We’ve heard all this before. Remember when Kevin Rudd won, and we were told his election was a victory for John Howard?
Right wing commentators couldn’t have been quicker out of the starting blocks to proclaim “America is still a Centre Right nation”. In fact they were at it before the votes were counted – Bill Bennett’s lugubrations on CNN is one example folks here might have seen in watching the election coverage. The memes abound. McCain still got 46%! Obama’s win wasn’t big enough!
Such exciteable commentary doesn’t stop to consider, of course, that in a two party system, without the presence of a strong third party challenger, landslides aren’t that common. Ronald Reagan in 1980 received 50.1% of the popular vote, in an election which everyone agrees ushered in an “Era”. Barack Obama did somewhat better than that. And John McCain still pulled in a significant number of independent voters – it’s not too difficult to imagine how wrong the claims that a more conservative candidate would have run better are. Let’s not forget that McCain continually sounded the note that he was someone who often differed from his own party.
Let’s make a couple of quick points here. Most of this speculation – and the accompanying predictions that Obama may be a steady as she goes moderate – is just that. It’s basically worthless, except for what it reveals about the politics of those doing the predicting. We don’t know exactly how Obama will govern. We do know that he’s stated that big challenges will require bold measures. And we do know that an agenda of de facto universal healthcare, economic revival and redressing the plight of middle and working class voters is what he won on. That’s surprisingly radical in the American context. And this election saw a lot of the anti-government rhetoric Reagan ran into town with finally kicked to the curb.
Secondly, let’s consider the fact that the “liberal” scare didn’t work (and the sorts of voters who were ready to believe Obama to be a “socialist” were always going to be in the GOP tent):
Perhaps the most revealing post-election data on that question came from within the defeated McCain campaign. In an interview with Roger Simon of Politico, the Republican candidate’s speechwriter and friend, Mark Salter, disclosed that in the campaign’s own internal polling data, 60 percent of Americans regarded Obama as “liberal.” The campaign thought that would be enough to defeat him, which is why it hammered on the “left-wing” themes.
Baiting the liberals didn’t work this year. Disgusted with the Republican right, voters wanted something different and weren’t afraid to look leftward. That is what “realignment” means.
In the article at Salon from which that quote is drawn, Joe Conason looks at the demographic and political analyses of John Judis and Rey Teixeira. Possibly the best article I’ve seen so far on the shifts in voting patterns and what they entail is by Judis in The New Republic. It’s well worth a read.
If, however, Obama and the Democrats take the advice of official Washington and go slow–adopting incremental reforms, appeasing adversaries that have lost their clout–they could end up prolonging the downturn and discrediting themselves. What might have been a hard realignment could become not merely a soft realignment, but perhaps even an abortive one. That’s not the kind of change America needs–or wants.
Perhaps the 60% perception that Obama is a liberal, plus his election win, means that the American voters were, by and large, quite happy to get a liberal.
I agree its simply too early to predict how Obama will govern. As for whether America is centre right I think it was certainly fair to say it was, we won’t know if it has changed until the next congressionals when the voters will have had a few years of Democrat rule across both Congress and the Whitehouse and the seats up for grabs are more easily defended by GOP than the ones just put up for grabs. I think the Democrats are still in the honeymoon period given how well Iraq is now going and their involvement in the downfall of freddie Mac and Fannie May not biting with the electorate at all. It was the classic vote OUT the other mob rather than vote IN the new mob, which is virtually the theme of all changes of government.
Judis is excellent and it’s very interesting to see who voted for whom.
Of the top 20 states by median income, 17 voted for Obama.
Of the bottom 20, 15 voted for McCain, including 9 out of the bottom 10.
The Republican Party has become the party of the poor, angry white male, who votes to stop women he doesn’t know from getting an abortion, and gays he doesn’t know from getting married.
Sarah Palin “energised the base”, but it’s a very narrow base.
