Obviously, you do not.

Its a bit like a guy who is batting .157 going around and telling everyone he is the second coming of Ted Williams.

Buy since according to you, Obama cannot possibly be President today, why are we having this converstion?

Sorry skippy, I had your number then, & I still have it...

Obviously, you do not.

I dare to suggest that Mr. Bush is going to be vindicated over the next four years by President Obama himself. Vindicated not in rhetoric, since left-wing rhetoric is always and forever vitriolic against any successful Republican. No, Bush will be vindicated thanks to the policies sure to be adopted by Mr. Obama and the Democrat-run Senate, House, and State Dept.

I make this assessment based on the proposition that President Obama is a pragmatist at heart. He goes with what works to keep himself in power. One cannot, after all, be such an astute manager of his own spectacle without being in large part a pragmatist.

If we accept the lessons of history, in this case the Clinton administration, Democrats have learned how to change political reality. They have learned how to alter the perception they are on the run from an unruly mob, into one that suggests what is really going on is that there is a parade — one that they are leading. Finding in their pragmatism something that works and that someone else has offered, and then getting out in front of it as if it was their plan to begin with. This has been their big talent for the last 20 years or so.

Indeed, it is Obama who apparently is doing the most in terms of recognizing (the far left’s bleeding anti-Bush vitriol notwithstanding) that Mr. Bush didn’t do that bad of a job after all.

--January 21, 2009 - by Eric Florack

Not so much, James. I've been saying for months now that Obama never gain the real support of the party faithful, in full, and so would never win the GE. Beginning to look like I called it.

Obama will get blanked in the general. Not that Clinton would do any better; shed not make it without black voter support which because of Obama, wouldn't happen.

The patterns are all there for a landslide for McCain; This is 1968 all over again.

Consider; Back in 68, we had a very notably liberal Republican in Nixon. We had a Democrat party nomination fight between two fairly closely matched Democrat candidates whose Democrat supporters each would never vote for the other candidate. We wave every left-wing crazy on the planet who could hitch a ride, in Chicago, protesting the war. The party leadership ended up having to take a hand to get the nomination process done, which alienated around half the party. The resulting breakup of the Democrats in 68 was of legendary proportions.

What happened then shows all the signs of happening this year in Denver. In OBama and Clinton we have two candidates whose political and family roots are deep in liberal Chicago politics. We have a very notably liberal Republican in McCain. We have a Democrat party nomination fight between two fairly closely matched Democrat candidates whose Democrat supporters each would never vote for the other candidate. We have rumors of every left-wing crazy on the planet who can hitch a ride, in Denver for the convention, to protest the war. This Clinton Obama thing will be close enough that the party leadership will be forced to take a hand in the decision.. and there are already signs that any choice they make won’t be popular. Is there any conclusion but that the resulting breakup of the Democrats in 08 was will be of legendary proportions?

Posted by Bithead | July 5, 2008 | 11:44 am | Permalink

Only a fool would start talking about how it "looks like they called it" in July

Posted by anjin-san | July 6, 2008 | 12:10 am

Sorry skippy, I had your number then, & I still have it...

I just hope that Bithead is around to post on the "Election Night results" thread. It's very unlikely that McCain even makes it to 200 EVs.

Heh. Personally, I'm waiting for the reports of rioting in Grant park.

Posted by Bithead | November 2, 2008 | 01:34 pm |

(chuckel)

you keep hitting on that meme, and it's getting a little tiresome

I am sure it is, at least to you. If you don't want to be reminded of how many stupid things you have said, make an effort to say less of them...

You seem to want to argue something other than the points I posted. Fine. But you'll have to find someone else to do it. Maybe then it won't be a strawman.

You do deserve respect for your service and for your training. That does not, however. make you right about the overall issue. And I did read what you wrote--and you said that you were tortured. No, no you weren't--you went through training. Hence, the statements made above. Not a strawman at all. You are comparing two different circumstances and treating them as though they are identical.

And you you speak of arrogance and the ivory tower, yet your argument boils down to the notion that you know better than the rest of us. However, you don't actually make much of an argument, you simply assert that because you have had a specific experience that the rest us ought to just shut up about the situation.

I actually do think that someone who has been through this training has useful input, but that doesn't make you right. And the notion that one has to experience everything in order to have an informed opinion about it is bunk.

I would note, btw, that others who have had your experience do not share your view. The link I provided had quotes from a former Navy trainer.

You have yet, for example, to deal with the fact that the reason the training exists in the first place was to protect you from the enemy. You have not dealt with the moral implications that we borrowed the techniques from Nazis and communists dictatorships. These are not small matters that go away just because you went through training.

Only if you're educated.

SWell, it kinda depends by whom.

I'll just re-ask a question I asked earlier: How many times do you think we would have to waterboard Bit-Eric to get him to confess that waterboarding is torture?

I wouldn't hold my breath, were I you.

More importantly, under the conditions waterboarding was used, why s that of any concern to you at all?

1984, I think.

ok , lol. Im sure it's means something to some one

Only if you're educated.

1984, I think.

ok , lol. Im sure it's means something to some one.

THe "Torture" meme was the last moral high ground for the Democrat party, and it just got washed away. No wonder they are apoplectic.

I'll just re-ask a question I asked earlier: How many times do you think we would have to waterboard Bit-Eric to get him to confess that waterboarding is torture?

And Gee, Anjin, gues what?

Need the link?

THe "Torture" meme was the last moral high ground for the Democrat party, and it just got washed away

Ummmm ok. But most of us remember your track record when it came to analysis of the last election. Your accuracy record was about.... zero.

So keep talking. The worse you say Obama and the Democrats are doing, the better they are probably doing in reality.

Yea, we still remember your prediction of impending civil war at the Democratic convention. Now that was a classic :)