DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on June 09, 2008, 12:59:15 PM
-
Inside The Numbers: 'Once Stupid, Always Stupid'
By Matt Towery
Southern Political Report
Copyright ? 2008 Creators Syndicate
June 6, 2008 ? My late paternal grandfather was quite a character. I could probably write volumes on him. He had a wacky set of catch phrases -- one of which was to say of someone who made a mistake, "Once stupid, always stupid."
We can't know yet if the Democratic Party is brilliant or deluded in choosing Obama. He is fairly inexperienced as a U.S. senator, but he is a spellbinding orator, too. He offers the change his supporters crave, but neither he nor they can say exactly what that means.
But I know this: For most of us who are pundits and columnists, our forecast a year or so ago that Hillary Clinton was a lock-cinch guarantee to win the Democratic nomination was a misjudgment that recalls my grandfather's maxim, too.
Just to show that sometimes writers will admit to how far off they are, let's just look at how inaccurate I was about the Democratic nomination. In January 2007, I wrote, "Like it or don't like it, but trust me: Hillary will win the nomination ? Barack Obama is too green behind the gills to be ready for the most-prime prime time of all, a presidential campaign ? the Democratic nomination? Take it to the bank. It's Hillary."
Hold on a second. The blood is still draining from my face.
I wasn't alone, thank goodness. Consider this little number from one of the world's most respected news magazines, The Economist, from October 2007. "Mrs. Clinton is not only the frontrunner. She is well on her way to becoming the prohibitive frontrunner."
But a funny thing happened on the way to the finish line. Several things, in fact.
First, the Democratic National Committee refused to allow the Florida primary vote to count until it was too late to do Clinton any good. So instead of a New Hampshire primary win followed by a potential big win in Florida, for Hillary it was instead a loss in South Carolina, followed by more losses in states mostly unsympathetic to her.
Second, a Des Moines Register poll that appeared just days before the Iowa caucus created a wild scenario that had hordes of young voters stampeding one another on the way to vote for Obama.
Those projections didn't materialize. But they did something better for Obama: The publicity about the poll persuaded many caucus participants to cast their second ballots for Obama when their first choice didn't get the required 15 percent of the vote on the first ballot.
The next day after the Des Moines poll, our polls showed a massive shift to Obama as the "second choice." The poll became self-fulfilling.
Finally, there was the mysterious movement of party leaders, one by one -- from Kennedys to onetime Clinton loyalists -- who at remarkably regular intervals declared the race to belong to Obama and gave him their support.
There's a lesson here for both Obama and McCain boosters: Predictions don't work this year.
If the McCain organization doesn't recognize that Barack Obama is not only charismatic and extraordinarily well organized, but also that he has a serendipitous knack for finding good fortune, then they will lose in November.
A "ho-hum" endless mantra about Iran, Iraq and his own experience will leave McCain looking like the obsessive old man cussing in his coffee at the retirement village.
Meanwhile, the Obama camp had better not believe that "change for the sake of change" is enough of a rallying cry to carry a candidate through all of the rough times that one encounters in a presidential slugfest.
So far, I must say, Obama has seemed an awfully cool customer. But at some point he will have to go toe-to-toe with McCain; and trust me as one who had a very contentious (but not unfriendly) 30-minute crossing of swords with him on TV in 2000, McCain is as savvy and tough as they come.
Nothing can be taken for granted in this upcoming presidential season. But I will make one prediction anyway. No, make that two! (Call it a bad habit.)
I believe the lines at the polls this fall will be the longest anyone alive has ever seen. I can picture polling places being brought to a near halt as they try to process massive turnout from coast to coast.
And I believe one other thing: We won't know who our next president will be until well into the day after Election Day.
Somewhere, my grandfather is reading this and wincing.
