Which kinda sucks, unless you're John McCain.

Or anyone else who thinks the country would be better off if Clinton and Obama were both defeated.

If McCain goes for a secure the center strategy and chooses to run as a centrist-realist rather than catering to the conservative wing of the GOP, he could pick up a lot of scorned Hillary voters and independents if the Democrats don't play their cards very carefully.

McCain is pretty much automatically a "Secure the Center" candidate. If the Left tries to paint him as a hardcore conservative, the moderates in the country who have experienced 20 years of the media's image of McCain as a "moderate" will just tune out the spin as pure noise.

McCain has a well-established brand as a Centrist. It's going to be very hard to take the middle from him.

My guess is he goes with a non-scary conservative as his V.P. choice if Hillary takes the nomination (to shore up the Republican base) and that it doesn't matter at all who he choses if Obama holds on, although a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be mighty attractive to a lot of people who really do want a post-partisan future. (Weird to think, but Wright has made Obama even more radioactive than Hillary to Conservatives.)

My guess is he goes with a non-scary conservative as his V.P. choice if Hillary takes the nomination (to shore up the Republican base) and that it doesn't matter at all who he choses if Obama holds on, although a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be mighty attractive to a lot of people who really do want a post-partisan future. (Weird to think, but Wright has made Obama even more radioactive than Hillary to Conservatives.)

Not only conservatives but a lot of independents as well. The thing about Obama’s appeal is that it’s largely based on ambiguity – people don’t really know what he believes or what he plans to do but because he’s good at playing to their emotions, they see in him what they want to see and hear what they wish he would say.

Having his personal spiritual advisor yelling “godd*** America!” at the pulpit cuts through a lot of ambiguity for a lot of people much like a cold bucket of water wakes people out of a deep sleep. The only way for Obama to recover from something like that is for him to make a clear and unambiguous denunciation of the specific things his spiritual advisor said.

But instead we get a noncommittal “I denounce everything that’s controversial but I’m sure your pastor, priest or rabbi said things you disagreed with and I won’t denounce my bigoted pastor because it would be like denouncing all black people” statement and it doesn’t cut it. Not just those of us who admittedly wouldn’t vote for him anyway because he’s unqualified and wrong on the issues but also non-partisan independents who are going to be voting with the conscience rather than relying on “hope.”

.

Heh. Either way you're saying roughly half of the Democratic electorate operates out of bad faith. Small change round here.

I've said before that Hillary was getting into the position that Ted Kennedy occupied in 1980. At some point the party establishment, including the elect-Democrats-at-all-costs media, decided that Ted was a spoiler, and they turned on him and hounded him out of the race - as a drunk, a womanizer, and a Fat Rich Kid who didn't even know why he wanted to be president. This from the same people who used to fawn over the Kennedy brand name.

Only this is much worse than what they did to Kennedy. Kennedy could be said to have it coming, after all, since he was trying to unseat an incumbent president of his own party. Hillary is just doing what Democrats have been begging her to do for 15 years.

This should feel like sweet payback to Republicans. For years the Clintons mercilessly trashed their enemies, even crawling down in the filth with people like Larry Flynt to do it. They could have eaten live babies on television and gotten away with it, and now Hillary can't even get away with a bad pair of shoes.

Funny that it doesn't feel that good. At least not to me. Hillary is still creepy and she's been playing her usual dirty pool in this race, but the forces that are trying to crush her are creepier still. On the whole, this is all somehow far from being a good thing.

We can only hope that people learn lessons from this. Look at Nancy Pelosi. A short time ago she was whooping and strutting around as the first female speaker, the greatest thing since Joan of Arc, and then she turned around and stabbed her sister Hillary in the back. Goes to show you that Feminism is all about exalting the worst instincts of both men and women, and you can't say more without speaking ill of the dead.

SAO, I didn't follow that at all. What are you talking about?

Never has someone so vocally anti-American as Wright been so closely tied to a major Presidential candidate. His rhetoric is right up there with that of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, etc.

Furthermore, never has the WIFE of a serious Presidential candidate said this many negative things about America. Let's not forget that Obama's Pastor isn't his only problem. His wife Michelle is a liability as well.

Wright by himself might not have been enough to sink him. But Wright + Michelle will be too much..

The best VP that McCain can pick is someone who is :

1) Slightly more conservative than him, but only slightly.
2) Someone who is not a while male.

The one exception to this rule would be Joe Lieberman. It is about time the Jewish vote (pro-Israel, pro-Business) came to its natural home in the GOP. Any VP pick other than Lieberman should fit the two rules above.