So I take it that Tories would wish to redact this:
Neat summary Spiros, I would add white racist to that. Word from friends in Texas is that there has been an upsurge in KK organising and agitating there since the election. Media is not reporting it.
The appointment of Rham Emanual probably means no change in the Imperial program.
Huggy
Work out what happened with Proposition 8 and your center-right questions will be answered. I should remind you that one swallow does not a summer make. America retains conservative views, you’ll need some more kum-buy-ya chanting yet.
“center-right”
hmmm … the spelling of ‘center’ is a bit of a give away.
Red Staters should cogitate on this: if there had been more ‘center’ and less right, over the past 8 years, then the Republican Party would not today be in tatters.
It’s not for nothing that the Rednecks for Obama (yes, they exist) proclaimed during the campaign “Even we’ve had enough”.
Obama won a clear majority of the popular vote, something Clinton never achieved.
The size of Obama’s lead over McCain has implications only for Obama’s chances of being elected to a second term. Obama may wish to consider some of his actions in view of the size of his lead, keeping in mind the size of the voter turnout for Republicans in the 2008 election, and the possibilities in 2012. Apart from that;
Obama won the election, and (congress, constitution and law allowing) it is his country to run as he sees fit. The American people cannot change their vote now, they are stuck with him for better or worse for the next four years. If they are unhappy with his administration, then there is plenty of time to reflect on the grave consequence of flippantly slinging their vote around. Either way, they had better make the best of it.
Bitching about how “he’s not my president”, apologising to the world for the election outcome, and four years of chimpanzee/retard jokes. Let’s just see how much of this goes on. Bush copped plenty, if there is none of it directed Obama’s way then indisputably Obama’s opponents have more fibre than Bush’s.
By the way, Ronald Reagan may have received 50.1% of the popular vote in 1980, however, the margin by which he was ahead of Carter was …er… significant. In pool playing terms, Carter was “pantsed”.
@5 – I don’t think the appointment of Rahm Emanuel is all that important. Particularly not in foreign policy. All it signifies is that Obama wants to run a tight ship, and not have an undisciplined free for all White House as Clinton did when he was elected.
Rahm Emmanuel’s personal politics won’t matter all that much. He’s not a substantive policy figure. He’s an organiser and an enforcer. That’s what he’s there for.
Katz@5 Does this mean that Osama bin Laden’s god is greater than John Howard’s?
It’s going to be fun watching the right-wing idiots snap.
I think Obama will be more left-wing than anything else. And I suspect he is going to change America monumentally- after all, it makes the most sense politically, since change was the big thing he campaigned on. And the Right, geniuses that they are, will continue to blame the “MSM” for any losses they receive, in all likelihoodl, and fool themselves into thinking that they still have the support of the masses. The fact that they think that Obama not winning by a devastating landslide proves the people don’t want change says a lot about them.
But like you said, predictions are too early at this stage.
Here’s hoping that Obama really does change America for the better, and put it in the right (i.e. Left) direction.
Spiros…
A give away..how so? American spelling? Center=Rednecks?
Please share…
@6 – conversely, you could look at how close the result on Prop 8 – and on some others – was. Not to mention the medical marijuana and euthanasia propositions!
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/ballot.measures/
All that it tells us is that lots of people aren’t voting nationally on culture wars crap anymore. Long term, there’s big movement on “social issues” too among the younger generations.
But the whole point here is that the claim that “ZOMG! Not all Americans are liberal!” is totally silly. Note to inventors of talking points – unaniminity is not usual in a democracy!
Kim -
America is 50/50 with a 5% swing margin, that’s all you need to remember.
Hopefully a tigher ship than he ran at Freddie Mac.
That’s completely meaningless, Nanuestalker. Just a slogan.
I made the point earlier that the electoral map of 2000/2004 wasn’t either an inevitable basepoint nor frozen in stone forever. The swing has now happened and the circumstances are now different. Even if Obama were to lose next time (which is of course possible), it wouldn’t just be a reversion to the current map… because of the underlying demographic changes which have emerged this time and the shifts in partisan affiliation.
