wrong in my life.
.
Sadly, Bush not only got to go and prove that he was a complete idiot in four short years, then this country showed how truly dumb it was by giving him another four years to screw things up even further.
.
Lousy executive, terrible commander in chief, and couldn’t give a speech if his life depended on it. And those were his redeeming qualities.
Btw, Bill, using a catch word from a crazy person isn’t going to help your case against stupidity. 😉
I can laugh at both Bush and Biden with the same relish.
.
But not all gaffe machines are the same. Perhaps on account of the stereotypes associated with conservatives and liberals, a politician like Palin comes across as an ignoramus and proudly comtemptuous of “book learning,” while Joe Biden looks like he’s trying to be smart and smug and failing hillariously.
I dunno. I view Hawking as an “academic celebrity.” He kinda reminds me of Bono in that regard. Every time Bono speaks, the has-been media produces headlines about it. Same with Hawking. He’s done nothing to improve human life, but has instead provided some popular theories. Popular among his academic peers that is. His physical condition is pitiable, but that does not give his thoughts any inherent credibility.
Spare me your false indignation.
.
Well, it’s false because I feel no indignation at all…mild bemusement perhaps, the occasional guffaw…anyway, that works way better if you say it like Dr Smith would, and add “You bubble-headed bøøbÿ!”
.
Darin, many of Hawking’s theories are hardly “popular”–I doubt that 1 out a 100 college goers could slog through one of his scientific papers and keep up. His books are another matter and even they are pretty tough going for the average person. Clearly the man is brilliant, all the more so given his physical limitations. I would not want to take anything above basic algebra without being able to use a paper and pencil.
.
There are some “intellectuals” out there who may not deserve the description–of late, Cornell West certainly has made me wonder if there is any there there–but hawking is not one of them.
Celebrities that have any left-wing opinnions are dilletantes, busybodies, people who haven’t done anything to “improve human life”.
.
Celebrities that have right-wing opinnions are brave, patriotic, exercise their free speech, and hey, never forget that they do lots of charity! (Left-wing celebrities also do lots of charity, but somehow it doesn’t count)
.
I think the only time any of Bono’s various charity works has been acknowledged by conservatives was the one that he worked with Bush to secure money for AIDS victims in Africa. Bush did a nice thing, so obviously the conservatives will note it.
Rene, you obviously aren’t talking about how they are perceived in the media–left wing celebrities get all kinds of credit for their charities…as they should. Some of those charities take in a lot more than they give out but the celebs seldom get called on that. When a celebrity says something egregiously stupid they may take a hit but it doesn’t get much attention outside of political junkies.
.
So few celebrities are openly right wing that I think it would be hard to draw many conclusions. Even the ones on the left are so diverse, from dictator loving dilettantes to those that are genuinely interested in helping others, that it would be hard to draw any overreaching conclusions.
Darin,
.
Speaking as someone who (probably unlike you) holds an MS in astrophysics, and as someone who (probably unlike you) has actually attended in-person talks from Dr. Hawking … let me state, as definitively as possible, that you have not the slightest freakin’ clue what you’re talking about.
.
Is Hawking the smartest man alive? That I can’t say. Is he in the running? Hëll yeah. He almost singlehandedly revolutionized our understanding of black holes, made Einstein’s general theory of relativity more applicable on a practical level, and has continued to pursue very serious academic work well past the age when everyone expected him to be dead from his illness.
.
A story from the film about him (Errol Morris’s “A Brief History of Time” — partly about Hawking’s work, partly a bio of him):
.
Hawking was living with a bunch of other grad students, and they all had some particular problem set in gravitational physics. People sweated and slaved, and the next morning over breakfast were talking it over. Almost everybody said that they felt very proud when they’d solved one or two of the dozen problems given.
.
Hawking came downstairs looking grim. People asked him what was wrong. “Well, I ran into some trouble — I think I only got about half of them right.”
