27°
25°
10°
A Few Clouds | Weather provided by KSTP.com
Rudy Giuliani’s introductory comments at the Republican National Convention Wednesday night illustrated one of the Republican Party’s most fundamental flaws yet preeminent attributes: the appeal to what 19th century social scientist and theologian William Graham Sumner called the “forgotten man,” a middle-class worker who asks little of anyone, especially from their government. “We the people — the citizens of the United States — get to decide our next president … not the media, not Hollywood celebrities, not anyone else,” he said. Indeed, Giuliani and his party sought to assail the very class they so readily serve.
That John McCain chose Gov. Sara Palin, a self-proclaimed hockey mom from Alaska, illustrates this point plainly. The McCain-Palin duo is selling itself as bipartisan reformers with an appeal to middle class swing voters. Palin, in her speech Wednesday night, said this regarding working-class Americans: “They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America … who grow our food, run our factories and fight our wars.”
Yet Palin and other speakers did not say how they would end those wars, grow food and run factories collapsing amid one of the worst job markets since the early 1980s. Palin laughingly suggested that she will stand up to oil lobbyists but at the same time has been a fierce proponent of offshore drilling in her state, not to mention her lieutenant governor was actually a former oil lobbyist himself. The lack of diversity in the GOP convention delegates also points who the Republicans actually serve: MSNBC reported that only 36 of the 2,380 GOP conventions delegates are black — the lowest number in 40 years.
We fully support McCain and Palin’s argument that they’ll come into the White House as ethical, bipartisan reformers. But there remains a stark contrast to what Palin and fellow Republican’s have been telling voters and their actions. If they really want to appeal to the forgotten American perhaps they should have turned their attention to the mangled veterans, moms without health insurance and student activists marching outside their elitist jamboree.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Comments
Asinine as always...
First, why does it at all matter that the RNC had some 36 black delegates? I thought the Daily editorial staff were the type that believe that Americans should accept a collective non-racial identity. I guess that turned out to be a lie, since you so gleefully pointed out that there are few black delegates at the RNC.
Second, how did Senator Obama say that he was going to revitalize the economy? You assault Governor Palin, but ignore the mindless use of the words "hope" and "change" throughout the Democratic nominations process. What substantive plans has Sen. Obama given us? Saying he's for socialized medicine and against the war in Iraq aren't plans, either.
Third, you complain about oil lobbyists but point out that Gov. Palin is for offshore drilling. What exactly do the two have in common other than that they deal in oil? Oil is needed to generate electricity for our homes, businesses, and vehicles. Being against lobbyists shouldn't mean that they should also be against the industry they're in; why should Gov. Palin want to cripple her own state's economy, much less the American economy at large by artificially restricting the supply of energy?
But I guess (once again) you didn't bother to think this through.
R. S.
Obama doesn't have a health care plan?
The usual wing-nut rhetoric...
Obama doesn't have a health care plan or it is not a plan because it is socialist?
It is not too difficult to do some research on this, rather than just shooting off your mouth. Why don't you have a look at Obama's health care plan, easily found by looking at this link:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Then get back to me with some specific criticisms of it?
As for change,
John McCain's party has had control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government for the last eight years. These fiscally responsible conservatives have run this country into the ground economically.. They have runined our country's reputation as a beacon of democracy and tolerance.
And John McCain is going to change all of what his party has done?
Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times?
I don't think so.
Mr. Bonzo
Check and balances 101
"John McCain's party has had control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government for the last eight years."
Are you sure about that? Last time I checked, the House and Senate were a Democrat majority. Do you know Nancy Pelosi? How about Harry Reid? And the judicial branch? Sure, Bushie got in a few new justices since his re-election (God Bless the American electorate for that), but how is the U.S. Supreme Court controlled by the Republican Party? Roberts, Thomas and Alito do not a majority make. If you're lucky Obie will get elected and Bader-Ginsberg can finally retire with the comfortable knowledge that she'll be replaced by another ACLU lacky who can slip into her spot without any grilling.
So basically you threw up an Obama link and then lied about the situation with the balance of powers. Congrats on your rebuttal.
Now here's a real take on Obama's health care plan: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8266
that was easy. cut and paste.
P.S. what's up with the ad hominem attacks?
McCain has a health care plan? Maybe the Cato Institute knows.
Cato Institute?
You must be out of your mind (sorry about the ad hominem attacks..)?
Critical sources report that Cato received funding from Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies in the 1990s, and that at one point Rupert Murdoch served on the boards of directors of both Cato and Phillip Morris.[69] The Knight Ridder newspapers reported that in the late 1990s Cato received financial contributions from the American International Group, "an insurance and financial services company whose business includes managing U.S. retirement plans" as Social Security reform emerged as a more prominent issue. Between 1998 and 2004 the Cato Institute received $90,000 of its funding from ExxonMobil.
The Institute's work on global warming has been a particular source of controversy. Cato has held a number of briefings on global warming with global warming skeptics as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy. Balling and Christy have since made statements indicating that global warming is, in fact, related at least some degree to anthropogenic activity:
I could go on, but hope that you have cited Cato in ignorance of the many axes it has to grind...
