by publius
With my soon-to-be-described hiatus nearing its end, I caught some of the GOP debate last night. Just some helpful advice for McCain — expressing a willingness to chase terrorists to the “gates of hell” is more effectively done when not followed by a goofy Welcome-to-Wal-Mart smile.
And on McCain (grrr… gates of hell!… i drink blood! … my chest is hairy, my back too!), I apologize if this has been covered, but didn’t AdNags get spun mercilessly in this article? The article emphasizes the great risks McCain is taking by breaking with Bush. But McCain’s problem is that he’s done just the opposite — i.e., he hasn’t really broken with Bush on Iraq, the issue in the forefront of the public’s mind. In fact, as a matter of perceptions, he’s become Bush. So AdNags doesn’t seem to be reporting empirical reality so much as reprinting the McCain campaign’s self-interested aspiration to save his candidacy by ostentatiously announcing divisions with Bush on Iraq and reviving his maverick-ness.
I don’t think having a Republican administration will be a hindrance to us winning
Have to admit – I actually laughed out load when I read that.
laughed out load
Best typo ever.
Me, I love that the thing getting the most traction in the blogosphere right now is that fully 33% of the candidates on that stage raised their hands and stated that they don’t accept evolution. Those three should not only not be qualified to govern the country, they shouldn’t be considered qualified to govern my laundry.
McCain did the same thing to John Stewart – claimed that “nobody” has been more against the way the war’s been handled than he has.
charitably assuming he’s not a shameless liar, he must have done all his complaining behind closed doors.
Have no up to date numbers but unfortunately the majority in the US are still on the side of the “sceptics” on evolution. Some older numbers I read once (German journal, no links) told the “true believers in Darwin” to be only about 10% with a slim majority believing in the possibility of “guided evolution” (i.e. God does the selection) but even within this group pure creationism was the favorite.
For a GOP candidate, independent of personal beliefs, it would therefore be seem rational to appeal to the doubters because the few that would be repelled by that would not vote for them anyway while many more others would never vote for a declared “evolutionist” (ranking on a similar level as abortion, gay marriage, gun control etc. in terms of no-no).
Have no up to date numbers but unfortunately the majority in the US are still on the side of the “sceptics” on evolution.
yup.
about 15% believe in non-guided evolution.
Yeah, well, no wonder one party has such contempt for reality-based politics. If lots of people think science can be established by argumentation and rhetoric, then it’s no wonder that party can do so well.
Have no up to date numbers but unfortunately the majority in the US are still on the side of the “sceptics” on evolution.
It would be nice if they would learn enough about evolution to find out that they are not being sceptics, but that they are just showing how completely ignorant they are.
It is sad that we have so many badly informed voters willing to believe any old lie they are told.
“Yeah, well, no wonder one party has such contempt for reality-based politics.
“charitably assuming he’s not a shameless liar,”
Speaking of contempt for reality-based politics and shameless liars… what about that Demcrat John Murtha. He pulls of both in one interview:
At least the opinion that mathematics is the root of all heresy has lost a bit of traction since the trial of Galileo (a high Vatican official at the time demanded the preemptive burning of all mathematicians for that reason). It’s a shame when even the RCC has become more progressive concerning science than the average US citizen (current manoeuvering by the Pope notwithstanding).
DNFTT.
My brief comment on that article.
Speaking of contempt for reality-based politics and shameless liars.
No self aggrandizement, please…
I heard the very end of a bit on NPR of Republican campaign people, where the interviewer asked them which GOP candidates should be nervous about the Democratic candidates.
Both GOP campaigners said they believed Clinton would get the nomination, and both said Clinton was beatable. She is polarizing, they said, and has a long public record that can be used against her, dating from Bill’s Administration.
I’m not sure what to make of that. For one, I don’t think her candidacy is the slam dunk they believe it to be.
For another, none of the GOP candidates are inspiring, uniting figures, and all are offering essentially “more of the same” that we’ve had from the Bush Administration. None will pull the troops out of Iraq (not even on the “maybe” timetables the Democrats are talking about); none are talking about restoring America’s domestic infrastructure (education, healthcare); none are addressing the nation’s enormous economic inequities or the working class’ financial insecurity; none are talking about environmental policy (not even in terms of mitigating global climate change, much less in terms of preventing the worst of it). Every one of them willing to continue Bush’s illegal domestic surveillance and indefinite detention policies, and to continue letting the Christian Right continue to make public health and science policy.