The Right particularly in America seem to have organized an almost totalitarian propaganda apparatus. Regardless how good Obama turns out to be, one thing’s for certain: this year, the apparatus met its match. Various polemicists on political rhetoric and communication have noted how conservatives have been able to use language to shift the political spectrum into their own territory for some time now. Those to the left of them are consequently always on the defensive.
.
Regardless one’s attitudes to the man, Obama is an extremely proficient communicator. There’s been a lot of bullshit trying to snow this. For example, he’s said to be ‘vague’ yet I can’t recall a politician ever being so specific. I’ve certainly heard none, to date, lay out such a detailed approach to climate change. The attempt to portray him as dishonest, confused, extremist etc have fallen flat at his rebuttal. I think Obama’s caused a paradigm shift amonsgt5 American liberals who have for decades now found it very difficult to obtain a consistent voice.
.
They tried unsuccessfully to govern a country from the center-left that was moving to the right (in Carter’s case) or that was only just beginning to move leftward (in Clinton’s case)–and they were rebuked by voters as a result.
.
Carter was unsuccessful generally. He tried to preach restraint and self-sacrifice when Americans had had enough of it. They were sick of feeling bad. Carter still felt bad. He knew there were things that were gravely wrong and wanted to address them. Reagan wanted to put them aside. So did other Americans. Now ironically the questions posed by the Vietnam era have come home to roost. This is at precisely the moment where the baby-boomers have left the building taking all that baggage with them. When the Republicans tried to associate Obama ideologically with Bill Ayers’ youthful indulgences in revolutionary postures they were rendered ridiculous. Obama was a child when it happened. That’s the rub: Kerry, Clinton – both these guys were tainted somehow by Vietnam. Obama wasn’t there. (Neither was Dubya).
.
Clinton was a moral vacuum who did and said whatever the opinion polls said he should do and say. Obama’s different to these men. I think it’s probably because of his effectiveness that he’s hated by a certain slice of the American population. But he’s inherited what appears to be a new political megacycle. If he does well it could be the Republicans who’re on the back foot for 30 years.
“Bitching about how “he’s not my president”, apologising to the world for the election outcome, and four years of chimpanzee/retard jokes. Let’s just see how much of this goes on. Bush copped plenty, if there is none of it directed Obama’s way then indisputably Obama’s opponents have more fibre than Bush’s.”
Is SATP suggesting that Bush and Obama are identical, and the only difference between public reations to them would be due to the moral fibre of their supporters? An alternative (or to be charitable, additional) explanation for this outcome might be that there is a difference between the two presidents. Say, one being Bush, and the other Obama.
Kim, American politics isn’t that complicated.
Adrien, you like history, take a look before you leap.
True, true. But the independent third party candidate, John Anderson, a liberal Republican scored 7% of the popular vote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson
What’s your point, Nanuestalker?
Adrien, you like history, take a look before you leap.
.
Stalker I haven’t expressed any idealistic view of Obama. I’m simply giving credit where its due.
.
If I had a wager I reckon the guy decided to become president when he was twelve and has moved there as fast as possible. Geoffrey Robertson had an article about his days as the president of the Harvard Law Review. The articles published under his watch say something about him but Obama didn’t write much himself. Robertson himself remarks that this might’ve been a deliberate attempt to avoid getting snagged with youthful excursions into radicalism later on.
.
If this is even half true you’re looking at a first class technocrat.
.
I know two things. One: The Republicans have had a disastrous administration. There’s plenty of scathing observations from the thinking Right on this. And the fact that the loyal die-hards are lukewarm and only semi-literate nutbags like Michael Savage are still wholeheartedly supportive tells you something – they don’t deserve to win.
.