.
I may have the details of the story wrong — it’s from memory — but the gist is correct. Hawking is one of those people I would describe as “scary smart” — and people I know personally who have worked with him professionally agree.
.
If you want to call Hawking an “academic celebrity,” that IMO only reveals your own intellectual bankruptcy.
Darin,
While you are entitled to your opinion, I believe you are incorrect about Hawking – and what was the point of bashing him in the first place exactly?
Bill, I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear. I was refering to how the celebrities are perceived by conservatives, in response to Darin’s statement that Hawkings and Bono haven’t done anything to improve human condition.
.
“… and what was the point of bashing him in the first place exactly?”
.
The swipe at Hawking looks like nothing more than an attempt to play up the stereotype of Conservatives hating intellectuals/higher learning to stir up some stupidity and get attention for himself. At this point I’m really more and more convinced with every post that Darin is nothing more than a waste of time troll. He’s posted here for some time now and never been very bright, but his posts of late look more and more like someone just working at jerking everyone’s chain by pretending to be slightly more stupid than he might actually be.
In answer to Jerome’s question: It was a tangential response to Bill’s statement (“In fairness, Stephen Hawking is probably not quite as smart as Joe Biden’s self assessment.”) I then felt the need to mention that I don’t find Stephen Hawking to be a particularly wise person either. Can he beat me in a chess match? Probably. But I don’t take my philosophical ques any advice from Bobby Fischer either.
I find Tim’s response pretty interesting too. I stated that Hawking hasn’t done anything to improve human life and has instead provided popular theories and Tim responds by basically saying “Nuh-uh!! He almost singlehandedly revolutionized our understanding of black holes and other stuff that hasn’t actually improved human lives.”
Don’t even try that crap, Darin. Do. Not. I don’t take that bûllšhìŧ from my students, so I’m dámņ sure not going to take it from you.
.
You started this whole debacle with “Why exactly do we accept Stephen Hawking as smart anyway? Has he discovered/invented something or merely put forth a bunch of popular theories?”
.
My answer was a direct response to that. We “accept” him as smart because he IS smart.
.
You, on the other hand, display the usual ignorance about what a “mere” theory is in a scientific sense, have zero sense of what a contribution can be if it’s not “inventing something,” and clearly are enjoying knocking over anthills and seeing people scurry to address your apparent critiques.
.
I have given all the answer I intend to. Shrouding will commence shortly.
Done here.
And one very, very last try, Darin:
.
Ever use GPS? You know, that thing that a lot of people say has improved their lives?
.
Wouldn’t work without general relativity — that “theory” to which Hawking has contributed immeasurably.
.
Feel free to fling more poo at the bars of your cage now.
I then felt the need to mention that I don’t find Stephen Hawking to be a particularly wise person either.
.
No, you said “Why exactly do we accept Stephen Hawking as smart anyway? Has he discovered/invented something or merely put forth a bunch of popular theories?”
.
Saying someone is not smart is different from saying they are not wise. You can be every intelligent and lack wisdom. a person of average intelligence but the right experiences can be very wise indeed. I have no reason to think Hawking is particularly wise or not wise but I think saying he is not smart is a pretty hard position to defend so I’m not surprised you’re not defending it.
.
Tim’s statement was in reply to you’re questioning if Hawking was smart. the answer is “Yes.”
Stephen Hawking never got his picture on bubblegum cards, did he? Have you ever seen his picture on a bubblegum card? Hmmm?
.
For some reason, I am reminded of Dr. Hawking’s work on whether information that goes into a black hole can ever be recovered…
Wow, you really do have a thin skin. What you should have done there was lead off with the GPS example and not blathered a word about black holes. That would have served you better. I’ll go ahead and accept the premise, for now, that Hawking contributed in some way to the GPS system (even though I’m pretty sure it would have existed without him anyway). The man has said publicly some things that many learned people would call “foolish.” All I’m suggesting is that the man might not be the paragon of enlightenment that so many so readily want to make him out to be.