They sound, in other words, entirely out of touch with what’s going on, and with what Americans are concerned about.
Does offering more Bushism, while demonizing Clinton (or whoever gets the Democratic nomination) sound like a winning formula to the Republicans and former Republicans here?
Does offering more Bushism, while demonizing Clinton (or whoever gets the Democratic nomination) sound like a winning formula to the Republicans and former Republicans here?
Offering more Bushism – no way. But there is always mileage left in Clinton bashing 🙂
17 months to go. 17 months ago, Bush was looking like he might lose to Kerry.
be careful counting the grandchildren of chickens who haven’t even laid eggs yet.
I agree with your point, cleek, but this second term has been going on longer than you think. November 2008 is 18 months from now, but November 2004 was 30 months ago.
This might be unpopular on this blog, but I don’t see what’s wrong with having a presidential candidate that loves the troops. With so many leftist abortionist pinkos compromising the integrity of our military engagements, it’s damn near touching to see just one single, solitary figure support our troops without recorse to the rhetoric of sober reality.
I know everyone thinks that the left offers a pragmatic view of the Iraq war, and that it advocates a phased withdrawal, but I have serious doubts about our ability to project authority around the globe if we admit defeat to the terrorists.
Why are we beating up the creationists? As D’nesh said, I think that post-VATECH proves that there’s little solace in atheism. Ignoring data suggesting that evolution is completely bogus reflects the liberal left’s hostility to anything scientifically meaningful.
I am seriously concerned about the state of the republican party. I hope that my parents generation learned that Giuliani is pro choice, that he wants to kill babies. He just cant be entrusted with the responsibilty of appointing the next supreme court justice. Although we can all hold our breath and just hope that Edith Jones is FINALLY given her fair shot – one which she deserves as the most brilliant jurists of our generation.
It’s simple people: If man came from apes, then where did apes come from? For my entire life, there’s never been an answer.
It’s just a shame that the creator is not allowed a more public role. Our science is obviously just a religion unto itself, and it lacks the moral prescription of the Christian religious texts.
this is my first time to this blog, and i’m just flabbergasted by the liberal memes that everyone repeats here.
i know theyre a frequent object of ridicule, but some of you tree-huggers would benefit from some time with o’reilly or hannity. say what you will about them, they are real americans. they don’t succumb to the traditional liberal media bias. they hold strong against the incursive tendencies of the cultural elite, who would have us elect michael moore to the presidency.
Seriously, I just hope that one day liberals wake up and realize the enemy that we’re fighting. They might be fighting against wars,for gay rights, the right to have women kill their babies whenever they want, but it’s worth pointing out that those guys sit smoking cigars in grad school classrooms while the real heros go to war.
“gates of hell” is more effectively done when not followed by a goofy Welcome-to-Wal-Mart smile.
I hope I’m not breaking any rules of this blog by pointing out that, technically, it was in fact a passive-aggressive shit-eating grin.
Welcome federalist.
Since its your first time here, some of your statements are almost forgiveable.
First, learn a little bit about evolution. It never states that men descended from apes. And secondly, it gives a pretty through explanation of the question you ask. Secondly, please give some of that data you say disputes evolution.
Thirdly, being pro-choice does not mean one wants to kill babies.
Thirdly, how is wanting troops to get killed in ahopeless cause being supportive. Etc.
DNFTT.
This is nice, by the way — from Crooks and Liars via CBS News:
But remember, racism is pretty much over in America and blacks need to just Get Over It.
I don’t think fw is a troll so much as a spoof. And a slightly over the top one at that. You have to slow down and ease into the spoofery, just dumping it all out there at once gives the game away.
this second term has been going on longer than you think.
me fail math? that’s improbable!
OCSteve, perhaps the Right’s never-ending obsession with The Clenis will be offset by some Democrats’ supporting Hillary because they think they’ll get Bill back, as a sorta-President.
Honestly? I don’t know how much good Clinton-bashing will do the GOP. What are they going to say? That the GOP will wage another Scaiffe-funded war on the Clintons? That the most grevious threat to America is Bill’s infidelity? That Bill Clinton’s eight years of peace and prosperity were bad things?
Making people remember what things were like when Bill Clinton was in office might not have the effect the GOP wants: Hillary winning in a landslide.