Where is John McCain's health plan?
You have a problem with Obama's proposal? Then let's hear it.
(Not so easy, huh?)
The only thing I would amend in the last post is:
"John McCain's party has had control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the government for $most$ of the last eight years."
When you wing-nuts actually want to have a dialog, let me know. If the Cato Institute is all you can come up with, then you must be pretty desperate.
Have a nice day.
Mr. Bonzo
Cut and paste. Cut and paste.
Cut and paste. Cut and paste. You cut and paste Obama's press releases just like the other grassroots supporters do on innumerous media web sites and we are supposed to accept that as an argument (just jam it down their throats and it will eventually taste good)? So I cut and paste a well-articulated argument by Mr. Tanner, one that many Americans who oppose Obama's health care plan would agree with, and you tell me I'm desperate. From the link you attached to your name, you appear to be a professor at the University. You're throwing name-calling insults at online commenters, who I presume are students and then you cut and paste a Barack Obama campaign ad. I think you sir, are the desparate one. Desperate to sling mud around every corner until you get Obie elected to office.
Want a big reason why Obie plan for healthcare is awful? I'll give you one big one: It's universal health care lite. It's universal without quite having the mechanisms to ensure nationwide coverage. It almost offers a public insurance option capable of serving as the seed of single-payer, but its unclear who can enroll in it. It doesn't take on the healthcare industry head on, which is what all of Obama's idealogical colleagues slammed him for in the primaries. So Obama's health care plan will piss off the righties and the lefties with a brain. And those in the middle are left with his "charisma."
Obama, can you spare me some change?
McSame Can You Spare Me A House?
And McSame will do NOTHING for healthcare and that is preferable?
"Cut and paste" is that like "flip-flop" or "change" or "swift boat" or "the economy is fine." Do you think somehow mindlessly repeating things makes them mean something?
I have a feeling that a lot of the wingnuts making comments at the Daily are not students, but I could be wrong. I am not worried about our students. They are smart enough to call bullshit on me if they think I am wrong or that what I say is inappropriate. The average student here is a lot smarter than the average Bush/McSame supporter :). And the average student knows how to do research and argue facts, unlike the average wingnut.
Have a nice weekend.
(I have a thesis to read, a paper to referee and some work in the lab to do tomorrow. Arguing with wingnuts is sort of like playing whack-a-mole. So many wing-nuts, so little time. Today I had a little more spare time than usual.)
Ciao,
Bonzo
BONZO?
Who is this man that he spends his entire weekend arguing with college students at an online student newspaper discussion board? Bonzo, you seemed to have vitriolic obsession with George Bush and Robert Bruininks. I'm only a graduate student of psychology, but I'd say that you seem to have an intense and irrational hatred for those you know have more perceived "power" than you do in whatever it is you do in your daily life. You say you're a professor? Well, I'm guessing you work hard at what you do, but it seems like you are still not satisfied with the perceived influence you have over your life outside of your classroom. Go ahead an vote Democrat across the board. Go ahead and throw darts at a cutout of Dr. Bruininks, but please, you need to take a break from your border-line insane retorts on this web site. Unless, that is you have something constructive to contribute. So far, I haven't seen much.
This is supposed to be a "Palin, is she experience" discussion thread. But I think your established record of posts has shown that you really just like to pick fights. You call people names, you dodge direct challenges by going through a laundry list of transgressions you have with the current White House administration, and then you call people more names.
This pattern mirrors the pattern of posts on the web site that you linked to your name, which appears to be a extra cirrucular protest blog. I suggest you take a break from your self-destructive online behavior. Because its clear you have no self-awareness when it comes to how you rationalize your venom-filled online speech and how that speech is perceived by those at this University who know you.
Back on topic:
Obama lacks experience in many areas necessary to be president, and one of those is a full understanding of macroeconomics. His health care plan will sink our economy and won't even get passed by Congress (there's too many moderate democrats that won't buy into it). He uses populist rhetoric to paint a picture of the current tax structure that is so far offbase that even Hillary Clinton opposes his plan for supposed "tax cuts."
He's been a low level lawyer, a state senator in a district with a voting bloc of constituents with socialist idealogies similar to those right here in river city (i.e. Pogemiller). I'll give him credit for his 2004 election, but not much; he beat Alan Keyes, a last-minute fill in. He has a nice voice and nows how to work a crowd of people that are looking for something to believe in. Beyond that, he just doesn't have much going for him in the competency department.
Palin, not much experience either. But its a good thing she's not the endorsed candidate for president. At least John McCain (not McSame) has a strong independent record. He's done plenty to piss off the conservative Republican power structure, and beyond his continued support for the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, he really isn't a Bushite, neocon. He's demonstrated his willingess to work with collegues far across the aisle (i.e. Russ Feingold). So what if he picked Palin. He believes she will help him shore up his conservative base of voters and has the same charisma and idealism Obama has.
The only thing that separates Palin and Obama in their readiness to be president, is Palin hasn't obsessed over the prospect as deeply as Obama. Which to me, makes her all the more qualified.
"Borderline Insane"
Who's being vitriolic now?
Hope you're not going into clinical psychology, Britta...