To Bill’s “Saying someone is not smart is different from saying they are not wise.”
That’s a difference without a distinction as far as my point of view is concerned. Our media perceives them as interchangeable as far as Hawking is concerned.
I do want to go back to Tim’s little spaz back there where he said “Don’t even try that crap, Darin. Do. Not. I don’t take that bûllšhìŧ from my students, so I’m dámņ sure not going to take it from you.” I just wanna ask, am I supposed to be standing in a puddle of piss right now or something? Was that what your intent was there? I’m just making sure, because this sounds an awful lot to me like what insecure academics tend to fall back on when someone they perceive to be intellectually inferior has for whatever reason embarrassed them.
I’ll go ahead and accept the premise, for now, that Hawking contributed in some way to the GPS system (even though I’m pretty sure it would have existed without him anyway).
.
Wow, could be any less relevent? Are you suggesting that the only way to be considered smart is to invent something that would not have existed but for you? That eliminates, well, I’m thinking just about everyone. I suspect that everything Edison invented would eventually been invented by someone.
.
You’ve moved the goalposts out into the parking lot. And the game is long over.
.
The man has said publicly some things that many learned people would call “foolish.”
.
This may explain why you seem to be incapable of admitting your are wrong here. Saying something foolish does not mean you are not smart in other areas.
.
All I’m suggesting is that the man might not be the paragon of enlightenment that so many so readily want to make him out to be.
.
Nobody called him a “paragon of enlightenment” I called him smart. You disagreed. Presented with evidence to the contrary you tried to change the argument. C’mon man, at this point you would have a tough time getting your best friend to tell you it’s worth digging that hole deeper.
.
Incidentally, a search for “stephen hawking” and “paragon of enlightenment” does not reveal any instance of him being referred to in that way. Are you thinking of the right guy? Wears glasses, uses a wheelchair, sounds like a cylon?
I’m amazed at the reaction you all are having. All I did was deign (on a blog of all places) to suggest that perhaps Stephen Hawking is not all that, and you guys go crackers.
Nobody is going crackers, Darin. You were wrong, it was pointed out, you refused to accept it, and hey, we’re only human, it’s kind of fun to win an argument and when the person you win against just keeps making it worse for themselves you get to relive the moment again and again.
.
Feel free to move on to the next stage in how folks like you handle these things–either the “I guess I must have struck a nerve” gambit or the “When folks on both the right and left are disagreeing with you you must be doing something right” claim.
Okay, here’s a quote of my first Hawking post: “Why exactly do we accept Stephen Hawking as smart anyway? Has he discovered/invented something or merely put forth a bunch of popular theories? Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity. Isaac Newton invented the refracting telescope. What has Stephen Hawking done?” As you can see, most of the sentences here are in fact QUESTIONS. People got mad here because I deigned to ask them… that I had the audacity to challenge popular sentiment. That’s what got all this started. Everybody started reacting EMOTIONALLY and didn’t really start to answer any of these questions until several posts in. If anything, I was indicting the media more so than Hawking… but you guys didn’t want to go there. Hawking doesn’t need to be defended from me. My saying “Can he beat me in a chess match? Probably. But I don’t take my philosophical ques or any advice from Bobby Fischer either” was completely lost on most of you.
Okay, I’ll take the bait.
.
What exactly did Hawking say that you deem foolish, Darin?
.
Let me guess. That God isn’t needed to explain the universe?
.
Hawking is a million times wiser, smarter, more intelligent, savvier, whatever than anyone who has anything good to say about something as insane as the so-called “rapture”, that you said is a good thing that Gramps Crackpot has popularized.
Well, Rene, if you want to go there we’ll go there… but are you sure you wouldn’t rather talk about why the media perceives him as an authority on theological matters?
