From Real Clear Politics: Is Obama Using Bush’s Playbook?

In late 2006, before this presidential election cycle picked up speed, conventional wisdom dictated that the winning campaign had to follow the model that then-Governor George W. Bush had used in 2000 and the Bush campaign perfected during his re-election bid in 2004. On the Republican side that assumption was clearly incorrect. On the Democratic side, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama has embraced the Bush-Rove construct and added its own unique features to it.

What?

Reading on, I discover how they’re similar: they both happen to run successful campaigns. Yeah, that means they’re soul brothers. Really, truly, it does. What.ever. It’s beyond annoying that this is what passes for political analysis in the press.

More thoughts on it, but unlikely I’ll blog it. Something about having two kids at home seems to preclude much blogging anymore other than short burst. And I’m considering grad school…am I insane?

I’ve actually given my husband grief before about how he described Hillary Clinton. To his credit, normally, he attacks her methods and character, not her gender!

Zuzu at Feministe does a fabulous job of explaining why it is harmful to women for people to launch misogynistic attacks on Senator Clinton. Well said. As one commenter on the post also said, I dislike Ann Coulter, but that doesn’t mean I don’t cringe when someone’s argument against her is calling her a “tranny.”

I participate in an online forum related to T-Tapp, and I’ve gotten accustomed (okay, acclimated) to the fairly high percentage of people who somehow think it’s absolutely necessary to wear their religion on their sleeve (in a signature line that is; religion-related posts are verboten). Yesterday, a couple folks on a thread where I’ve participated for a long time got onto politics — specifically singing from the FAUXNoise songsheet. After reading one final post that seemed to imply that the poster had swallowed the “Obama is a Muslim” koolaid (and what if he were? So fucking what?…anyway), I’d had enough and posted a brief request to cease and desist the political talk.

Okay, I wasn’t entirely innocent. I also asked one person to kindly clarify what she’d meant by “the whole ‘Hussein’ thing” (as in, the terrorists will be thrilled if BHO wins…wha???).

Anyway, a moderator posted next, more firmly insisting on NO POLITICAL TALK. She also cleaned up my post (dang, that’s embarrassing, especially since I almost deleted that part myself, duh), along with the one I quoted. She missed the ones on the previous page, but eh…whatever. In response to this verbal spanking, one of the original political-talk people replied thusly:

Allison & (other person who thanked the moderator for stepping in) -
My humble apologies if you have been offended by discussion on this thread of current issues in our country. While I don’t apologize for WHAT I said - I am sorry you and possibly others were offended at the personal opinions that leaked into our thread. I actually had thought during my typing “you know I wonder if we shouldn’t just use personal email for our thoughts on this issue to each other”

To the moderators - my bad…it won’t happen again. Please don’t lock this thread on account of some of us who are passionately opinionated/concerned about the current issues of our times.
As I did say in my last post…enough said.

(emphasis added)

A couple points:

1. Dude, if you’re not actually going to apologize, please don’t pretend. “I apologize for your being a sensitive wussy” is NOT an apology. Just STFU instead, and you’ll come across as having just a leeeeetle bit more integrity.
2. Just because you don’t have the netiquette to realize that posting political views (as if they’re *obviously* what *any* sensible person should believe) on a non-political forum is a rude thing to do, that doesn’t mean you’re the only person who’s passionate about what’s going on in our society. It just means you’re the socially stunted and rude person who cares.

I’d love to flame this person, but you know, I like the FITNESS-RELATED info I get on this forum. She’s not worth it.

“It appears to me that those who rely simply on the weight of authority to prove any assertion, without searching out the arguments to support it, act absurdly. I wish to question freely and to answer freely without any sort of adulation. That well becomes any who are sincere in the search for truth.” Gallileo

There’s so much meaning in those words. Read them a time or two…or ten. I know I’m going to.

Via Bitch PhD. At least I’ll have some great company in Gitmo.

From the NYT: World Leaders Release Plan for Resolving East/West Rift

Mr. Annan said in a written statement: “The problem is not the Koran or the Torah or the Bible. Indeed, I have often said that the problem is never the faith, it is the faithful and how they behave toward each other.”

Also from NYT: For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’

Mr. Hagee says his message for the White House was, “Every time there has been a fight like [Lebanon in July] over the last 50 years, the State Department would send someone over in a jet to call for a cease-fire. The terrorists would rest, rearm and retaliate.” He added, “Appeasement has never helped the Jewish people.”

