This would explain why Democratic candidates who lose become nonpeople. Remember Mike Dukakis?

They'll wake up post-election day and find out they are still themselves. That's when the fun will begin. (Well, if you're a misanthrope like me it's fun.)

You hit it.

It's gonna be a barrel of laffs. Some people deserve to suffer. At least when I have my blogging hat on I'm going to relish it. (in person I'm Mr Mild, and I pray for them.)

I saw something on Facebook by my mushily leftist friend Andrew Cory about "Will white people riot if Obama wins?" Ofgulopmph. Just wait'll our mind-control insects start drilling into his skull and beaming instructions from Sarah. He'll wish he hadn't cast aspersions on white supremacy!!

"Leftists care less about the triumph of ideas and far more about the triumph of a group of people with which they ego-identify."

You could change the word leftist to rightist and it would be just as true, as this is a defining characteristic of the statist mentality, which by its very nature must deal with human beings as social abstractions to be governed rather than individuals with whom to cooperate--that is, as objects rather than subjects.

As a proof point for this assertion, let's look at a "radical and corrupt association" on the part of John McCain, one G. Gordon Liddy, about whom McCain recently said "I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy." As Steve Benen points out:

That’s an interesting response. Liddy is, of course, a "convicted felon" who has "acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in 'if necessary'; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a 'gangland figure' to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap 'leftist guerillas' at the 1972 Republican National Convention — a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis." Liddy also once famously gave his supporters advice on how best to kill federal officials (he recommended shooting them in the head because they might be wearing flak jackets).

Despite this scandalous past, McCain has accepted thousands of dollars in contributions from Liddy, attended a fundraiser in his honor at Liddy’s home, and told Liddy that he’s "proud of" him.

Also remember, Liddy can be fairly described as "unrepentant." When asked if he regretted his felonies, "A vein twitches angrily on one of his scales, but he replies in a level voice, 'No.'"

Sounds a lot like William Ayers...except, of course, that Ayers is not a convicted felon.

The point here, of course, is not to argue about whose past associations are worse, but an illustration that the statement you quote approvingly is a classic case of projection. If Obama had associated with someone with a rap sheet identical to Liddy's, you would decry this as evidence of his unsuitability for high office (after all, this is what the Ayers association is all about), but your ego-identification with the Republican Party as represented by John McCain prevents you from doing so in his case.

Mind you, with McCain, it could be said to be even worse, because he hasn't even made a pretension of disapproval. And we won't go into his connections (shared with many Republican and not a few Democratic politicians) with anti-Cuban terrorists, or Charles Keating, who ruined the lives of over 20,000 elderly people who saw the accumulated wealth earned over a lifetime of effort evaporate into thin air as a result of his malfeasance, which John McCain assiduously supported.

"Leftists care less about the triumph of ideas and far more about the triumph of a group of people with which they ego-identify."

Your comment is a perfect illustration of the truth of this statement.

You write as if the ideas of these people do not exist, and as if they have no bearing on the questions. And as if you yourself have no political ideas at stake here. You are acting precisely like the leftists being described.

Republicans do not consider the cases of Ayers and Liddy to be equivalent, because of the ideas that are involved.

Liddy did bad things to support principles and ideas that are good. His motives were to protect our freedoms and to fight subversion during time of war. (No, I'm not saying that excuses crimes. --that's not the issue here.)

Ayers acted, and clearly still acts, to advance ideas that are extremely evil. He is a radical leftist subversive. He wants to destroy our freedoms and create a Marxist society.

The question, to Republicans, is ideas. If we just cared about rap-sheets, we would be making a bigger fuss about Obama's fixer Tony Rezco, who is now going to prison, than about Ayers. The real question is not about who denounced who's crimes from long ago. The question is what Obama's recent and current relationship with Ayers says about his fitness to be President. And about him as a person.

Liddy is open about his ideas. Ayers is a hider. McCain is open about his ideas. Obama is a hider.

Obama has lied about his relationship with Ayers. Repeatedly. McCain does not have to lie about anything. The circumstantial evidence indicates that Obama is much closer to Ayers, including in his political philosophy, than he is admitting. Americans have a right to probe this, especially since the press won't.

The "statist" ideas you describe are, much more accurately, Leftist ideas. Socialist ideas. Individuals used as building blocks of ideal societies, and sent to re-education camps if they don't co-operate. (Your flirting with them is spiritually unwise.)

American and British conservative philosophy flows out of the Judeo-Christian belief in the immense dignity of individual human beings, who are made in the image of God. It is anti-statist, and so one can have a reasonable confidence that even a flawed politician swimming in the conservative sea will tend away from statism.

Personally, I think that hiding ones philosophy should absolutely disqualify any person from running for public office.