Well, perhaps for the same reason the media treats the Pope and every important religious leader out there as authorities on any social, scientific, and political matter under the sun.
Darin ignorantly bleated:
“To Bill’s “Saying someone is not smart is different from saying they are not wise.”
That’s a difference without a distinction as far as my point of view is concerned. Our media perceives them as interchangeable as far as Hawking is concerned.”
See: Bunker, Edith
“Well, perhaps for the same reason the media treats the Pope and every important religious leader out there as authorities on any social, scientific, and political matter under the sun.”
Okay, Hawking is now some sort of religious leader in the eyes of the media. Fascinating! I can accept that premise.
Stephen Hawkings is a scientist, scientists tend to deal in proving what they say, unlike religious people who expect you to just take their work for it.
That’s not what I meant, and you know it.
.
Everyday we see religious leaders making public their opinnions about matters they know nothing about; wether it’s the Church saying condoms are as dangerous to use as curare, or the latest Fundamentalist spouting bull about evolution and palentology.
.
And the media gives them full publicity, and they’re never shy about taking advantage of it.
.
I don’t see the problem in the media doing the same to a famous humanist scientist. And what Hawking has said is actually very sedate. I don’t think he ever said God doesn’t exist, just that He isn’t necessary to explain the universe.
Just to make it clear, I was responding to Darin, not to Bladestar. I agree with Bladestar.
.
You gotta admire the additional fact that Hawking exposes his viewpoints without claiming that he has some omnipotent spiritual Big Brother on his side.
That’s not what I meant, and you know it.
.
I wouldn’t be too sure of the latter.
No, I think you were wise to compare Hawking to a religious leader. I think that’s exactly how the media views him. As a prophet, of sorts. I think he’s propped up by those who feel there needs to be a counter to all the religious leaders out there who occasionally get air time. Said people are desperate for some alternative to theology and Hawking’s survival transfers credibility to what he says in their eyes. I honestly don’t think as many people would know who Stephen Hawking is if he didn’t suffer from ALS.
Well, duh. I imagine not that many people would know who Helen Keller was either, had she been born with the ability to see and hear. The fact that a guy is trapped in a near immobile body and STILL able to compute crazy complicated physics in his head…well, I’d call him smart but you’ll just deny it because he hasn’t made a contribution that can be sold at one of the As Seen On TV stores, like the CitiKitty Cat Toilet Training Kit or the pan that makes nothing but corner brownies. Which, no lie, probably deserves a special Nobel Prize.
.
The man gave his opinion. He isn’t one of those jihad atheists who shrieks like a vampire at any mention of religion–there’s a photo out there of the Pope giving him a blessing, which Dr Hawking seems to have accepted in the good spirit in which it was given.
.
That nitwit prognosticator and his phony rapture predictions did more harm to religious people than anything Hawking would say. And questioning whether or not Hawking is smart sure doesn’t paint a pretty picture of the religious either, since pretty much any fair minded person will see it as a foolish question and evidence of a lack of confidence in ones religious convictions.
1) Is Hawking Smart?
.
Yes. Hawking can be considered smart based on the way we measure such things — I.Q., professional achievements, contribution to science, ability to present arguments in a cogent manner.
.
2) Does (1) make his opinions better than others?
.
– In his own field his opinions are backed by his own professional expertise.
.
– On general political and social issues you can value his opinions more because he’s a proven smart man, but the truth is it’s possible to be smart in one respect and completely ordinary in another. Moreover, when it comes to politics there are smart people supporting a myriad of opinions.
.
3) Are Hawking opinions better than a religious leader’s opinions?
.
– In his own profession and in science in general probably yes.
.
– In other issues probably not.
.
– The difference is that religious leaders present their opinions as based on a religious source of authority. Hawking’s opinions have the authority of science when they are about science, but they are only opinions when it’s on other subjects.
.
4) Why is the media interested in his opinions?
.