Making people remember what things were like when Bill Clinton was in office might not have the effect the GOP wants
right. especially when people rank Clinton equally as high as Reagan.
with Bush now at a whopping 28% (that’s Carter territory), i really hope the GOP runs on a Just Like Bush, But Not Bush platform.
Media Matters takes a look at how the candidates were treated in the two debates. Can someone remind me why Chris Matthews has a job?
I don’t think fw is a troll so much as a spoof. And a slightly over the top one at that. You have to slow down and ease into the spoofery, just dumping it all out there at once gives the game away.
I dunno. These days, it’s getting hard to tell the spoofs from the the real things (see Conservapedia. Hilarity incarnate).
But yeah. The grammar is a tad too good here.
wow, i was really drunk when i wrote those federalist wheelhouse posts. i’m glad i was outed by my grammar.
I don’t know how much good Clinton-bashing will do the GOP. What are they going to say?
“Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over”
CaseyL : Honestly? I don’t know how much good Clinton-bashing will do the GOP.
Me neither – but you asked…
Speculation: I think there may be many in the GOP who actually hope HRC gets the nomination, because they think there is no way she could possibly win. Some of the other candidates would be much tougher to beat. Actually IMO many conservatives/moderates have given up on 08 already – so I’m talking GOP.
But I think that enough hard-liners honestly believe that she could never win and so would love to see her get the nomination. Keep an eye out to see if you notice any substantial Republican attacks against her before she gets nominated. I’ll bet no, as they’ll keep the powder dry for now in the hopes that she actually gets it.
OCSteve – OTN… IMO.
as they’ll keep the powder dry for now in the hopes that she actually gets it.
what more could they possibly have, after 16 fncking years of non-stop screeching? ah, don’t answer…
i hope she doesn’t get it just so we won’t have to listen to another decade of inane manufactured conspiracies.
Those three should not only not be qualified to govern the country, they shouldn’t be considered qualified to govern my laundry.
Phil is exactly right about this.
Further, I think it is important not to buy into the idea that this is just posturing by candidates who know better. They should be taken at their word, and the appropriate conclusion drawn: that they are unable to accept any idea, no matter how strong the evidence, that contradicts their preconceived notions. That inability plainly ought to disqualify them from any position of responsibility whatsoever, much less President.
Asking if they “believe in” evolution is – well, it’s badly phrased. It’s like asking if they “believe in” heliocentricism, or gravity, or paramecia.
“Belief in” something is an issue of faith: you believe in something when there’s no objective evidence to do so. Like – oh, I’ll be non-controversial here – Santa Claus, or faeries, or reincarcation.
When the issue is one that involves evidence, arguable facts, and demonstrated proofs, you either believe those things or you don’t.
It would be better to ask if they believed – no “in,” just believed – the theory of evolution was correct.
federalist wheelhouse: I tried watching Bill O’Reilly’s show. It’s boring like watching Matlock. No matter what happens he always gets his man!
I mean he’s always right!
How can you argue with that?
Cleek, why in the world do you think Hilary not getting the nomination would stop the GOP from manufacturing conspirecy theories?
this is neither here nor there, but a few weeks ago olberman took a break from making o’really the “worst person in the world.” that day, the worst person in the world was the director in charge of the ESPN fantasy baseball platform. they reset all the leagues, pre-trade. Olberman apparently had traded pujals for Arod on the first day, and he was livid.
why in the world do you think Hilary not getting the nomination would stop the GOP from manufacturing conspirecy theories?
oh, i don’t. but they just seem to be extra-motivated when it comes to making up nutty conspiracies about the Clintons.
did some asshole seriously suggest we watch hannity and o’reilly? hahaha I call spoof.
Reagan’s corpse for President!!!!
a few weeks ago olberman took a break from making o’really the “worst person in the world.”
That’s silly. It isn’t olberman’s place to make o’reilly the worst person in the world.
That’s O’Reilly’s job, not Olberman’s.
cleek,
“i hope she doesn’t get it just so we won’t have to listen to another decade of inane manufactured conspiracies.”
I doubt we will ever be rid of people who like to manufacture conspiracies.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com
We’d atleast have to rid ourselves of 35% of the Democrat idiots. 26% of the lesser idiots.
I find it difficult to believe we can rid ourselves of 61% of the Democrats in this country.
Not to mention how many Republicans believe in such rubbish.