Total Democratic registration, up more than 4% since last November (and over 11% since 2004), has now reached 50% in PA. By contrast, Republican numbers dropped by 1% this year (to below 39%).

The dismay many Democrats' share over both Hillary and Lieberman are superficially similar, but they also have differences. Both are tearing down the party for their own purposes, but Lieberman's are largely ideological (more war, including Iran, more national security state, etc.) while Hillary's are entirely personal. Even Hillary's Kerryesque Iraq position (chosen, like Kerry's, out of the restricted choice available once they made the mistake to vote for the war in the first place) is a long way from Lieberman's continued enthusiasm. Hillary's willingness to forgive Scaife's funding smears of her as a depraved lesbian killing Vince Foster and trying to triangulate Obama out of the picture with her Commander in Chief threshold (followed by the Tuzla mess that to my mind clinched the nomination for Obama). And did McCain ever apologize for the "joke" about Chelsea Clinton, Hillary, and Janet Reno?

Wishard is, I think, correct that Hillary is somewhat like Ted Kennedy. There were primaries, and Kennedy and Clinton simply came up short. Not by much, but short.

I'm not sure the party is in ruins from the defection of Holy Joe, not when we just snagged Denny Hastert's old seat. In a choice between moderate Democrat Bill Foster and turncoat Democrat Joe Lieberman, I like Foster more.

The Democrats can purge their party of moderates all they want, McCain'll be happy to have their votes and support, I'm sure. It's the same hubris that cost the GOP dearly in '06; I've thought the other party would have learned from the GOP's mistake of putting ideological purity over electoral results. But, no.

I think Hillary and Obama are tied on primary wins ; Obama's lead is based mainly on caucus results, which tend to favor the more partisan wing of the party, vs. primaries where results are based on actual votes cast.

I know that makes me a concern troll ...

Damn it, it doesn't make you a concern troll. This isn't Hillary's exclusive problem, she's just the current name on a very long hate list. Notice that they have plenty of bile left over for you, even though you're on Obama's side. Perhaps you have an insufficiently rhapsodic expression on your face, and need to watch more MSNBC. Try to think the way those people look.

This kind of mania is the whole country's problem and the whole country would be better off without it - including Republicans, no matter how much they think they profit by it.

But AJL, how many will actually vote?

The youth vote is always touted by the Dems, and always lets them down. This cycle is ripe to dash the hopes of uncounted numbers of young people who can't actually be bothered to cast a ballot in the general election.

Congrats on the yellow dog Dems. They seem to be doing yeomens' work for Ms. Pelosi.

In New York, the percentage is higher than 40%.

The Democratic Party problems are not Obama or Hillary specific, the big problem on the left has become the brown shirt mentality of the progressives.

Never has someone so vocally anti-American as Wright been so closely tied to a major Presidential candidate.

You're forgetting Dick Cheney I think.

You're forgetting (or don't know/don't care) we have a policy against drive-bys.

Contribute substance, fine. Do another drive-by for your next post, be banned.

The choice is yours.

Marshal Nortius "Big Tuna" Maximus

OK, let me try again.

How about John Yoo? Is torture American? Is putting the president above the law American?

[Calreton, see my reply. You are doing drive-bys. Future posts will be deleted out of hand. I regret this. --NM]

"You're forgetting Dick Cheney I think."

Show me a quote from Dick Cheney actually saying anything like Wright.

You suffer from CDS (Cheney Derangement Syndrome), and can no longer function rationally.

Obama's Presidential hopes are dashed, and you know it.

Democrats have only won 3 of the last 10 elections, and are about to lose the next one. I am so glad that I am not part of a party that has not managed to win 50% of the popular vote in 10 attempts since 1964.

Obama's Presidential hopes are dashed, and you know it.

Like the magic bullet theories revolving around tax cuts, invasions, capturing Saddam, etc., the Republicans just can't believe that there are forces (e.g., economics, Al Qaeda terrorists, Iraq insurgency) that are not amenable to the Rovian PR fake-scandal blitz. I don't think I'm the first to remark on how the Bush Administration shares it view of reality with the most extreme ivory tower post-modernists.

The American people are tired of low-information hip-shooting Presidents, which is why either Obama or, less likely, Hillary Clinton will win in November. It would be nice to do it with Armed Liberal's vote, but if, like the 1948 Dixiecrats, he can't see that the party has deserted him on his key issue because his belief on that issue is counterproductive and bad for the country, so be it.

Calreton: You fail. Had you written something substantial rather than three rhetorical, depth-bomb troll-type questions, perhaps you would not now be banned. "It's a big Intarweb. Have a nice day -- someplace else."