The media is interested in the opinions of people who are famous enough that their names will be familiar to potential viewers/readers/listeners. Hawking’s celebrity is the result of his scientific achievements, his work on science for the general public, and his extraordinary life story. Other scientist have gained fame without that such a life story (Einstein, for example).
.
5) Why are people interested in Hawking’s opinions?
.
– People are interested in opinions that support the positions they themselves hold.
.
– Hawking is possibly able to present his opinions in a more interesting way than the average person.
Measuring how smart a scientist is by his inventions is very Hollywood.
“The man has said publicly some things that many learned people would call “foolish.””
Let me guess. This is all because Hawking said he didn’t think there was such a thing as heaven. He’s obviously not all that smart because he doesn’t accept what theology dictates.
.
PAD
“I imagine not that many people would know who Helen Keller was either, had she been born with the ability to see and hear.”
Right, but nobody considers Helen Keller a cosmic authority because she was deaf and dumb… see the difference?
“Is Hawking Smart? Yes. Hawking can be considered smart based on the way we measure such things — I.Q., professional achievements, contribution to science, ability to present arguments in a cogent manner.”
I dunno. I’ve met a lot of people who supposedly had very high I.Q.’s and had professional and academic achievements coming out of their ears who couldn’t change a tire or even tie their shoes… not because they had a disease that prevented them from moving but because they didn’t know how or couldn’t figure it out. So Hawking has expanded our knowledge of black holes, huh? Black holes themselves are theoretical. We don’t know if they exist. So basically he’s adding ideas to ideas. There are undoubtedly legions of people out there who will call that “contributing to science” but I don’t know. My first reaction to black holes is “so what?” None of this lends itself to his opinions about various things making it onto front page headlines in papers.
“Right, but nobody considers Helen Keller a cosmic authority because she was deaf and dumb… see the difference?”
Yes. Helen Keller was not a professional cosmologist, and Hawking is. So he’s an authority about the cosmos but not about blindness.
Hawking is smart in his field. To doubt that is foolish. Whether he’s smart in other fields is indeterminate.
.
“Black holes themselves are theoretical. We don’t know if they exist. So basically he’s adding ideas to ideas.”
.
And in other news, here in the reality based community…
.
First black hole discovered in Galactic Halo – March 29, 2001
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4272
.
Youngest-Ever Nearby Black Hole Discovered
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/14nov_babyblackhole/
.
Huge Black Hole Discovered in Small Galaxy
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/12/huge-black-hole-discovered-in-small-galaxy/
.
The last several black holes that were discovered were big news. The discoveries were all over the TV news programs and internet news cites. Congratulations, Einstein, you’re not only likely a troll, but you’re a troll who has once again displayed your factually challenged nature when posting around here.
Darin you are making two separate arguments:
1) You’re trying to belittle Hawking’s professional achievements because you don’t like his opinions. That only makes you look small.
2) You’re saying something similar to what I’ve said, that Hawking’s achievements in Astrophysics does not mean his opinion on other issues are necessarily true or smart. That’s true, but I suspect you put a lot credence in the opinions of people who have not achieved a small fraction of what Hawking achieved in his field, and who get more media coverage for their opinions than he does. So your argument here also seems disingenuous.
.
“So Hawking has expanded our knowledge of black holes, huh? Black holes themselves are theoretical. We don’t know if they exist.”
.
You might want to bother doing this little thing called “fact checking” when expressing your opinions. We’ve discovered multiple black holes in the last decade and even have photographic evidence of them. Somewhere in the spam filter is a post with several articles discussing just that fact. 30 seconds on Google will help make you look a lot less factually challenged.
.
Well, in your case maybe only a little less factually challenged…
I did, Jerry. Nobody knows if they exist or not.
People have come forward with photographic evidence of Bigfoot too. Doesn’t make it exist.
You believe in the Rapture. You probably also believe in Archangel Michael, Heaven, the Immaculate Conception, and Satan.
.