Your friend,
Mr. Bonzo
So have you always felt the
So have you always felt the need to beat up on women younger than you?
(Does it feel good when the shoe is on the other foot?)
RMS appears to be finished
It is finally bedtime for Bonzo, RMS.
You seem to have run out of things to say and have been reduced to pointless insults. As I said waaay up at the beginning of this thread: "The usual wingnut rhetoric."
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....
For Rupert Murdoch, I'm
For Rupert Murdoch, I'm assuming you're not talking about media billionaire Rupert Murdoch, because the billionaire Murdoch has come out in support of Senator Obama.
So the Cato Institute receives $90,000 from ExxonMobil every year? That must be a huge part of their budget, right? Unfortunately, Cato only has a rather meager budget of $24m, a substantially larger sum than what they're receiving from the Big Bad Oil Company.
As for PHILIP Morris... if you're going to do a cut-and-paste smear, you might want to make sure they actually spell the company's name right.
I think you've been fooled
I think you've been fooled plenty of times, Bonzo, because I've been reading those positions and they're the same redistributionist nonsense we've been hearing out of the campaign since it started. Senator Obama's solutions aren't anything different, they're right out of the bureaucracy playbook; increase spending here, give a "tax credit" here, etc., etc.
For the Democrats, there simply is never enough red tape to go around; there's always a new rule or law that they have to pass and we're told that it'll be the one to solve all of our problems... and guess what happens? Ten years down the line, we get another policy that's going to solve all the same problems once again.
Tell me, Bonzo, how is that war on poverty thing going? Is the proportion of people in poverty any lower today than it was 40 years ago? We've been flushing trillions of dollars down the federal toilet and trampling on the Constitution for way, way too long.
It's bedtime for Bonzo.
R. S.
Bedtime for Bonzo and Lights Out for the Republicans
And what is the national debt today compared to eight years ago, and who pray tell was in office?
You have the gall to mention trampling on the Constitution? Bush, Gonzales, Cheney, Scooter, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay? Need I say more?
Bonzo isn't quite ready to go to bed, since it is only afternoon, but it will soon be lights out for Bush and McSame.
Ciao,
Mr. Bonzo, who is enjoying seeing the chickens come home to roost
I love how your retort is
I love how your retort is always "GEORGE BUSH!" and little else. It's best not to categorize all the people that disagree with you as being members of the GOP.
R. S.
Wow
And I love how your retort doesn't address the two questions:
Who trampled the Constitution in the last eight years?
And who ruined the economy?
Yes the answer is George Bush.
If the shoe fits...
Big Government tramples the Constitution
Who is trampling the Constitution? The federal government; neither party is forgiven for the abuses of power. Even the late socialist hero Paul Wellstone voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid also voted for the act.
Who is ruining the economy? Well, let's consider the pace of growth of the federal government over the past eight years; non-defense discretionary spending increased 35% (25% if inflation is accounted for) during the first four years of the Bush administration. So, you can't really say that it's because of a lack of spending on the government's side, can you?
I'm not so sure what convinces you that someone even further to the left (like Senator Obama) will bring to the table that'll help improve the economy. What's an Obama administration going to do other than dogmatically condemn and punish American industry?
It's the Guv'ment, Wow Part II
So let's see - who's trampling the constitution?
Bush et al. ? Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib? Cheney?
You nicely dodged that one.
And our other problems are all due to the big bad Guv'ment? And who exactly was the president of the US in that big, bad, Guv'ment for the last eight years. Seems to me it was George Bush - a Republican if I recall. You know those folks who favor fiscal responsibility, small government, personal freedom - those folks.
And so we should elect McSame, a member of the big, bad Guv'ment for how long, because he is going to change things? [Do not miss the irony of McSame being a recent convert to change. Did he get struck by lightning or reality?]
And of course you dodged the issue of the matter of the national debt which is how much now? And it was how much eight years ago?
Q. E. D.
No, we should elect Bob Barr.
No, we should elect Bob Barr. Either of the major party candidates are going to increase spending and government powers.
Bob Barr?
You must be out of your ...
Oh, excuse me.
Bonzo
What an eloquent and
What an eloquent and intelligent person you must be... you said you had a thesis to read and some lab reports; are you a professor? Your scholastic prowess really has left me speechless.
Tu quoque
Tu quoque
"Real Americans"
Robichaux is one of the authors of the obama smear mails. He introduces himself as a landscaper in Louisiana with a wife, two young kids and his own landscaping business (fill in lies about Obama's tax policy here). This is the likely reality:
Hello, I am Aaron Michael Robichaux(38), I hide every dime of income I can so I can obtain CHIP coverage for my kids. The only people who can afford my lawncare services are unionized employers, but I am rabidly against unions. I'm also against seat belt laws and other intrusive babysitting legislation, except when they force hospitals to treat me even though I have no insurance. My kids receive about $15K a year in public education. All in all, I probably offset about 10% of what is paid out by the gov't to provide services for me and my family. That doesn't make me "feel" successful, so I just choose some facts that do.
I honestly believe the reason these wingnuts can nurse their delusions is because they have access to all public benefits regardless of whether they acknowlege them.
Post new comment