Second: We could be about to go into an ecological nosedive that’ll make the Great Depression look like one long Saturday night at Studio 54 in the late 70s after Escobar’s couriers arrived with free packages for everyone. Bush, being the loyal and committed representative of the Good Ol’ Boys of the Oil Business has done his level best to kebosh this looming prospect. Obama, unlike just about every other politican (and that includes Kevvie) seems to understand the problem in full and has firm ideas viz what to do about it.
.
I don’t expect politicians to be great or even particularly moral. It’s just nice if once in a while they’re competent. The Republicans are not. They offered an aging geezer, honourable as he seems, with no idea about anything that doesn’t involve flag waving and a born-again bonehead who made ignorance a virtue and spent most of her time on the campaign trail shopping at the expense of others.
.
Seen it, done it. That’s history Stalker and it’s shite!
Heh, I remember comments by some folks here in the run up to the 2007 Australian election to the effect that Kevin Rudd was in effect an imitation John Howard.
And this site isn’t exactly a hive of ‘right-wing commentators’!
Kim –
American presidential elections are essentially remarkably even splits, the swing comes down to likability. Thats why even when congressional elections swing to one party, they can and often swing the other way for the presidential candidate.
Adrien -
You’re ranting now. I can give credit where it’s due also. Obama ran a fantastic campaign that was based Seinfeld. Whats the show about? Whatever ever you want it to be. The media might as well have been celebrating Obama getting head from Devine Brown. McCain was a dull as dishwater until Palin came along, who I suspect was the only VP candidate willing to rise to the challenge of campaigning on a campaign dead in the water.
I’m sorry Nanuestalker, I’m not buying the fact that American elections are just or mainly about “likeability”. War, the global financial crisis, healthcare, etc, etc. This was hardly an issue free election.
The Democrats in Congress, btw, got 56% of the vote, which would reinforce the argument that we are in fact seeing what will likely become a realignment. The swing to the Democrats in Congress was higher than the increase in the vote from Kerry to Obama.
http://redbluerichpoor.com/blog/?p=260
So that suggests, strongly, that the Republicans were being soundly repudiated.
That doesn’t seem to leave your 50/50 theory looking very sound.
Stalker -
.
John Anderson, yes Kim I rememeber him, I was so thrilled when he got that much of the vote. Of course, if USA had preferential voting, Clinton would not be the household name it is today.
Wideidealist, what is your point? That slinging off at Obama is somehow not of a moral equivalence to slinging off at Bush?
If the anti-Obama camp won’t be publicly apologising to the world for the election outcome,if there won’t be 4 (or
years of chimpanzee jokes or mainstream cartoons/photoshopped pictures showing what a retard Obama is, then what does it say about the manners of anti-Bush people compared to anti-Obama people?
Obama is IN. The American people voted for a marxist. He oughta get on with implementing his campaign ideology. This is the biggest single chance to change the USA in ages.
Whether it is a change for the better, only time will tell.
Come on, steve, you can do better than that.
The “spread the wealth” tag was supposed to relate to not keeping the Bush tax cuts for earners over 250k. Until recently, McCain’s position was against all those tax cuts. Does that make him a Marxist? How about McCain’s “government will buy your mortgage” $300 billion plan?
Spiros, your point about the anti-intellectual, populist takeover of the Republican Party is echoed in a perceptive oped piece in The Wall Street Journal today by conservative academic Mark Lilla:
Kim -
America is now the liberal sexist homophobic place you describe by a whopping 5% margin. My apologies for being so badly informed. That’s change I recognise. LOL!
Kim, I wasn’t basing anything on the “spread the wealth” tag, though it ties in. I was referring to his background, mentoring, & the company he keeps, etc.
I draw your attention to the fact that labelling Obama a “marxist” (perhaps a tad too strong a term) in no way prohibits one from believing that McCain’s policies were riddled with socialism. It would however, be too much of a stretch to term McCain a Marxist.
At the time of the Bush/Gore contest, I was gobsmacked that a nation of 270million could put up nothing better than a choice between that pair of dickheads. None of the consests since has produced candidates any better.