Speaking of "magic bullets" AJL, the war in Iraq keeps falling in importance to American voters. This isn't to say it isn't important, but as a WonderClub with which to beat Republicans and anti-bugout Democrats, it may not be as effective as you might like to think. (Which probably explains why the press is so eager to label Basra as Iraq's Tet.)

It's the same hubris that cost the GOP dearly in '06; I've thought the other party would have learned from the GOP's mistake of putting ideological purity over electoral results. But, no.

Wait, what? The conventional wisdom is that the GOP lost in 2006 because of a lack of ideological purity. Conservatives simply were not motivated to get out and vote for big government pork barrel spenders who could not get any decent work done on the big questions of the day (Social Security reform, immigration, judicial nominees, etc). The ostensibly conservative Congress passed tons of extraneous regulations, unbalanced budgets, and bloated entitlement packages which infuriated both the "elite" conservatives and the rank-and-file; the GOP was moving away from their base when they lost the midterms, not towards it.

Combine that with the usual "party fatigue" that set in since the GOP had held power for 12 years, and the lack of Presidential coat tails, and the fact that Congress' approval rating was even lower than Bush's rating at its lowest point... and you have the perfect storm for a midterm election bloodbath.

If anything 2006 was a lesson to the GOP that they needed more ideological purity, not less. Whether this lesson would benefit the Democrats is another question altogether.

the war in Iraq keeps falling in importance to American voters.

That Democrats are still struggling in the polls, despite more factors working against the GOP than at any time since 1976, shows how weak the Democrats are, and how few centrists still reside in that party.

Anything less than a Democrat landslide is a total failure. The Democrats have not gotten 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN elections after 1976, while the GOP achieved this feat 4 times out of 7 (1980, 84, 88, 2004).

Democrats don't look like getting 50% this time, either. Think about it, the best possible opportunity for Democrats, and they still can't dominate.

The GOP is clearly the stronger party over the last 30 years.

The GOP is clearly the stronger party over the last 30 years.

I find it a little bizarre that the Democratic Party that's picking up support from John Cole (formerly a self-described moderate to conservative Republican), Bruce Fein (former Republican), several ex-Republican office holders in Kansas, etc. is said to be lacking in "centrists". What has happened is that many of the small number of more-or-less socially liberal supporters of the Iraq Quagmire, and its successor the Iran Catastrophe, are leaving the party. Cases in point, Lieberman and Armed Liberal. OK, but something like 70 percent of the public has a less rosy view of our past "successes" and future prospects in Iraq. FBoW, that's not really a centrist position any more, because its popularity has dropped like a rock under the bungling of the Bushies. That doesn't make it wrong, but it's now more extremist than centrist.

Lazarus wrote :

"Yeah, but the Dems are clearly the stronger party over the last two. "

Two vs. Thirty. I'll take the GOP, thank you very much. Even in 2006, California voted for a GOP governor with 60% of the vote.

" said to be lacking in "centrists".

Lieberman's departure outweights all the no-names that you mention. Lieberman's existence personifies the distance the Democrats have moved from the center. I also remind you of Zell Miller.

"OK, but something like 70 percent of the public has a less rosy view of our past "successes" and future prospects in Iraq. "

Another left-wing lie. That simply is not true. If it were, John McCain would not be getting as much support as he is.

Also, the fact that you are hoping for things to be worse than they are, and actually get happiness from bad news vs. sadness from good news, shows how patriotism itself is anathema to what the Democrats have become. Look at Pelosi's desperate attempts to silence General Petraeus.

There are two Americas, a pro-US America (75%) and an anti-US America (10-15%). Democrats are so beholden to the anti-US group, that pro-US people are leaving in droves. This does not bode well for any possibility of gaining the center. A party that has not gotten 50% of the vote in SEVEN attempt is, without a doubt, shambolic.

The fact that John McCain is the true torch-carrier for the JFK legacy says it all.

A democratic party that looked like Armed Liberal is one that I would possibly vote for.

A democratic party that mirrors Obama/Pelosi is one that I will strongly work hard to defeat. I will, for the first time, donate large sums of money to opponents of such politicians.

Democrats are so beholden to the anti-US group, that pro-US people are leaving in droves.

Funny you should mention Zell Miller. I recall his eulogy for the Democrats was entitled "A National Party No More". At the moment, there are more Democratic congressmen from Mississippi (2) than Republicans in all of New England (1). Whose party is no longer national, again?

I'm sure you would prefer having a McCain Party and a Lieberman Party, and that you could occasionally vote for the latter. I would prefer an Obama Party and a pro-green pro-choice Schwarzenegger Party, which I could possibly vote for from time to time. It feels good to know that there isn't any organized opposition to many of your core opinions. But on Iraq, that won't happen.