One side says to educate and to teach people how to see each other as human. The other says to bomb them all. Gee, I wonder why we don’t have any peace in the Middle East? At this point, I’m really wanting to re-read Tom Robbins’ Skinny Legs and All. The storyline used to seem like an over-the-top farce of people trying to force God’s hand for the end times. Now, it seems not only plausible, but likely.

First: News

Nope, not mine this time — I literally mean “the news.” Jim Wallis (Sojourners) and Tony Perkins (Family Research Council) will be on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric this evening to discus the “Moral Direction of our Country.” I’m recording it, and if there’s anything worth talking (or ranting) about, you’ll see it here tomorrow. Or late tonight, since Mike’s coming in late, and I’ll want to keep myself up. Then again, I might just watch Grey’s Anatomy.

Second: Being told who you are

After knocking off one more of the seemingly endless list of wedding to-dos (finding shoes), I emailed Mike with an FYI that the ones I’d picked would be sent to the dress shop for me to try on, and buy them if I like them. He replied, You are so organized. Meanwhile, I keep looking at my to-do list for the next 3 hours and wondering how it will all get done.

Me? Organized? Oh, right. I actually *am* organized. So, how is it, that I’ve spent years playing the familial role of the flighty one who can’t be pinned down? And how is it, then, that even though I KNOW I’m capable of pulling multiple long-eared rodents out of numerous items of headwear, that I still sometimes in my head don’t see myself that way, after years of being told who I’m supposed to be (but am not)? Confused yet?

No answers here…just musing and indulging myself in some serious run-on sentences.

Now, off to cross some more things off my list that might actually pay the bills. I hate that part. That post (work/worth) is still brewing in my head. Someday, I might even get myself *organized* enough (snort) to write it.

I recently wrote a post, Our nation is falling apart. As commenter Stevo has pointed out, there’s very little factual truth in the email I received as a forward (what, am I supposed to be surprised, or something?) and grumbled about in this space.

I still agree with my assessment of (and agreement with) the first portion of the spammail, but that’s something I can’t defend with any academic precision. As for the second portion, I do vaguely recall thinking it odd that some quite conservative-leaning commentary would be coming from a professor in liberal St. Paul, NM. Turns out, it wasn’t:

DISCLAIMER: There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scotish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I’ve been trying to kill it for 3 years. For details see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp.

The rest of the snopes article is worth a look, including their evaluation of the accuracy of the demographic data for the counties voting for Bush and for Gore.

For what it’s worth (and to my eternal embarassment), I voted for Bush in 2000. Of course, voting in El Paso County, Colorado, that meant…nothing. Bush would have won here (in both elections) regardless of my ballot. Anyway, I’m just one of the millions of dupes who thought that “compassionate conservatism” might actually mean something.

For more embarassment, I can’t believe I didn’t at least poke through Snopes before responding — this is the sort of mistake a newbie would make! I know better, people. Argh!

As if *that* is a newsflash?

I received this as an interesting forward (as opposed to the annoying variety) from a girlfriend:

Subject: Civilizations - VERY INTERESTING

About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior. “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

“The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.

During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage “

(Allison note: My agreement with the text wains at this point.)

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election.

Population of counties won by:

Gore: 127 million

Bush: 143 million

Square miles of land won by:

Gore: 580,000;

Bush: 2,427,000

States won by

Gore 19;

Bush: 29

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by

Gore: 13.2

Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won
was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore’s territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
“complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase. Our European friends have over 70 percent of the population in most European countries reaching the “governmental dependency” phase due to opening their immigration to allow poor immigrants into their countries.

The United States originally opened their immigration policy to people that had a required skill or profession. Somewhere along the timeline, probably in the 1970’s, that policy slipped to allow anyone into the United States. It didn’t matter if a person had a skill or profession.

Pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

PS: If the Senate grants Amnesty and citizenship to 20 million criminal invaders called illegal’s and they vote, then goodbye USA in less than 5 years.

My reply to my friend:

The beginning of this text is interesting, but the remainder seems to imply that having Bush in office is a good thing, and that following the Republicans’ agenda is what’s in the best interest of the country. I couldn’t disagree more.

If anything, it’s the loose (and reckless, even) fiscal policies of the current administration that are wrecking our country from the inside out — not the potential for allowing immigrants to gain legal status.

Just my two pennies’ worth…

I don’t have a whole lot of time for more comment — as you can tell from the lack of posting this past week — but I’d be curious to hear others’ perspectives on this. I find the implication that people who voted for Gore (even though I didn’t) to be murderous leeches an insulting and inaccurate assertion.

Tell me your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or not.