But not black holes, black holes are too far-fetched.
.
Sir, you are hillarious.
Rene, since you are interested in separation of men and women in buses in Israel, here is a link to a blog post:
http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2011/05/gender-separation-on-public-transit.html
and wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-only_passenger_car
Guys, seriously: if any further proof was required, aside from the scientific proof already presented, that there exists in nature a place where there is nothing but darkness, a sucking void so vast that nothing, not even light, can escape from it–a place that, in short, drags stuff in without giving anything worthwhile out–it’s a discussion with this guy.
.
Darin is the on line equivalent of a black hole.
.
PAD
Shìŧ. I’m disgusted to discover that the madness has come to my own country, as seen in the wikipedia article. I wasn’t aware of it, since it isn’t in my city. It’s only in Rio de Janeiro.
.
I know it doesn’t make it any less unfortunate, but I’ve read up on it. It has been introduced by feminist politicians, it has no religious overtones. It’s a sort of reverse discrimination: women can travel in any wagon, but men are forbidden in the reserved, pink-labeled wagon.
.
And males routinely try to sneak into the women’s wagon. Of course, in typical Brazilian fashion, the breaking of minor laws is more often considered an amusing joke instead of an crime.
.
And it seems that the regulation is only in effect in working days, in specific hours, between 6 and 9, and later 17 to 20, those hours the subway is most crowded.
What I find enlightening is that Darin recanted his earlier post (on a different thread) that everytime he comes here the blog is only about political content, since the last eight posts have had nothing to do with politics.
.
Oh, wait. He didn’t.
.
TAC
.
.
“Guys, seriously: if any further proof was required, aside from the scientific proof already presented, that there exists in nature a place where there is nothing but darkness, a sucking void so vast that nothing, not even light, can escape from it–a place that, in short, drags stuff in without giving anything worthwhile out–it’s a discussion with this guy.
.
Darin is the on line equivalent of a black hole.”
.
I was bouncing back and forth between thinking he was A) just a drooling idiot or B) just a troll. His comparing black holes to bigfoot and thus basically comparing hard sciences to cryptozoology pretty much answers the question as to what he is; both A&B.
.
Shrouded. I have better things to do with my time.
Rene – “You believe in the Rapture. You probably also believe in Archangel Michael, Heaven, the Immaculate Conception, and Satan. But not black holes, black holes are too far-fetched. Sir, you are hillarious.”
I think it takes more faith to believe in black holes than the other things you listed here using your vast powers of assumption.
I like how each season on PeterDavid.net there’s a new villain. Keeps it exciting.
Keeps it exciting.
.
Truth is stranger than fiction? 🙂
religious people who expect you to just take their word for it
.
Are there such people? Yes. But there are also those of us who examine the facts for ourselves, engage our minds, and come away from the process with belief in God.
Give the man some credit: Darin might actually be much, much stupider than we all imagine but manages to post less stupidly than he actually is. We should applaud his overcoming such handicaps. 😉
Jerry & Sasha,
Come on, guys. calling someone stupid really serves no purpose and doesn’t advance the debate. I have at times but that’s only with people who have gone out of their way to name me and attack me personally.
.
Take the higher road – and if Darin bothers you that much, personally shroud him.
Point, but Jerry gave me such a good opening for a line that I had to take it.
.
I’ll try to resist better next time.
.
I didn’t call him stupid. I called him a (likely) troll. The only bit where I mentioned “stupid” was in saying that he is a troll who is jerking everyone’s chain by pretending to be slightly more stupid than he might actually be.
.
“– and if Darin bothers you that much, personally shroud him.”
.
I pretty much have. My comments were not to him. My comments were to everyone else about Darin.
Cowards…
Sasha,
It was a good opening line, I’ll grant you that:)
“Come on, guys. calling someone stupid really serves no purpose and doesn’t advance the debate.”
.
I think it qualifies more as an end unto itself.