"Leaving aside the statistics for the pro-US and anti-US factions, which you pulled out of your ass,"

These are well-established numbers. I am sure you would like the pro-US numbers to be lower, by they are not. Vulgarity (a leftist defense mechanism) has no effect on me.

"Democratic registration and self-identification: up. Republican: down. "

But the remaining 20% who are independents are going to McCain. McCain is leading in all polls, and you know it. Be a man, and admit it.

"Whose party is no longer national, again?"

I see that you have cognitive dissonance about the fact that Democrats have not won 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN attempts since 1976, while the GOP has won 4 times (1980, 84, 88, 2004). You cite one tree while ignoring the forest - typical of someone who is secretly writhing in agony.

Total all votes for Dems and all votes for the GOP in the last 10 Presidential elections. There is no comparison.

Then again, if leftists understood numbers, they would not be leftists (tee hee).

Note how Democrats are unable to win the majority of voters who earn above $50K a year, including the middle class $50K to $75K slice.

Schwarzenegger is pro-Iraq War and pro-WOT. If anything, he puts McCain in play even in CA. Imagine if McCain won, or even came close in CA.

No wonder Arnold correctly refers to Democrats as 'girlie-men'. That is a stunningly accurate portrayal of both male and female democrats. On all levels, the philosophical depth of the term is vast.

GK, the poor performance of Democratic presidential candidates over previous cycles just doesn't outweigh the fact that this year the Dems are booming in interest, registration, excitement and results. Or did the significance of losing Denny Hastert's seat escape you. You're trying to predict the 1932 election on the basis of the Harding and Coolidge and Hoover.

McCain will be losing as soon as the Democrats' primary race is settled and the general election (and the 100-year Iraq plan) become the focus of attention. The Republicans are going to get thumped again in Congress and they already know it.

Incidentally, just as a matter of math and geography, you can't show, one way or another, who has a national party on the basis of popular vote totals. The fact remains that the Democrats' presence in the South is greater than the Republicans' in New England. Maybe neither party is national any more.

California is no more in play for McCain than is the District of Columbia. But by all means, spend media buy money here.

And as for the girly-man stuff, it is too bad that one not-national party now depends on votes of men who are hoping their support of war will stiffen their spines. (I don't really mean spines, either.) I notice that Michael Barone just ridiculed Obama supporters as wanting to arrogate the honor of warriors to themselves. I googled, and Barone was of draft age during Vietnam, which he spent at Harvard and Yale. So, just who wants to arrogate the warriors' honor? I must admit, I find these allegations of cowardice intolerable when they come from fat, pasty-faced, ugly pundits with no military experience (either). Your mileage may vary.

Lazarus,

The GOP earns more popular votes. Period. Your weak anecdotes of 'Democrats do better in the South than the GOP does in New England' are subjective and unscientific. The South is much bigger than New England. The GOP also dominates in the plains, mountains, etc.

Hastert, too, was an anecdote. No more significant than Daschle.

"McCain will be losing as soon as the Democrats' primary race is settled and the general election "

I doubt it. The fact that it is even close despite more factors working against the GOP shows how structurally weak Democrats are. Again, SEVEN attempts without 50% of the vote, after 1976.

"pasty-faced, ugly pundits with no military experience (either). "

But why is military experience not important in McCain's case? The selective importance given to military experience by the anti-military leftists is part of why the Democrats are a party that never manages to get 50% of the vote.

Lazarus,

The GOP earns more popular votes. Period. Your weak anecdotes of 'Democrats do better in the South than the GOP does in New England' are subjective and unscientific. The South is much bigger than New England. The GOP also dominates in the plains, mountains, etc.

Hastert, too, was an anecdote. No more significant than Daschle.

"McCain will be losing as soon as the Democrats' primary race is settled and the general election "

I doubt it. The fact that it is even close despite more factors working against the GOP shows how structurally weak Democrats are. Again, SEVEN attempts without 50% of the vote, after 1976.

"pasty-faced, ugly pundits with no military experience (either). "

But why is military experience not important in McCain's case? The selective importance given to military experience by the anti-military leftists is part of why the Democrats are a party that never manages to get 50% of the vote.

GK: I'll try to slow the math down. Total popular vote might be an interesting number, but it says nothing either for or against the proposition that the Democrats are no longer a national party. GOP dominance at the state level is collapsing. At the moment, for example, Virginia has a Democratic governor and one Democratic senator, and the 2008 Senate race is viewed as an almost sure Democratic flip. Meanwhile up in New England, the Republicans are in danger of losing their last (!) House seat and two of their last three senators. (Republican dominance of the Mountain and Plains states is also collapsing. Check Montana.)