McCain deserves reverence for the trauma he was subjected to on behalf of his country, and the manner in which he bore it. However this should not translate into votes. It is just as silly to vote for a candidate because they are a war hero as it would be to vote for a candidate because they have Negro blood.
Mr Denmore -
Hmmm…dumb & populist! Who won again?
I wonder how long it’s going to be before the hysterical [Insert name] is a Commie! riff is going to start looking really stupid. For fuck’s sake. The current generation of undergrads regard the Soviet Union as an historical curiosity.
.
Still a well-respected intellectual does believe that not only is Obama in cahoots with Castro he’s not even eligible to be Prez. And considering the credentials I can’t say that we can disagree.
.
After all this man is famous for his well-thought out, entirely practical, considerate and logically consistent approach to political philosophy, economic science and the debates therein.
Adrien -
C’mon, admit it, you love any reference to Marx!
There is one Palin out there who knows their geography.
Its the good Palin as opposed to the Bad Palin.
Michael Pain is promoting his travels around the world.
I just bet he knows that Africa is a continent full of a wide range of different and diverse countries because he has been there and seen them for himself.
He probably even knows which three northern American countries are particiapting states in the NAFTA.
On the other hand knowledge of a wider world is not necessarily a benefit when you live in a land of both deep winter and very long summer days.
Mr Denmore, thank you for that superb snippet.
Stalker, populist ≠ popular. Perhaps Right wing shock-jocks don’t know the difference either.
Already does, I’d have thought, Adrien.
For those whose worldview isn’t shaped by Fox News, that is.
I’ll go with the probabilities that he’s just another politican who will have one eye on a second term. He’ll be transformational for about 6 months. As to whether as a whole he’ll be significantly to the Left of say Clinton I’ll wait and see but if I have to guess I’d say that is his philosophical leaning but his urge for high office and to retain it will overcome.
Obama’s election has had positive reactions from Hamas, North Korea and Iran. Brilliant start.
Lie with dogs – get fleas.
The predictability of right wing commentators . . . indeed.
Yep!
1. 53% is not a landslide
2. Reagan’s work after he became President ushered in an era, not the size of his win. What Obama does once he takes office will determine whether he ushers in an era
3. There was an “anybody but GOP” feeling in the USA
4. As here, most political operators in the USA (particularly in the Democratic Party, which is why I identify with them the most) operate in an area on either side of centre, and Obama fits in here as well
Don’t expect Obama to be the great champion of all pet left-wing wishes. His lack of performance with regards to the Californian Proposition on gay marriage gives some indication on his views in that area.
It seems these days my role around here is to correct psephological errors, particularly from publican steve. It’s not well paid, but at least the job is steady.
“Of course, if USA had preferential voting, Clinton would not be the household name it is today”
I assume this is a reference to the canard that Bush senior would have won in Perot hadn’t run. Trouble with this is that exit polls in Ohio showed that of Perot’s voters, 40% said they would have backed Bush if Perot was not on the ballot, 40% said they’d go for Clinton and 20% said they’d have stayed home or gone for some other candidate. I believe other states had slightly higher proportions for Bush, but it is clear that without Perot, or under a preferential system, Clinton’s margin would have been shaved slightly, but (probably to the point of being less than Obama’s) but still comfortable.
There is also the question of what the results of these ballots might have been had voting been compulsory. Voluntary voting has the effect of empowering easily mobilised loud minorities who think they’re the silent majority (e.g. the religious Right and the shock-jock audiences) at the expense of the real silent majority.
razor, are you cloning Ratty? The way things are going the Libs might even have to apologise for Howard’s insult to Obama in Parliament. The difference between Rudd telling the world GWB didn’t know what the G20 was and Howard’s bad manners was, that as usual, Ratty was lying.
“Don’t expect Obama to be the great champion of all pet left-wing wishes. His lack of performance with regards to the Californian Proposition on gay marriage gives some indication on his views in that area.”