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_66_426.aspx
-
<<[An] . . . endless mantra about Iran, Iraq and his own experience will leave McCain looking like the obsessive old man cussing in his coffee at the retirement village.>>
And? Maybe he could add Popeye's line to lighten things up a little, "I yam what I yam." Or is there some fake persona that you think that McSame could convincingly pull off, keeping in mind that he's none too bright in the first place?
<<Meanwhile, the Obama camp had better not believe that "change for the sake of change" is enough of a rallying cry to carry a candidate through all of the rough times that one encounters in a presidential slugfest.>>
That would depend on how much of a mess has been made of the country by the existing administration. Given the extent of the current shithole that your "President" has dug you into, I would say that "time for a change" will easily carry Obama just as far as he wants to go.
-
I don't think the american people are as shallow as you think.
-
<<I don't think the american people are as shallow as you think. >>
They are what they are. It sure as hell isn't up to me to label them "shallow" or "deep" and I don't think anyone can. Takes all kinds. It's really a diversion to get into stuff like that.
McCain is an old guy with all the limitations that come with age - - irrational bellicosity, rigid thinking, arrogance, backward-looking, etc., and it shows. Obama is a young guy with all the advantages of youth - - good looks, vigor, a good speaking voice, willingness to take risks to engineer a better world, boldness, daring and forward-looking. And it shows too.
-
Obama is a young guy with all the advantages of youth - - good looks, vigor, a good speaking voice, willingness to take risks to engineer a better world, boldness, daring and forward-looking. And it shows too.
Can't stop love.
-
<<Can't stop love.>>
You'll know that when all the votes are counted. That's not to say, though, that lovers can't be cheated.
-
You say he is willing to take risks to engineer a better world.
Got an example of what you are thinking of or hopeing for?
-
Can't stop love.
Love isn't the emotion we are witnessing here.
-
You say he is willing to take risks to engineer a better world.
Got an example of what you are thinking of or hopeing for?
=========================================================
An end to the root causes of what you call "terrorism" and an end to imperialism so that the trillions currently wasted in Iraq and around the world can be put to socially productive uses. I hope that Obama will stop the U.S. policy of creating enemies for itself around the world so that it can then have ready-made excuses for its own brand of state terrorism and its imperialistic adventures in the Middle East.
-
You say he is willing to take risks to engineer a better world.
Got an example of what you are thinking of or hopeing for?
=========================================================
An end to the root causes of what you call "terrorism" and an end to imperialism so that the trillions currently wasted in Iraq and around the world can be put to socially productive uses. I hope that Obama will stop the U.S. policy of creating enemies for itself around the world so that it can then have ready-made excuses for its own brand of state terrorism and its imperialistic adventures in the Middle East.
Attacking the root causes of terrorism will require continuance of the Bush policys , which of course Barak Obama is likely to do , if he lives up to his word.
-
Attacking the root causes of terrorism will require continuance of the Bush policys , which of course Barak Obama is likely to do , if he lives up to his word.
=================================
One of the root causes of terrorism was Juniorbush's preemptive invasion of Iraq. There were no acts of Shiite or Al Qaeda terrorism in Iraq before the invasion, but after it, Iraq is where more acts of terrorism have occurred since the invasion.
So, no, "continuance of the Juniorbush policies" is NOT required. In fact, many of these policies need to be ditched and a complete reassessment needs to be made.
And nowhere has Obama promised to continue Juniorbush's policies.
-
There were no acts of Shiite or Al Qaeda terrorism in Iraq before the invasion, but after it, Iraq is where more acts of terrorism have occurred since the invasion.
I guess that the actions of Al Qaeda against Kurds in Iraq (supported by Saddam) don't count.
-
I guess that the actions of Al Qaeda against Kurds in Iraq (supported by Saddam) don't count.
===============================
If Saddam's support actually caused this, which is doubtful, it was negligible compared to the massive terrorism caused by the invasion. By 2003, Kurds were no longer being gassed. They were being gassed at about the same time those photos of Rumsfeld and Saddam grinning like best buddies were taken.
