I like the Bill Richardson pick. He has the experience and the insight. Hillary, I'm a little leery of. Personally, as a Christian, my biggest concern is Israel and I believe her Israel views are actually better than Bush. But I have a feeling Barak is setting her up. I have a feeling that her confirmation hearing are going to be so brutal that she won't get approved and it could kill her political career. For that I would love Barak forever.
It's the same thing. You're dismissing him as a blind follower, which is what you seemed to object to about the "talking points" label. Pointing out that you're tripping over yourself in your attempts to attack Obama doesn't have much to do with paranoia. In a previous thread, didn't you say that if Obama is really serious about setting a new tone, he'd suggest to Harry Reid that Leiberman be kept in the caucus and in charge of his Senate sub-committee chairmanship? Considering that that's exactly what Obama did, why are you mocking him in this thread? Cute damage control. "Oops, right, I was completely wrong. It was irony! Congratulations...you, uh, got what I was going for. That's the ticket." That's a good euphemism for "contradict ourselves wildly." When the same individual has wildly divergent beliefs, that's not a positive.
Nope. I was showing he was desperate to cover any flaw in St. Barack. There's that paranoia popping up again. I'm not out to attack him. But when he does things that don't jibe with his message, then I'll point it out. Bully for him. He made the smart move. Of course he only did it when the Dems could sniff the filibuster-proof majority. I wasn't aware I had to post a compliment of His Holiness every time he did the politically expedient thing. Nope again. It was ironic. It used to be that the Republicans had strong message control, even if they didn't all believe them. Now the Democratic Party is the party of true believers--if you don't follow in lockstep, you're Liebermaned. It's especially the people on the Left on this board--the groupthink is amazing. Congratulations. You've been wrong in every paragraph, and you didn't disappoint with this one. There are those, like me, who are more pro-business and Libertarian on the right, and there are those like Shooter or BrianfromWA who are more socially conservative. We're all right of center, but hold divergent beliefs. Perhaps those on the Left find that kind of conflict unbearable, which is why the Left has become so dogmatic.
And I was showing that you are desperate to attack St. Barack on any pretext, imagined or not. Pointing out inconsistent reasoning isn't paranoia. "If he really meant what he said, he'd do this." "Oh, he did it? Well, clearly he did it for his own evil self-interest. He still doesn't mean what he said." Set the test and then explain away either result as proving yourself right. You're smart enough to see the fallacy there, you just refuse to admit it because you want to "win" your point. Intellectual dishonesty. Yes, I know that. I just explained that to you, remember? You should go back and re-read what I said. I said when the same individual holds divergent beliefs, it's contradiction and not a positive. Are you saying that you, Shooter and BrianfromWA are all the same person? If not, your comment has nothing to do with what I said.
That's your imagination. Spend some time outside in the fresh air. It will do wonders for your perspective. Well, I wasn't inconsistent. You continuing to state that I was based on your interpretation is your problem, not mine. The change occurred when the Democrats looked like they had a chance to get to sixty seats. If he would have done it before, when he had nothing to gain, it would have been different. But since you're so anxious to hear fawning praise for your Chosen One, he did the smart thing and I say good for him. It's nice when the right thing to do jibes with what's good for you. Try to catch up. You still haven't figured it out. I don't need to. You were responding to my point, which was that those on the Right appear to have more philosophical diversity than those on the Left. There are generally acknowledged to be three legs of conservatism--fiscal conservatism, foreign policy conservatism and social conservatism. I agree with two of them, but not the third. Yet I accept those who are social conservatives. There are people like Mike Huckabee who also agree with two of the three legs, yet he doesn't seek to drive out those that aren't social conservatives. The Left will drive anyone out of their party who doesn't strictly adhere to the dogma laid out by the True Believers. Joe Lieberman is a terrific example. Disagree on the War on Terror but agree on everything else? We'll support another candidate in the primary. I was talking about groups. Don't blame me you thought I was talking about individuals. You have this problem where you believe so much in the superiority of your own thought process that you ascribe things that were never meant just because they help you make your argument. Tough luck on that one.
Fairly silly post-hoc justification. Nothing much changed between you setting the test and Obama actually doing it. Ted Stevens was already well on his way to losing the recount and the Minnesota recount hadn't (and still hasn't) given any indication of who will win. And, of course, the run-off between Chambliss and Martin is still in the future. The Democrats are essentially in the same position now as they were when you said that if Obama were serious about changing the tone, he'd suggest to Reid that Lieberman should keep his chairmanship. The only thing that changed was that Obama acted inconveniently in terms of your desired narrative, and you're scrambling to justify your narrative being at odds with what actually happened. The confusion is on your end. I was talking about contradictions coming from the same people (like you). You tried to distract from your contradictory talking points by blustering about how "the Right" has philosophical diversity. True or not, it was always irrelevant to my point, which is that you (and other conservatives) have been so desperate to attack Obama, that your attacks contradict each other. I was talking about individuals from the get-go. I just didn't allow you to redirect the discussion simply because you're embarrassed about your contradictory criticisms being pointed out.
Don't forget the Franken recount inching him closer to Coleman. Like I said earlier, good for him. We have yet to see if he would have told Reid to dump him without a chance for the 60 votes. It sure looked like he was going to let Reid do it earlier that week. Of course it is. If you misunderstand what someone writes, it's their fault not yours. I was discussing the lockstep thinking of those on the Left vs. those on the Right and you assumed what you wanted. Sorry, although you may be a high and mighty mod, I still get to think what I want. Go be the boss of someone else.
I didn't forget it, I mentioned Minnesota. Inching closer or not, that situation hasn't really changed the landscape in any material way. It was a toss-up leaning Coleman at the time and it remains a toss-up leaning Coleman. I didn't assume anything; I ignored what you were discussing because you were trying to change the subject. Let's remember, you responded to me to begin this mini-thread between you and me. My post was about how you and various other conservatives were being contradictory. Your ruminations on philosophical diversity were irrelevant to the post of mine that you were responding to. So, I kept things on-topic by keeping the focus on conservatives being contradictory as individuals.
There's a big difference between being more than a thousand votes up vs. a few hundred. And I discussed what I wished to discuss. Neener.
As I recall, it was already in the hundreds by that point. He simply cut it from around a 500 vote difference to around a 200 vote difference. Eh, whatever. I think Obama did it both for "good" reasons and for political expediency. I don't think it was to keep Lieberman's vote. My own take on Lieberman is that he's pretty sincere about what he believes. How he votes was unlikely to change whether he kept his chairmanship or not. However, the political expediency is that after running on a campaign of being unifying, it would look pretty bad if the first thing that happened was Lieberman being kicked out for opposing Obama during the campaign. I'm sure that was a part of it. However, I think Obama would like to create a less partisan, bickering government. Lots of people are frustrated with that and it doesn't seem particularly unlikely to me that Obama would like to change that. I don't think Obama is a messiah, but I also don't think he's a charlatan. You will discuss what I say we discuss, dammit. After all, I am superior! Or something.
It was Democrats charging John McCain with being George Bush III the entire campaign. It is the same Democrats that would chant that if say McCain appointed Tom Ridge as head of Homeland Security or anyone else that was involved in the Bush administration. Was McCain given the same benefit of the doubt during the campaign?
Which Democrats said they'd chant that? Certainly not Obama's campaign, that I saw. Nor me. Had McCain been elected, I would still believe that how he governs is what matters, not who he appoints to be his functionaries. Functionaries are not the vision people, they're the ones who implement the President's vision. Obama is surrounding himself with people who know how to get things done. What actually gets done depends on what Obama has in mind.