Alternatively it gives some indication of his desire that the presidential race not become yet another tawdry skirmish in the culture wars.
“Rudd telling the world GWB didn’t know what the G20 was…”
I thought it was Chris Mitchell who did the broadcasting…
Feral Sparrowhawk, that is far from a correction. It is merely speculation, as was my comment.
Paul Burns, despite your burning Howard-as-antichrist emotions, it is Rudd who has his appendage caught in the zipper.
GW Bush, Cheney and quite a few others should have been jailed for incompetence,or even war crimes, and some nongs on here think another Republican Administration is just what the US needed,you must be joking.
Katz -
Clearly you have no idea what populism is. Let’s quote the world’s most famous community organiser…
“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. ”
or my personal favorite…
“People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.”
GMAFB, Stalker, populist ≠ popular…who said it was?
Incompetence was and is the least of their crimes. By any objective measure they are war criminals pure and simple.
Obama’s rhetoric is no more vacuous than that of winning Presidential candidates.
What is unusual is that he is a Democrat and herein lies the difference. The US President is both head of state and government. Republicans have run for head of state, which is about symbolism and rhetoric, while Democrats have run for head of government, which is about programs and policies.
In Presidential elections, the American people have looked to elect a head of state not a head of government, a fact the Republicans caught on to, but Democrats did not.
Until this year.
Obama out Republicanned the Republicans.
Back in the days of Thatcher, Regean etc. those on the left would often cherrypick opinion polls that suggested a lack of sympathy with their agenda. This never explained why they went on being elected and were able to shift public policy substantially to the right. We may be due for a right-wing version of this approach: remember the 84% ‘oppose wealth redistribution/love Joe the plumber’ factoid that was all over the right blogsphere?
And your objective measure would be because you say so.
Well, I sincerely hope Obama did just say anything (or omitted to say anything) just to get elected. If he is to be the champion for many things civil rights related, then he needed to openly campaign on that platform. That way we get an (more) informed decision.
It’s heartening to see that you are beinning to appreciate the value of objectivity, Nanustalker. Maybe eventually you’ll even join the reality based community.
“War crimes are “violations of the laws or customs of war”, including but not limited to “murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps”, “the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war”, the killing of hostages, “the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military necessity”.”
Reasonable difinition of war crimes from Wikipedia, and
“War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages ”
Now perhaps one of the geniuses from the extreme right can enlighten me as to which of the 7 points above, Bush and co are not guilty of commiting.
Adrian – I wasn’t aware of any breaches of #4, and #7 surprises me somewhat.
Hmmm…all. But if you think you can bring Bush & Co to the Hague based on the advice of Aunt Wiki, I suggest you go for it Adrian.
CORRECTION:
And Adrian’s objective measure would be because Aunt Wiki says so.
I’m not from the extreme right, adrian, but I’ll help them out anyway, being a caring, sharing sort of bloke. I don’t think Bush made any prisoners of war serve in the forces of a hostile power (although I’d be happy to be corrected).
Yes I concede 4 and possibly 7, but the remainder prove the war criminal point.
BTW, Nanuestalker, care to answer the question? Directing your scorn at Wikipedia is a poor tactic, since the same information could have been gained from any number of sources, but of course you probably wouldn’t like them either, since they are all based in reality, not some RWDB parallel universe.
David -
Do you doubt the authority of Aunt Wiki in these matters? Shame on you.
Nanustalker – take a deep breath, and try to address the question. Did the Bush regime’s approach to the War on Tourism satisfy any of the quoted conditions for war criminality? We can worry about the legitimacy of those conditions later. It’s a separate question.
“War on Tourism”…oh you punmeister.
In short, the answer is no.
However I don’t care for legal maneuvering resulting in the redefinition of what constitutes as POW, which caused the US to lose the moral high ground. Bushes advisers (especially the security/military one) are probably some of the worst in the history of any administration.
