November 8, 2012
Or maybe not over...
The stats don't really say Obama won. This is the first time in American history that a president has been re-elected with fewer votes than he got for his first term. And in Obama's case, fewer by 10 million! Gadzooks!
It's more like he lost catastrophically, but Romney was a bit of a catastrophe too, and couldn't quite make up a baker's dozen.
Shoulda been Sarah Palin. Just kidding. I love her, and she was a top-notch mayor and governor. But she didn't quite grow to presidential size after her VP run.
The trouble is, we Republicans aren't producing any candidates of presidential caliber. Maybe Ryan. We have lots more good men than the Dems do, but we need some titans.
Posted by John Weidner at November 8, 2012 4:14 PM
Well, who are the Democrats of Presidential caliber? I can't think of any, though I am starting a Biden 2016 movement.
I don't see any either. If Obama was white he'd be at best another Elizabeth Warren.
Republicans also have an ever-growing advantage as we gain more governorships. I think we have 35 now. Americans like someone who has actually run something.
Elizabeth who? Oh, you mean Senator Dances with Wolves.
Correction, David: You mean "Senator Fauxcahontas".
I can never think of Miss Peaches 'n Cream now without hearing the song What Makes The Red Man Red? from Disney's Peter Pan.
Hana Mana Ganda, Hana Mana Ganda, Hana Mana Ganda, Hana Mana Ganda...
I quote Lawrence Auster:
When the elites gave up on reason, including the conservative elites, the middle classes and masses were sure to follow. Just two examples out of scores I could give: (1) the way conservatives equated Iraq with Germany and Japan, and said that since Germany and Japan had been changed into functioning democracies after being conquered, the same would be true for Iraq; (2) the way conservatives moved from celebrating our new-found friendly relations with Kaddafi, to urging on and cheering for his murder, without a single objection raised in mainstream opinion.
Bisaal, this is just baloney.
That Iraq might become a functioning democracy was a very reasonable possibility. Lots of backwards countries have done so in my lifetime. When I was young it was assumed that most Latin American and Asian countries were incapable of democracy. But at the time of the Iraq Campaign countries were becoming democratic at a rate of 1.5 a year.
And conservatives vigorously debated different courses in Iraq. To say that people who disagree with you have "given up on reason" is gross dishonesty. Worse than dishonest, it's just stupid.
And furthermore, the experiment was never allowed to be run. Al Queda moved in and incited a massive terror campaign. But to people like you al Queda is not real. Only America is real.
Similarly overthrowing Qaddafi is not "giving up on reason." He was always an enemy, and a hideous tyrant whose people suffered greatly. We worked with him when we could--why not? We can't attack every evil. When rebellion broke out, we decided to support the rebels. It was a reasonable thing to do, though the optimism some people felt looks naive now.
Based on your quote, this Auster person is a pompous fool.
India was under British tutelage for almost 200 years and was introduced to democracy gradually--starting from municipal level to provincial level (in 1935) and finally the national level.
But Indian democracy is still conducted less by arguments and more by force. People routinely vote for their race, caste and religion-which is still better than voting by ideology if it happens to be communist.
You betray great unreasonableness by not appreciating the national differences. For you one non-American nations are fungible, totally replaceable.
And as for Libya, leaving aside the betrayal of an Ally, you are utterly unreasonable in
"When rebellion broke out, we decided to support the rebels"
Without knowing or caring WHO the rebels are?
Have you never heard Stick with the devil you know? Gods of the copybook headings.
The US Govt in Libya was doing shady dealing with Al Queda type terrorists. It has been speculated, in National Review and other conservative sites, that the Govt was trying to supply arms to the Syrian rebels through Libyan rebels. Such dealings do not worry you?
Bisaal, after 200 years of British tutelage you ought to be able to read plain English.
My comment was not about defending Iraq or Libya, my point was that these were not unreasonable actions. Because your quote said that conservatives had "given up on reason."
Making mistakes or being wrong is not the same as "giving up on reason."