-
If Saddam's support actually caused this, which is doubtful, it was negligible compared to the massive terrorism caused by the invasion.
I didn't say his support "caused" it. Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq prior to the invasion against the Kurds. And Saddam was supporting it.
Both of which you denied happened.
Even if only ONE act of Al Qaeda terrorism happened in Iraq prior to the invasion, it puts the lie to your statement "There were no acts of Shiite or Al Qaeda terrorism in Iraq before the invasion" - and the fact is that it was ongoing terrorism, not just one act.
-
The net increase of acts of terrorism jumped exponentially when Juniorbush invaded Iraq, whatever you wish to quibble.
-
The net increase of acts of terrorism jumped exponentially when Juniorbush invaded Iraq, whatever you wish to quibble.
Care to provide your evidence?
Or is this another case of "believe me, 'cause I'm just smarter than you are"?
-
The net increase of acts of terrorism jumped exponentially when Juniorbush invaded Iraq, whatever you wish to quibble.
Quibble?
I challenge it outright.
Haveing most of the acts of Al Queda move to Iraq (where according to some they were not present earlyer) shows the value of winning in Iraq to Al Queda , and thus to us.
-
And last time I checked not only were U.S. military deaths the lowest since the start of the war
- the support for Usma has dropped
- the homicide of bombers by Muslims in general has dropped
- significant decrease in overall global islamic terrorist attacks
- significant decrease in Suuni support of AlQueada
But hey, those facts don't mean anything right? Lull before the storm, right?
-
And last time I checked not only were U.S. military deaths the lowest since the start of the war
- the support for Usma has dropped
- the homicide of bombers by Muslims in general has dropped
- significant decrease in overall global islamic terrorist attacks
- significant decrease in Suuni support of AlQueada
But hey, those facts don't mean anything right? Lull before the storm, right?
======================================================
The comparison was between the total acts of terrorism BEFORE THE STUPID USELESS WAR EVER started and since the aforementioned war was started.
We have lost over 3,000 American troops as a result of this war, with many more than that maimed, lame, armless, legless, insane, blind and otherwise impaired. millions of Iraqis have been fporced from their homes as a result, and the number of militant Muslims has increased greatly. Not one 9-11 hijacker was an Iraqi, not one.
So, no, your stupid "facts" are meaningless to the argument that Juniorbush lied to get approval to start a disastrous war that has caused more problems than it could ever solve.
that did not need to be fought at great cost to everyone concerned.
-
<<But hey, those facts don't mean anything right? Lull before the storm, right?>>
Nah. Impossible. How would those dumb rag-head schmucks ever learn about the Tet Offensive?
-
See, Tee, the Tet Offensive was a tremendous VICTORY for the US, according to the right wing. This is perhaps because they continue to believe that the war could actually be won militarily, which, barring nukes, was just not so.
My guess is that if JFK had just ended Vietnam in the early 1960's, Vietnam would have been unified as it is today, probably with a less hard line government, and they would still be competing with the Chinese to produce footwear in factories that pay pennies per hour.
Only there would be many fewer dead, maimed Vietnamese and Americans alike. Chances are Pol Pot would never have taken over Cambodia, either.
Rightwingers are like the guy who brings a dog into your house and when the dog craps on your rug, he pulls out the dog's pedigree, and accuses you of poor housekeeping if you do not clean up the mess immediately.
-
And last time I checked not only were U.S. military deaths the lowest since the start of the war
- the support for Usma has dropped
- the homicide of bombers by Muslims in general has dropped
- significant decrease in overall global islamic terrorist attacks
- significant decrease in Suuni support of AlQueada
But hey, those facts don't mean anything right? Lull before the storm, right?
======================================================
The comparison was between the total acts of terrorism BEFORE THE STUPID USELESS WAR EVER started and since the aforementioned war was started.