Hmmm…Bush’s advisers
BTW, I’ve a time-share for sale in Afghanistan if you’re interested FDB.
There, there, Nanuestalker, I’m sure you’ll feel better soon.
Why you are bothering to troll an Australian political blog is an interesting question. Why don’t you go back to the Corner, or wherever you live?
Thanks for your contribution Helen. How’s therapy going?
I’ve heard of “argument from authority”; Nanuestalker is performing the opposite fallacy “argument against authority’. If reference X says Y, this implies Y is false. But what if Y is said elsewhere? From Wikipedia, Adrian got his war crimes as defined by the ICT. If Nanuestalker scoffs at that because of its origin, would she continue scoffing when the information came directly from the ICT itself? (Article 8, point 2).
(Of course she would.)
As for the War Crimes list, let’s see how Bush does:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health – 1 million excess deaths in Iraq.
2. Torture or inhumane treatment – Abu Ghraib and the rest of the CIA gulag archipelago.
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property – the U.S. Air Force likes to get their indiscriminate bombing on.
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power. No.
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial. Guantanamo Bay.
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer. Extraordinary rendition.
7. Taking hostages ” No.
That’s 5 out of 7.
Just so as we’re all on the same page, Nanustalker is in Australia and is male.
Also he’s an idiot, with all due respect, so otherwise do carry on.
Sorry, I have been disrespectful to my hosts by flouting the comments policy. I take that personal abuse back unreservedly.
Hopefully Obama can redeem America from it’s rogue nation status, as evidenced by Down and Out of Sài Gòn @69 and Adrien’s previous post. Let’s see how fast he exits from Iraq . . .
The case for war crimes is pretty clear. But somehow I don’t thing GWB, Cheney or Rumsfeld will ever take the stand in the Hague though.
I think it’s more a statement of fact than personal abuse, FDB. Don’t lose any sleep over it.
Maybe so David, but I like to try and respect my gracious hosts.
Alas, I’m more accustomed to coming across the fellow at Catallaxy, where to call someone an idiot is positively endearing.
Ah, isn’t that sweet…cum hoc, ergo propter hoc
Like Adrian, Down & Outs incapacity to understand international treaties and the application of laws is the crux of the problem. It also very naughty to leave out the important bits by suppressing the facts.
“Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions…”
Oh coarse, you probably don’t understand what constitutes a grave breach. You can ask Aunt Wiki, but I would suggest taking a look at the Geneva Conventions.
I love you too FDB!
Is that the mellifluous sound of personal abuse I hear? I just caught the noise of a gratuitous personal slight as if my name were being called, softly, tenderly, like a muffled cuss word on a crowded bus.
Lame. Truly lame.
“softly, tenderly, like a muffled cuss word on a crowded bus”
I’ll tick the amusing box on that one.
Or as Gunston might have said, “like a lizard’s tongue through the bars of a budgie cage”.
Your “War on Tourism” is a keeper too FDB. Intentional or typo?
That’s the story of my commenting career—always hitting “light entertainment” when aiming for “offence”.
Arseclowns, the both of you.
Come here and type that, you NSW ALP stooooooooge.
Keep thinking evil thoughts, FDB, and your child will be a demon child. A DEMON CHILD.
It takes a lot of skill to screw up a salad even if it is Lebanese.
I see ‘Stalker is moving from denial to anger, but hasn’t reached the bargaining stage yet.
Where Helen? You’re always the one with issues.
Self awareness is not apparently one of his strengths.
Is that some kind of bizarre ethno-culinary joke, or was it—as it appears—just quickly tossed off?
Very fashionable move these days, Helen. It’s like a mass migration of slavering chuckleheads.
Heh. What was Nabakov’s line about the mirror of satire being mistaken for a window?
Perhaps as Banal Hussein Al-Sarcasti you would know this already Liam, but Monsieur Le Stalker has the nub of it. A “louche fattoush” would indeed be a less-than-perfect rendition of a Levantine salad.