Now to return to the popular vote, I am not sure what you intend to prove with historical results. That FDR was a long-shot and the Republicans were the dominant party in 1932 because of huge Republican pluralities in the previous election cycles? It didn't, you know, work out that way. Since you are entranced with this statistic, did you know that in the 2006 election the Dems received 52 percent of the total vote for the House and almost 54 percent of the total vote for the Senate? I'd say that's more relevant than Ronald Reagan's numbers over Jimmy Carter.

To tell you the truth, the defeat of Tom Daschle was a significant anecdote. So is the victory of Bill Foster in a historically Republican district by-election.

And finally, the issue about military experience in my last post is not about John McCain. It's about Michael Barone, GK, and other conservatives who call their opponents girly-men. Can you post a link to, say, scans of your DD-214 and pictures showing that you remain buff and strong? Otherwise I might conclude that "despite" your macho political beliefs you follow the Kagan brothers (for example) in resembling the grown up version of Augustus Gloop.

Lazarus,

Typical left-wing insecurity - saying that unless you are in the military, you cannot support the war.

So does that also apply to Afghanistan? How about Bosnia? You can't be selective here.

Furthermore, the military votes overwhelmingly for the GOP, not the Democrats. This surprises no one.

Regarding the fact that the Democrats are not a national party, the fact that you have to go back to FDR merely proves my point, and defeats yours. That is why Zell Miller called it a 'National Party NO MORE'. 'No more' means that once it was, in the time of FDR or even JFK. It now no longer is.

Please consider putting events in the correct chronology.

The fact remains, the Democrats have not gotten 50% of the popular vote in SEVEN attempts. Moderates like Miller and Lieberman are no longer welcome in an increasingly fringe-dominated party. That alone says it all.

I have provided proof that Democrats cannot capture a majority of the vote of people who earn above $50,000 a year, including the middle-class $50K-$75K slice. You silence on this point reveals your discomfort that your party offers little other than selling socialist snake oil to the poor.

You weak anecdotes continue. Bill Foster is nowhere near as significant as Daschle. If you want to talk about significant topplings, Arnold winning 60% of the vote in CA in a Dem year is the biggest of all - the Democrats have not pulled off anything of the sort. I remind you that you supported Arnold until you learned that he called Democrats 'girlie-men' - a correct term for both male and female Democrats, and thus immense in philosophical depth.

Andrew, you were doing so well...until the last paragraph of #33 ... c'mon, you know better than to step into the sewer like that...

A.L.

AL, very revealing that you write about my #33, but not the insecure GK and his #34, etc.

As for GK's arguments, I find it interesting that he expects Obama to be competitive in Wyoming, based upon the Democratic Governor's 2006 re-election with 70 percent of the vote. Even I wouldn't have been so optimistic. Or does this analysis work only for Schwarzenegger and California?

In 1932, GK, the Democratic Party had not won 50 percent of the popular presidential vote since Samuel Tilden in the peculiar election of 1876. (Like Bill Clinton, T. Woodrow Wilson did not break 50 percent of the vote after counting third parties.) What did this mean in the 1932 election? Big wins for Hoover and the GOP?

Both of your arguments are belied by counterexamples. Go fish elsewhere.

And to clarify, GK. You don't need military experience to support the Iraq War or any other war. But you don't get to call other men girlie-cowards unless you can put up or shut up on that score, and sending other men's children to die does not count as courage. Is this finally clear?

Andrew, there's - to me - a distinction between a generalized attack on a group for their ideas or behavior and on an individual here; i.e. it's OK to call Republicans (or McCain) a "warmonger", but not OK to say the same thing about Jim Rockford - because that fundamentally changes the style of discourse to personal namecalling.

That's what I'm unhappy with - make any more sense??

A.L.

Lazarus,

Again, the fact that you have to go back 70 or 100 years to find a favorable argument for Democrats merely proves my point, not yours.

The Democrats are a national party NO MORE. They were under FDR, Trueman, and JFK. Since Carter, they have not won 50% of the pop. vote, and are having a very difficult time even in 2008, despite the once-in-a-lifetime set of factors working in their favor.

Hell, even the Clintonian actions of cutting taxes, passing NAFTA, wars in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc., attacking Saddam in 1998 on account of his WMD progams, and welfare reform, are outside of what Democrats today consider to be acceptable policies.

Anything less that 55% of the popular vote for Obama, in these conditions, is a failure, and evidence of the structural weakness of the Democratic party. That they can't get a majority of the vote of even the middle class. The only solid majority is in people earning under $30K.