Osama bin Laden determined to attack in the US. Aug 6, 2001 PDB. Bush’s reply “You’ve CYA now, go”. Rubbish indeed!
bril, has it occurred to you that there is a bipartisan attempt to go on without having to air the US Government’s dirty laundry? Bush’s lastest veto is not helping.
I normally don’t response to bril because seriously, why? That Rasmussen report intrigues me, though, since I’ve never heard any Democrat — prominent or otherwise — even suggest such a thing outside of DU.* That Bush had been warned about imminent attacks, yes; that he knew about the specific plans that resulted in 9/11, no. This suggests to me three possibilities:
1) The question was badly phrased, confusing the two distinct questions above.
1′) Alternatively, people were simply confused about which question they were answering.
2) The sampling was waaaaay skewed, resulting in a massive overestimate of those believing in some kind of conspiracy.
3) Some people are self-identifying as Democrats when they ought not.
3′) Alternatively, a whole bunch of people aren’t self-identifying as Democrats when they oughtta.
4) Fully 35% of Democratic voters have no voice in contemporary politics.
5) I have absolutely no idea who’s voting Democrat nowadays.
I’m curious: liberals, progressives and assorted Democrats present here, which one(s) do you think are most likely?
* It’s quite possible that such sentiments are rife in the comments of dKos as I don’t frequent them on a regular basis, but they can’t be that rife.
Anarch–
My guess, assuming that the sample is not as your 2) or 3), is that most of those people thought the question meant something like “Did Bush know that a passenger-planes-as-guided-missiles terrorist attack in the US was a serious possibility before 9/11?” I don’t know anyone personally who thinks (or will admit to thinking) that Bush knew specifically about the attacks ahead of time and “let them happen, man, so he could invade Iraq. (Hey, bro, pass that doobie.)”
I’d go with option 1.
Osama being a real threat didn’t fit into Bush’s world view so he rejected the warning. He’s doing the same thing regarding Iraq.
It’s hard to say what Bush/Cheney knew in advance, because they were simultaneously in charge of, and dismissive of, the intelligence community that was trying frantically to get Bush’s, or Rice’s, or someone’s, attention during the Summer of Threat.
What we’ve never heard is what, exactly, was known, and who knew it, during that summer. We do know that Bush, Rice, et al. dismissed the August memo (with Bush not even bothering to read it until, what, one week before 9/11?). We know that, despite the laments about “the Wall,” there was a lot of information coming through intelligence channels that could have been put together if Rice had made it a priority.
We do know is that Rice came to office a Sovietologist, with no background or interest in international non-state terrorism.
We do know that Bush had absolutely zero knowledge of or interest in any international matters, presumably including international terrorism.
We do know that Bush and Rice, at least, were entirely dismissive of the outgoing Clinton Administration’s attempts to brief them on international terrorism, ashcanned Gore’s blue-ribbon committee’s study on international terrorism, and turned a deaf ear to Tenet’s insistance that OBL was someone to watch closely.
We do know that Bush, Cheney, and Rumseld came to office determined to go to war with Iraq; and we can surmise that Cheney, especially, wanted that war as a pretext for establishing US control of Iraq’s oil fields.
So between Rice the Sovietologist, Bush the completely ignorant, and Cheney/Rumseld the Machiavellian manipulators, we have an assortment of people who didn’t know and didn’t care about international terrorism, but who were anxious to go to war with Iraq.
So it’s impossible to know how much they saw coming, and just didn’t bother to act, versus how much information was available that they just didn’t bother to collate.
As I said previously, whether the Bush Administration’s culpability in the 9/11 attacks was a matter of malign neglect or benign neglect is immaterial: they should all have been thrown out of office either way.
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
This shows how deluded that particular sample was.
Why would anybody think they knew whether Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time? Where’s the evidence either way?
Any reasonable person would answer don’t-know. There is simply nothing to say whether he knew or not. There is no evidence.
Some people want to present it in terms of character. Like, they were the sort of rotten no-goodniks who would do that sort of thing. But that says nothing about whether they actually knew.
Sure, they obviously had no moral compunction against letting the attacks proceed for political gain. But maybe they just didn’t know. And if they did know, would they stop the attacks just in time and have lots of press conferences and maybe docudramas etc showing how great and vigilant they were and you just can’t ever trust arabs? Or would they let it go ahead for an even bigger splash with the risk it would backfire? Which way will a cat jump? There’s just no predicting which way they would think would work best, if they did know.