Mmmyes. I’m sure Monsieur Nanu-nanu has a firm grasp of his nub, but I’m less than convinced that he could properly render a salad.
“Heh. What was Nabakov’s line about the mirror of satire being mistaken for a window?”
You’ll have to give credit to Anthony (www.manthatcooks.com) for that one actually. Wherefore art thou Anthony? Such economy – hardly ever more than twenty words, but so often made me pith myself.
It would be a start if you actually recognised what satire was, Liam.
But as cheap shots go that was rather pedestrian even by your standards.
That moniker was getting oolllld, maaaan.
Sorry “anthony”. “Next” “time” I’ll definitely “credit” you “properly”.
Yeah, these boots were made for trash talking.
… and the Marrow Knights, tonight at the Railway.
Ahem.
So, WTF is this thread about anyway? Should I read it, or will the Lebanese food gag suffice?
Liam, as a side-kick there’s plenty of room for improvement.
I mean, I set you up, and that was the best you could come up with?
Awaits next witty moniker…
It’s been an interesting day at work, adrian. I’ll try to do better.
Next time you’re in Sydney, Heavy Kebbe, head to Lakemba and sit yourself down at Jasmin’s on Haldon St. Oh yeah.
“So, WTF is this thread about anyway?”
Aunt Wiki’s War Criminals I think. There was also something about having a grand old party…BYO salad.
“Self awareness is not apparently one of his strengths”
Self aware? Of coarse not, I’m seven of seven [at least where the false war crime charges are concerned]
Must go, as I’m late for my “How to be a good Borg” class.
Stalker – C’mon, admit it, you love any reference to Marx!
.
Well not ‘any’ but I do love this one. I’m more of a Nietzsche kinda guy.
.
There was nothin’ Nietzsche
Couldn’t teach ya
‘Bout the raisin’ of the wrist
Socrates himself was permanently pissed
A lovely little thinker
But a bugger when he’s pissed.
.
SATP – I draw your attention to the fact that labelling Obama a “marxist” (perhaps a tad too strong a term) in no way prohibits one from believing that McCain’s policies were riddled with socialism. It would however, be too much of a stretch to term McCain a Marxist.
.
Marx’s principle ideas were anti-humanist. He didn’t think it much good to try and impose socialism via political mandate. The political system itself was the product of the economic one. According to him the bourgeoisie swallow up the world (globalization), the proletariat become a global working class and gradually acquire the awareness that their interests are in conflict with the bourgeoisie. They also gradually acquire competence that renders any ruling class unnecessary.
.
Voila socialism. What that entails he didn’t say. But every time I read some Boltaburbian pouring shit on the latte leftists and boasting the marvels of capitalism and the workers with share portfolios I think Marx may have been right. Just not in the way he, or we, think.
.
But the idea that Obama is a Marxist is ridiculous. The US has had the most unequal distribution of wealth of any country for ages. Obama’s aim simply seems to rebolster the middle-class by taking the pressure off them. His first act will be to cut taxes so he says.
.
He’s more Aristotelean than anything.
With the McCain/Palin ticket running on a reform Washington/ we are mavericks slogan (however false that was), it means that both US presidential candidates were given mandates for change. It can be argued therefore that the mandate for change was cast by 98% or more of US voters. I have not examined the minor candidates policies but maybe up to 100%.
It would be a shame if the Democrats/ Obama team did not seize what must be considered an overwhelming mandate for change.
It would take some absolute incompetence to not carry the US population along with a necessary reform agenda. Renewable energy/green house gas emmissions, breaking unconstrained capitalism, environmental protection, social security, education and healthcare all need urgent reform. I’m sure we will see some fundamental shifts over the next few years.
Definitely a second term for Obama and probably an increased electoral college vote for 2012.
“Should I read it, or will the Lebanese food gag suffice?”
You can read it if you like, but I’m about to give away the ending.
“Comments for this post closed”