Regarding my quote of Gov. Schwarzenegger, I see that you initially singled him out as someone you agree with. I point out that he won 60% of the CA vote even after using the 'girlie-men' term repeatedly, including at the 2004 RNC. That says something about what people really think.

Lazarus,

Almost missed this one :

"But you don't get to call other men girlie-cowards unless you can put up or shut up on that score, and sending other men's children to die does not count as courage. Is this finally clear?"

Again, the military voted far mroe for Bush than Kerry in 2004. This was before Kerry said that only failed students get stuck in Iraq.

Also, it appears you think the VietNam war is still going on. The US military is voluntary. They are not 'sent to die' by others.

I most certainly can repeat what Governor Schwarzenegger correctly referred to your type as. I find the term to be useful and accurate in its philosophical depth.

It is certainly less nasty and more accurate than the Bush = Hitler or McCain/Lieberman = Warmonger boilerplate leftist openers.

Hey GK - did you miss my #37? Please review and consider when commenting going forward, OK?

A.L.

AL,

I am not clear how what I said is anything more than a generalized attack on a group.

You said :

"there's - to me - a distinction between a generalized attack on a group for their ideas or behavior and on an individual here; i.e. it's OK to call Republicans (or McCain) a "warmonger", "

Republicans, as a group, being called 'Warmongers' is the same as Democrats, as a general group, being called what Gov. Arnold calls them. Is it not?

I certainly didn't stoop to Lazarus' level in responding to his 'chickenhawk'-themed attack. I didn't even call his group any name, over that.

Kudos to AJL for his generally sterling arguments thus far.

Andrew, there's - to me - a distinction between a generalized attack on a group for their ideas or behavior and on an individual here; i.e. it's OK to call Republicans (or McCain) a "warmonger", but not OK to say the same thing about Jim Rockford - because that fundamentally changes the style of discourse to personal namecalling.

AL, this actually makes no sense - if someone is a Democrat, then a general attack on Democrats is also attack on them personally. I won't speak for AJL, but I know when someone trashes liberals in general - whether it's Jim Rockford or Ann Coulter - I don't think to myself "well, gosh, I'm sure they're talking about some other Democrats when they identify us as America-hating pinko fascist girly-men." It's pretty clearly an attack on both me personally and the party/political side in general.

That said, I don't care what names I myself get called, and I don't even mind the party getting trashed by people who are clearly nuts to begin with. But it's silly to say that Jim Rockford trashing Democrats doesn't somehow impugn the Democrats he's personally arguing with, while saying that AJL directly critiquing both the guys he's arguing with, and their party, is verboten.

Chris, what we're talking about is that old chestnut, manners. Let me put in another way:

bq.* Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, including authors of diaries and frontpage postings, will be banned. Candidates and politicians are fair game (but that doesn't mean you can use inflammatory language against candidates).

...that's Jerome Armstrong at MyDD, and - shockingly - I agree. we're all here at a cocktail party and we're talking religion and politics, so it's going to get heated. The bright line is when you bash other guests and not just broad, abstract groups, or individual political leaders.

A.L.

AL-

we're all here at a cocktail party and we're talking religion and politics, so it's going to get heated. The bright line is when you bash other guests and not just broad, abstract groups, or individual political leaders.

You're missing my point - broad, abstract groups can include the people you're arguing with. Manners are all well and good, but it's naive to suggest that good manners somehow prohibit bad intent. If I'm arguing geopolitics with a Russian and say "The Russians are bloodthirsty psychopaths," rather than "You, Ivan, are a bloodthirsty psychopath," then I'm not really improving the tone of the conversation.

Likewise, it's naive to suggest that Jim Rockford, although he never insults me personally by name, is somehow being the exemplar of rational debate when he consistently accuses Democrats (of which I am one) of basically being traitors to this country.

Chris - have I suggested that Jim is an exemplar of rational debate? Has pretty much every post I've made that references him been critical? (note: rhetorical questions)

There is a difference. I've had long and serious talks with Iranian and Syrian friends who feel very differently than I do about the Middle East; we're mature enough to understand the difference between expressing values and ideas and personalizing things. I'd hope we can be as well.

A.L.

Thank you Chris.

Now let's get back to the crazy idea that Democrats used to be a national party but have been taken over by extremists who have driven them to retake both Houses of Congress and to the only election in American history to leave the losing party without a single consolation turnover, but at the terrible cost of the affections of one ex-Senator from Georgia and the junior Senator from Connecticut, whose entire shtick was to go on Fox News and slag his (alleged) fellow Democrats.