Even "unreasonableness" is not the same as "giving up on reason."
If I strap on wings and jump off a cliff and die, it does not mean I've "given up on reason." I may have calculated with the utmost careful reasoning and simply have been wrong.
Iraq I agree was defensible, partly because USA was already engaged there--there was a truce merely and not peace.
But Libya?. "Giving up on reason" is justified criticism there because the conservatives rallied behind a nihilist administration just because he led them in a war, even though it involved America to the charge of perfidy and aid to Al Queda types to boot. The nihilists deliberately sullied American image and helped American enemies and the many Conservatives mindlessly cheered for this because they like war and being soldiers and delusions of democracy.
And read again Auster:
the way conservatives moved from celebrating our new-found friendly relations with Kaddafi, to urging on and cheering for his murder, without a single objection raised in mainstream opinion.
So starting from 2003 or 2004, the conservatives celebrated friendly relations with Kaddafi.
Then when the rebellion began, they did not merely cheer for the rebels, about whom they did not care who they were and what they wanted, the Conservatives urged and cheered for HIS MURDER.
Who are these purported "conservatives?" I don't remember this happening. Where's the evidence? Anybody know?
I do remember various conservatives being skeptical of the "Arab Spring."
But even if people did this, it's hypocrisy, or double-dealing. Possibly dishonorable behavior. But it still is not "giving up on reason."
"many Conservatives mindlessly cheered for this because they like war and being soldiers and delusions of democracy."
You are the one who's given up on reason. You are just flinging out stupid smears with no evidence. "Conservatives like being soldiers." What crap. That's like saying "Indians like being swamis."
And democracy is not a delusion. That's a stupid thing to say. A careless thoughtless sneer. You are just a whinger. Large parts of the world have improved dramatically in my lifetime because of the spread of democracy.
It's looking, unfortunately, like democracy won't happen in the Arab world. But if you had a warm heart, instead of a sneer for a heart, you would have been eagerly hoping that it might.
"Our government no longer just ignores Islamist goals; it affirmatively empowers Islamist factions."
Andrew McCarthy in National Review Online
This is what Libya was and thus it is inexplicable to witness non-nihilists cheer the actions of a Nihilist Administration only and only if when it is engaged in a war and never otherwise?
And it is true, no matter the war and no matter what side America takes.
So is it unreasonable to assume that Conservatives like war in itself or at least like to see their Military in action?
It's just stupid to say "conservatives like war in itself " just because we usually support our country when she is at war. The one does not logically follow the other. You present zero evidence.
And you have presented no evidence for this "cheering." You just keep asserting it over and over like a robot. I think it's rubbish. My recollection is that some conservatives thought the Libya action was a good idea, and others thought it was bad.
The evidences are presented by Lawrence Auster. McCain visited Libya 2-3 years ago and greeted Gaddafi as an ally. And now, McCain began to call for his ouster and practically for his killing.
"Libya action was a good idea"
So America should go to wars just because it seems a good idea. What happens to Just War criteria?
McCain is not a conservative. Nor influential among conservatives.
"What happens to Just War criteria?"
Nothing. They are still a set of principles proposed by the Catholic Church for moral thinking about war.
As far as I know they say nothing about it being wrong to consider a nation an ally and then later consider them an enemy.
You can consider and re-consider all you want, but the Just War criteria govern "going off to war".
Violation of these criteria leads to the imputation of murder on violators and in particular, on the leaders.
No they have never governed anything.
God requires us to do our best to act justly. The ideas of the Just War tradition are provided as aids in moral reasoning. A framework for thinking.
...The just-war tradition is not a set of hurdles that moral philosophers, theologians, and clergy set before statesmen. It is a framework for collaborative deliberation about the basic aims of legitimate government as it engages hostile regimes and networks in the world... -- George Weigel, The Just War Tradition
You might read Weigel's essay if you are actually interested in Just War thinking.
Amazing! Its truly remarkable article, I have got much clear idea concerning
from this paragraph.