.
PAD
Darin,
And calling people who feel you have sufficiently aggravated to the point of ignoring you “cowards” is really not productive, either.
.
I do feel you have something to add to the debates here if you would just control yourself and stop poking people in a petty manner. Your points get lost when you do that.
It’s called “humor,” you should look into it.
See now, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and telling you I feel you have something worthwhile to say and you get all in sarcastic/defensive mode.
Accusing someone of sarcasm or general snarkiness on this board is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
The humor defense works best when one is funny.
Whatever you say there, buddy.
Well, trying to find humor in being called a coward in a text interface, with no context whatsoever, is probably akin to getting from Point A to Point Z with no references in between.
.
But I’m sure Darin can lead the way just fine…
So Jerome: How’d the whole Dutch Uncle approach to Darin work out for ya?
.
PAD
What can I say? Some people are determined to drown, even if you keep offering them a chance to hop on boats.
.
Dear Management,
.
Your spam filter – My post with multiple links to science articles discussing the discovery of black holes
.
Please give ’em a swift kick to free it up.
.
Thanks
.
Just saw it pop out after posting.
.
Thanks.
.
Yeah, I’ll revise what I said above. Darin is not just a troll and a drooling idiot, he’s a troll who has admitted to be a troll here before.
.
I mentioned a few threads back that his postings seemed familiar, but at the time I was thinking that he was our semi-annual visit from Ben Bradley posting under a fake name. Nope. He’s just Darin and his shtick was familiar because he’s done it here before. That odd little bug with my memory suddenly kicked in and I remembered where I’ve seen Darin’s garbage before.
.
“This is all starting to sound extremely familiar”
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2007/03/22/this-is-all-starting-to-sound-extremely-familiar/comment-page-1/#comments
.
There he is in all his drooling idiot/troll glory doing the same thing he’s been doing in the last several threads he’s played in. The fun post is this one.
.
Darin
March 23, 2007 at 6:41 pm
.
Guys, Guys, Guys….
.
Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
.
I go in every once in a great-great while, make statements that I know most of you oppose and then when you throw up little links to provide your side with support, I just repeat myself. I ignore your links and just reiterate what I’ve said. It’s what I’ve done every. Single. Time. Here… when there is a political thread.
.
Sheesh.
.
Darin
http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2007/03/22/this-is-all-starting-to-sound-extremely-familiar/comment-page-2/#comment-31387
.
Same crap, same drooling idiot self described troll.
.
I’d suggest that everyone just ignore his worthless ášš from this point forward. If we’re really lucky, he’ll get frustrated, get really stupid about getting his much craved attention and maybe even get himself disemvoweled.
Good catch, my man, that brain of yours really does come in handy sometimes. In fairness to the rest of us, this sort of thing is scarcely worth the effort to remember.
.
Cripes, what an empty little life that must be. But it gives him joy and most of us forget about it pretty quickly so no harm, I guess. I know more about hawking than i did before so in one way i guess some good was done.
.
Like I said before, I wish I didn’t remember things like this. I’d love it if my brain would store and recall data that I actually needed as easily. Instead, I’m stuck with 40 years worth of useless stuff like what the morning DJ on the radio in the office next to mine was talking about in 1996.
.
Of course, as I noted before, it does make me a mean Trivial Pursuit player and you have no idea how many radio call in trivia games I’ve won cash and free dinners off of over the years.
LIke I said, he’s a black hole. Why bother going into his orbit?
.
PAD
.
“LIke I said, he’s a black hole. Why bother going into his orbit?”
.
Kinda my point to everyone else with posting his little ha-ha-blow off post from before. He’s a self described troll who has recently been posting here since the “Not Intended” thread in the exact same troll tactic manner that he described loving to use on blogs four years ago.
.
He hasn’t changed and he won’t change. He’s not worth anyone wasting any further time or the bandwidth on.
.
Shrouded.
.
Permanently.