First: Take a look at the electoral map of the 1952 and 1956 Presidential elections. The only non-slave state the Dems won in 1952 was West Virginia. In 1956, the Democrats didn't win even one non-slave state. What sort of national party was that! American political parties are often a coalition of regional alignments. In the 1950s, the Dems' base was in the South. I saw (but can't find to cite) the claim that Adlai Stevenson and John Kerry got the same percentage of the white male vote outside the South, but in the interim, of course, much of the white male Southern vote had migrated to the GOP and its well-measured opposition to affirmative action.

Second: I must say, this is the first time I have heard (a) that Bill Clinton cut taxes and that (b) current Dems would reject his economic program. On my planet, Republicans protested bitterly that Clinton's tax increases would ruin the economy. Surely you're joking. Nor do I see why Democrats would reject Somalia and Bosnia, done Clinton-style. Those weren't 100-year projects sold by con-men on the basis of wholly-ridiculous fantasies of flowers and cheap reconstruction. You may not believe it, but Zell and Holy Joe were not the only Democrats in favor of these interventions.

Third: I'm also having a hard time understanding why Obama needs a 55% result to show the Democrats are the successful party. Brand GOP is so unpopular they weren't able to recruit a single serious opponent for Sen. Lautenberg of New Jersey, who is 84 years old and in a state where the Republicans claim to have some following. Everyone expects even greater Democratic gains in Congress.

Fourth: Your precious little Quagmire has the support of a minority of the American people. Not to threadjack, but the War Party is now calling the surge a victory insomuch as it lets us bury our troops years longer. Wow! That's great news!

Unpopularity doesn't make your view wrong, any more than my view was necessarily wrong when it was in the minority. It does mean, however, that you have a twisted idea of "extremist", that comprises the plurality opinion of the country.

Finally: If any of those troops serving in Iraq want to call Democrats girly-men, I guess they've paid dearly enough for the privilege. (Of course, the Bush/McSame platform may be less popular when it's the sixth and seventh tour in-country instead of the third.) But you, GK, don't have that privilege. Sitting at your keyboard calling others cowards… to my mind it doesn't matter if you accuse one by name of a swath of the country by party, you haven't shown any guts of your own, either for yourself or for the party of blowhards, wannabes, and hypocrites you endorse.

The president has to meet a testosterone standard that appeals to women but does not offend men. George W. Bush succeeds with both and that drives Democrats crazy. They've made fools of themselves with their churlish criticism of his landing on the deck of the USS Lincoln, but they can't let it go. George W. was a hottie in his flight suit. He was the victorious commander, and most of all he looked at home with himself. He glowed with the pride born of authenticity, declaring the war over and thanking all those appreciative sailors on the decks of the Lincoln. In contrast to a certain predecessor, George W. has the sexiness of a faithful husband…Maureen Dowd, for a typical media example, grows apoplectic over the allure of the man. He's the winner and the Democrats are merely whiners: "They don't know how to combat the Bushies' visceral belief in action over explanation, juice over justification."… When that statue of Saddam Hussein was knocked off its pedestal in Baghdad, the president scored a knockout.

Chris - have I suggested that Jim is an exemplar of rational debate? Has pretty much every post I've made that references him been critical? (note: rhetorical questions)

No, AL, you never suggested JR was an exemplar of rational debate, but you did say that what he does - bashing "abstract groups", liberals and Democrats in his case - was ok, whereas actually naming names was wrong. My point is simply that there's no substantive difference between the two when your rhetorical opponents are obviously in the abstract group you're bashing.

There is a difference. I've had long and serious talks with Iranian and Syrian friends who feel very differently than I do about the Middle East; we're mature enough to understand the difference between expressing values and ideas and personalizing things. I'd hope we can be as well.

Insofar as that's what you're going for, AL, I'd suggest that you might have wanted to step in earlier, when GK broke out stuff like:

Also, the fact that you are hoping for things to be worse than they are, and actually get happiness from bad news vs. sadness from good news, shows how patriotism itself is anathema to what the Democrats have become.

Me, I'll suggest that the entire idea of a friendly, two-way exchange of ideas just isn't in evidence on this site, because for something like that to happen, you need to respect the other guy and genuinely believe there's a possibility that he might be right and you might be wrong. Virtually everybody here at WoC - and I include myself in this group - made up their minds about the guys they're arguing with some time ago. What's left is mostly just blowing off steam and trying to woo the audience.

And there you have it. Discourse (exploration) versus polemics (fighting). As Lenin asked, in somewhat different circumstances, "What is to be done?"