There are stories about scholars asking large numbers of chinese peasants how tall the chinese emperor was, and stories about scholars asking large numbers of french peasants how large the french king’s feet were. There was some sort of idea that the numbers might average out to something close to true. This is like that.
Why would anybody think they knew the answer to this question? They have no idea. Just because the top Bush administration guys have shown they were the sort of people who might easily have furthered 9/11 if they knew, says nothing at all about whether they did in fact know.
Utter stupidity.
Only 26% of democrats in this study gave a sane answer. 25% of independents. The blurb didn’t say how many republicans thought they knew, only that they believed in Bush 7:1. In the worst case that’s 12.5% of them believing Bush knew and none of them giving a sane response. More likely it was around 70% no, 10% yes, and 20% or so don’t know. But I’m guessing without evidence, just supposing republicans would be similar to democrats and independents but not quite as sane.
4) Fully 35% of Democratic voters have no voice in contemporary politics.
Do you have any reason to doubt it?
I also go for the (possibily deliberate) bad wording of the question. What’s also missing is the question, whether BushCo engineered the whole thing. Given the comments on e.g. alternet there are far too many people around that do firmly believe in one or other wild conspiracy theory including claims that the towers were destroyed by energy beams from US satellites (SDI seems to be working then 😉 ).
My personal opinion is somewhere between
1) BushCo willfully ignored the many warning signs
2) They had no interest in preventing anything independent of them either knowing or not.
Like with the 1933 Reichstag fire what matters is not that the event occurred but what the ruling party did with it. There is still no consent, whether the Nazis had a hand in it but the results, the Enabling Act, is undisputed. BushCo made lots of hay out of 9/11 (and burned it instead of feeding the needy to again overstretch a metaphor) whether or not they had any foreknowledge.
And concerning the 7:1 Republican “No”: the base does not believe in a lot of things that Bush has even admitted to in public repeatedly, so why should they believe in something he denies?
Why would anybody think they knew whether Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time? Where’s the evidence either way?
the fact that the one PDB was titled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US” and that he then apparently did nothing but vacation the entire month of August might be enough to get people to say “sure, he knew something was coming and didn’t care” – if they were feeling particularly bitter.
What folks believe in the aggregate makes me weary with giggling.
However, I prefer to view poll (silly people interviewing other silly people) results as metaphors for the Zeitgeist.
If you could make a movie about all of the preposterous beliefs held by the American people regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, you’d be sued for plagiarism by Oliver Stone, because he’s already done it.
“JFK” is a great metaphor for the aggregate paranoia of the American people. EVERYONE murdered JFK, as Hercule Poirot could have told us.
Now, the Republican Party has over the past 30 years or so and in a highly organized, purposeful, richly funded fashion, sent out a thick cloud of propaganda in the attempt to convince the American people that their government, at all levels, is malign, ineffectual, thieving, aligned against their perceived national interests, working mysteriously behind their backs, evaporating their precious bodily fluids, and something you should arm yourself against.
All authority is malign, experts are elitists, science is little more than a cabal, teachers have fluoridated the water in the schools, the IRS is Bonnie and Clyde, and even career CIA employees are traitorous hippies.
So now we have a poll confirming that a goodly proportion of silly people, having relinquished a formerly healthy skepticism about all of the above, have inhaled the cloud of propaganda and believe EVERYONE hijacked the planes on 9/11.
Good job, GOP. Your demagogic mission to destroy the credibility of your enemy, the U.S. Government, is complete.
The last poll results Robespierre saw were ones that revealed that silly people with guillotines believed cake was real.
Good job, GOP. Your demagogic mission to destroy the credibility of your enemy, the U.S. Government, is complete.
You’re welcome. Next up – international institutions that may still have a shred of credibility. Hmm, maybe that was supposed to be first… I get confused. So much destruction, so little time.
Anyway there is a list of “stuff to do” before Armageddon and I know they were both on there somewhere.
“Anyway there is a list of “stuff to do” before Armageddon.”
Well, if they are anything like I am with lists, it has been lost somewhere and they are making guesses as to what to next or what groceries need to be bought.
making guesses as to what to next or what groceries need to be bought
Sloppy handwriting doesn’t help either.
I had this note once that I thought said “get Hillary stoned before presser”. I discovered later I was just supposed to pick up some Hickory stain for our dresser…
Now I insist that they type the list.
And yet Hillary was indeed stoned at the presser.
How do you account for that? 😉