We have lost over 3,000 American troops as a result of this war, with many more than that maimed, lame, armless, legless, insane, blind and otherwise impaired. millions of Iraqis have been fporced from their homes as a result, and the number of militant Muslims has increased greatly.
And we lost exponentially more during WWII. But hey, Tee's obviously hoping AlQueada gets their 2nd wind....soon. So many Americans to kill
-
<<But hey, Tee's obviously hoping AlQueada gets their 2nd wind....soon. So many Americans to kill>>
Right, Tee's really got his head screwed on backwards. Rooting for the Resistance forces instead of the armed invaders who come thousands of miles armed to the teeth to kill hundreds of thousands of poor Arabs whose only crime was to be born over an oil well. Wow! When is he going to get it through his thick, perverted skull that it's noble and heroic to trash international law, massacre people for oil and bring them "freedoms" which they never actually asked for to turn their country into a giant permanent U.S. military base and do all things the American way.
Amazing. Absolutely amazing.
Well, yeah, I hope and pray and believe that the Arabs really are cooking up a massive Tet Offensive that will finally put the lie forever to the bullshit "Light at the End of the Tunnel" crap we've been hearing. I must say it sounds totally surrealistic to hear criminals who arrogantly claim to speak for an entire nation, as if their crimes are everyone's crimes, boasting that they are finally beginning to beat their hapless victims into the ground, encountering less and less armed resistance and soon will in fact have successfully completed their massive act of unprovoked aggression. It's exactly like having to listen to Hitler broadcasting night and day that the various European Resistance groups are finally on the run.
Well, here's hoping for a gigantic comeuppance in October.
-
<<See, Tee, the Tet Offensive was a tremendous VICTORY for the US, according to the right wing.>>
Yeah, I've seen that argument before. Even here in this forum. It's absolutely hilarious. The best version of it was given in David Halberstam's book, The Best and the Brightest. LBJ's top generals - - the same guys who had been seeing the "light at the end of the tunnel" for months and years - - were gathered around to "brief" him on the "real significance" of Tet - - HUGE enemy losses, this was the end of the road for them, they were really FUBAR this time. Well, we've all heard this before. But this time, LBJ was being advised by Arthur Goldberg, whom he later nominated unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court.
First Goldberg gets the generals to give their estimates of total enemy troop strength. Then later he gets them to quantify the enemy dead in the Tet Offensive. Astronomical numbers, but Goldberg doesn't comment. Then, later still, he asks them innocently, what's their ratio of wounded to dead? And one of the generals says something like, "Well, we generally use a ratio of [say] three to one." Then Goldberg does a little scribbling on a pad, looks up and announces, "Well, gentlemen, it looks like the enemy has no effective troops left in the field." The way Halberstam describle it, it was truly hilarious. These overfed, overpaid morons were totally speechless. All of their BS was exposed for exactly what it was, and they were just totally busted. An incredible moment.
-
Well, here's hoping for a gigantic comeuppance in October.
That would tilt the election to McCain.
-
<<See, Tee, the Tet Offensive was a tremendous VICTORY for the US, according to the right wing.>>
Yeah, I've seen that argument before. Even here in this forum. It's absolutely hilarious. The best version of it was given in David Halberstam's book, The Best and the Brightest.
The version in General Giap's book is interesting too, he says he nearly gave up after the drubbing and dissapointment, but news from stateside saved his hope.
If Al Queda manages finally to strike us in a big way again , will this help the doves or the hawks?
-
The version in General Giap's book is interesting too, he says he nearly gave up after the drubbing and dissapointment, but news from stateside saved his hope.
Precisely. Thanks to the anti-war movement, especially here in the states, it gave the enemy new momentum & drive, prolonging the war and death that much more. Good job, guys
-
Perhaps General Giap just wanted to sell books.
The US had no reason to be in Vietnam. The governments of S. Vietnam were corrupt to the core, all of them, and there was nothing to be gained by turning South Vietnam into a tropical South Korea.