Chris - I'll try again; insulting Democrats as a class is different than insulting Andrew or you. Insulting Bush or McCain is different than insulting Jim Rockford or GK. I get it that there's bleedover, and that those insults can be taken personally here. But... I expect that we'll look past that in the interest of trying to maintain dialog.

I'm sorry we don't rise to your standard; we don't rise to mine, but that's reality...

A.L.

Chris - I'll try again; insulting Democrats as a class is different than insulting Andrew or you. Insulting Bush or McCain is different than insulting Jim Rockford or GK. I get it that there's bleedover, and that those insults can be taken personally here. But... I expect that we'll look past that in the interest of trying to maintain dialog.

AL, I don't know why you'd believe that the insults are substantively different, or that people would "look past that" - do you have evidence that such a thing has ever occurred? Because in my experience once you've lost good will - and insulting somebody's politics is a surefire way to do that - you almost never get it back.

Or are you willing to embrace those who, for example, kicked Lieberman out of the party in 2006? Can you think of a way to get politically active Democrats to feel cuddly about Zell Miller these days?

And there you have it. Discourse (exploration) versus polemics (fighting). As Lenin asked, in somewhat different circumstances, "What is to be done?"

Nortius, I'd say it's more the case where one side is being open about the fact that this is a fight, while the other side speaks of manners and discourse, but still makes fairly vicious insults in the form of generalized denunciations. (Not to mention the occasional backhanded slap involving Lenin...)

Look, WoC is far from being the open warfare that a lot of other political sites embrace. But given that this site is primarily associated with the War on Terror, and given how incredibly divisive that conflict has been here at home, it's silly to pretend that this site has or will rise to the level of reasoned, well-intentioned discourse that produces substantive agreement on the issues from all sides.

It's a bar brawl. Deal with it.

(Not to mention the occasional backhanded slap involving Lenin...)

See? I wasn't intending a slap at all. The quote was, and is, a famous one. Perhaps the gratuitousness of the quote was only in identifying that it was a quote from anyone, in this context? No pleasing everyone.

It's a bar brawl. Deal with it.

Well, since you chose to put it that way:

As one of the bartenders, I say we do our best to limit brawling.

You say (in your following posts) whatever you choose.

We'll see what happens. This is not a threat. Make whatever you will of the fact that I chose to say that.

Afterthought:

I actually do wish I had an AI or (more realistically) Bayesian autofilter that could be used on all posts where generalizations and characterizations (namecalling, mostly) occur. Maybe even on topics themselves.

It might make the blog a very different one. If you look at my quite-under-tended personal blog you'll see that I aim for discourse, where I have personal say.

But I (not a big cheese, just one of the volunteers) don't have the time or energy to provide that service here; and I don't pay the bills here, Marc and/or Joe do that.

I can tell, with somewhat higher than zero accuracy, when a poster calls another poster a name (it's called "direct address", and all the good primary educational systems are supposed to mention it as part of grammar).

It's an issue of available attention on the part of Marshals. Choose to interpret it as a distinction without a difference, and see what it gets you. If the rules don't make sense, you're welcome to "have a nice day -- somewhere else".

But, flawed as our policies and capabilities are, bar brawling is not in the approved program. Capisce?

See? I wasn't intending a slap at all. The quote was, and is, a famous one. Perhaps the gratuitousness of the quote was only in identifying that it was a quote from anyone, in this context? No pleasing everyone.

I recognize the quote, Nortius, and I also recognize that it's arguably the starting point of the whole bloody Soviet enterprise. Maybe you intended the resonance to be there, and maybe you didn't, but I've seen liberalism equated with communism enough times on this blog that I won't apologize for assuming you were doing more than just randomly grabbing an apt phrase.

As one of the bartenders, I say we do our best to limit brawling.

You say (in your following posts) whatever you choose.

We'll see what happens. This is not a threat. Make whatever you will of the fact that I chose to say that.

Fair enough. In return, I'll point out that while I find the supposed distinction between insulting parties and insulting people to be meaningless, I generally do not call people or parties names, nor do I intend to in the future. I realize you generally don't like or agree with what I say, or how I say it, but I don't believe I've crossed any of your lines, and I'm quite certain I haven't crossed any of mine. Ban me if you feel it necessary, but I'm fairly secure in my own conscience about what I write.

And if you choose not to see what you're policing as a bar brawl... well, eye of the beholder and all that.

I realize you generally don't like or agree with what I say, or how I say it

Sigh... true or not as that might be, I won't argue it one way or t'other: I defend your right to say it. Civilly -- as I see that. My alternative is to stop doing any Marshal activity and let it turn into an even more overt brawl.

I wish we were having some of this discussion in private. In public, it has a very different mien. shrug "Wish in one hand..."