50,000 Americans and god knows how many Vietnamese died in that war, all of them for nothing other than some stupid politicians' egoes.
-
Perhaps General Giap just wanted to sell books.
The US had no reason to be in Vietnam. The governments of S. Vietnam were corrupt to the core, all of them, and there was nothing to be gained by turning South Vietnam into a tropical South Korea.
50,000 Americans and god knows how many Vietnamese died in that war, all of them for nothing other than some stupid politicians' egoes.
Communism had to be resisted, what a terrible world we would live in if there had been less resistance to Communism.
Of the countrys still Communist Cuba is one of the nicest , and even there there is no problem with excess immagration.
-
Communism had to be resisted, what a terrible world we would live in if there had been less resistance to Communism.
============================
No, it did not need to be resisted by the US. Resistance was futile, and caused Pol Pot to come to power in Cambodia.
By 1966 or so it was obvious that the South Vietnamese people as a group did not believe that the corrupt anti-Communist government was worth defending. That is when the US should have cut its losses and got the Hell out, because if the locals are not with you in their own civil war, you are going to lose. That is what happened. 50,000 Americans died totally in vain, because LBJ and Nixon didn't want to lose. But they lost anyway.
It is possible for governments to be more terrible than Communists can make it. Presently we have Myanmar and Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan and Somalia, all places where people are far worse off than in China or Cuba.
The US does nothing to make getting rid of these governments. The US is losing in Afghanistan. The Taliban was almost defeated, and now they are back.
-
Thanks to the anti-war movement, especially here in the states, it gave the enemy new momentum & drive, prolonging the war and death that much more. Good job, guys
Thanks to the warmongering sonsabitches in the White House for starting the war to begin with.
-
<<If Al Queda manages finally to strike us in a big way again , will this help the doves or the hawks?>>
Well BT seems to think it'll tilt the election towards McCain. I don't.
A massive al Qaeda strike in Iraq would almost certainly send the U.S. public into a stampede for the exits. The militarists have been setting themselves up for months with their "light at the end of the tunnel," "we're winning this thing" BS and a clear-cut demonstration to the contrary would just be final proof of the bankruptcy of the pro-war crowd. Their credibility would be at an all-time low and McCain would be turfed out with the rest of the slime-balls.
A massive al-Qaeda strike on NYC would not be as clear-cut. My own take on it would be, clearly the War Party's sole inducement (protection) has failed, clearly they have been on the wrong path, and more of their fascism will result only in more devastating attacks, which the War Party is obviously incapable of protecting us against. However, another type of response is also possible: "Why those rag-headed cock-sucking brown-skinned little camel-fuckers, HOW DARE THEY? Obviously, we have not been tough enough on them before, so OK, no more Mr. Nice Guy, the gloves are comin' off." You could get a deadly mix of good old-fashioned American racism joined with militarism and imperialism all combined into devasting attacks on all mid-East centres not yet formed into U.S. satellites. Course, in the long run, that would all fit Al Qaeda's plan to a T - - radicalizing every fucking Arab not already radicalized and leading to a tidal wave of anti-government rebellion in all U.S. satellites in the ME and possibly elsewhere.
-
A massive al Qaeda strike in Iraq would almost certainly send the U.S. public into a stampede for the exits.
In that case Obama would profit. It's all about knowing your customers.
-
<<In that case Obama would profit. It's all about knowing your customers.>>
I think it's pretty much a given that Tet in Iraq would work to Obama's benefit. The real question is which candidate would benefit from a 9-11 repeat in Manhattan.
-
The real question is which candidate would benefit from a 9-11 repeat in Manhattan.
I thought you had spun that in Obama's way . I suspect you were trying to have it both ways. I think you are wrong on both counts, but what do i know.
Tell you what.
If Obama comes out in favor of dismantling Homeland Security, I'll look at him closer.