Go for it, wingnuts

TM –

As one of the wingnuts you quote above who you believe are making “public asses” of themselves, consider this …

You did not quote me accurately. You left the impression I simply oppose Obama. You did at least link to the post so people can read for themselves what I said.

Your fundamental error is believing that this turn of events is something new for me and folks like me. That somehow, with a Democrat in office we’ve turned over a new leaf of obstructionism.

The truth, which you don’t bother to note, is that the objections most of us have to Democratic leadership in general and Obama in particular are principled and based in issues. This is not an objection to Obama. It’s an objection to his stated intentions and demonstrable track record. When Bush went down these same paths with Medicare and the Bailout and more, we were just as loud and objected just as strenuously.

That you aren’t aware of that or choose not to put our current objections in their proper context speaks more about you and “public asses” than about us.

You did not quote me accurately.

Ken Marrero is lying. My quote from his article is, in fact, accurate. Compare the quotation in my post to a screen shot of his post:

Ken Marrero’s “principled” opposition would be far more credible if his “principles” did not include such utterly transparent mendacity.

His post here asserts — it takes some algebra, but I think it’s safe to say — that he’d support those things Obama does which he (Ken) agrees with.

The real mendacity is the full-bore reinvention of the past. “Obama divided us” — patently false, since Obama united us into a majority, the first majority to elect a Democrat since ‘76. Also demonstrably false, in that Obama’s rhetoric was uniting, and his plans and specifics were both appealing to the majority and specifically aimed at the majority.

It’s also demonstrably true that leopards change their spots. George W Bush ran on a variety of claims and promises; many of them he reversed course on. And that’s without the low-hanging fruit, like nationalizing banks. It would be a rare politician that didn’t change spots. Of course, Obama has not served yet, so it’s especially ugly to start the hyena chorus so soon.

What we’re seeing at Ken’s site and others is a pep rally. They are whipping up their most rabid (and proportionately irrational) sycophants in order to reassure themselves that they will have a role in the coming vilification. Some imagine too that they’ll get a shot at fame; indeed, the wolves will likely turn on O’Reilly and Limbaugh and others, opening up slots in the far-right screechosphere; far-far-right will try to outflank far-right, and so on; they’re all preening and checking to see if they have any shit on their trousers before the big audition.

But I detect some thinness in the ranks. The snarlers keep claiming that 52% doesn’t a mandate make, etc., but they really do fear that it does, and I think it does too. Electing a black man president — probably 5% of people didn’t choose Obama for that reason alone, with a higher total in certain states. If he manages some careful, sober, intelligent leadership, he’ll poll 60% next time.

In truth, Obama will never be Marrero’s president — not because Ken won’t accept him, but because a real president is beyond Ken’s ken. And, more valuable, Ken isn’t needed. Like the older voters who favored McCain, that’s not a demographic to build a future on. It may be a demographic to get a PhD in psychiatry on, but they are self-consigned to the irrelevant margin. Though I hope the Meatster will continue to keep tabs on them, since the process is so entertaining.

ice

@Ice and TM –
I actually liked some of what you said. Some of it was even legit. The part about leopards and spots and Bush was effective. Of course, if Obama changes his spots in that manner, you all are going to be very disappointed as were we on the Right with Bush.

Unfortunately, you simply cannot get past the Left’s penchant for over the top insulting and demeaning behavior. sigh

You cannot read what I wrote and disagree. You cannot have misunderstood. It must be that I am lying. So it is with my statement that TM did not quote me accurately.

As you point out, I did actually write the words TM quoted. It’s not like I was trying to hide them. I even referenced the link back to my post. The point, which you seem to have missed, is that other thing I said … the one you glossed over.

“The truth, which you don’t bother to note, is that the objections most of us have to Democratic leadership in general and Obama in particular are principled and based in issues. This is not an objection to Obama. It’s an objection to his stated intentions and demonstrable track record. When Bush went down these same paths with Medicare and the Bailout and more, we were just as loud and objected just as strenuously.

That you aren’t aware of that or choose not to put our current objections in their proper context speaks more about you and “public asses” than about us.”

Any reference to my opposition to Obama without referencing why I oppose him, is, in fact, an inaccurate. Not because it doesn’t contain my words. But because it distorts my meaning. Anything can be taken out of context and used to make people look bad or as if they are saying something they are not. If you are going to engage me, at least have the integrity to do so on the basis of what I say and not on what you would like that to mean.

As far as Obama uniting or dividing us. I will grant you that he won the election. He even did so by being the first Democrat in 50 years or so to win with over 50% of the vote. Nice to finally have a majority on your side for once, I’m sure. But a 52-48 victory, while a majority is hardly evidence of Unity. It is still true that almost half of the country did NOT vote for him – tens of millions of people.

The reasons they did not, with apologies to your completely unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions that 5% (and more in some states) of those voting against BO did so because of race (and without engaging in the obvious corollary that if it was wrong to vote against him solely on that basis, what are your thoughts on voting FOR him solely on that basis?), are grounded in issues and policies. It is here that Obama divides America. That divide is a scary one because a large portion of it is a divide between the “Producers” and the “Give me what you Produce-ers”.

Obama’s clearly Socialist leanings driving his ‘Spread the Wealth” ideology are divisive. And unnecessary. This is America (for a little while longer, anyway). Anyone can be whatever they want – isn’t that part of Obama’s draw? Why then shoot for the brass ring of “I’ll take whatever Government can coerce from Ken to give to me” and ignore the far more valuable gold ring of “I’ll work hard and make my own way and enjoy the fruits of my own labor”? Isn’t that what Barack, your hero, did? Why not emulate him, and by extension the Right wing principle of self reliance? Unless you believe the Left wing principle that you are not capable of succeeding on your own and have to be propped up by Government taking from your betters to support you in your inability.

I don’t happen to believe that. So many of BO’s supporters do. They voted “Gimmes” for themselves without considering the meaning of their vote. Or worse, because they actually agreed with the meaning of their vote.

Success is a heady thing. Once you’ve had a taste, it lingers for a while. You begin to play the “What if?” game. “I’ve done well in THIS area. What if I do as well over there? Or over there?” It is Obama that doesn’t want you thinking that way, not me or the Right. We want you taking counsel of your dreams! We want you to think about what could be instead of what is! We want you to be unsatisfied with your current state and strive for something better – as much better as you can imagine. We just think you should do it yourself – and then enjoy the fruits of your efforts knowing that you earned and deserved your success. It wasn’t taken from someone else who earned it and deserved it and given to you who has not.

To put forth effort, successful or not, to draw people to yourself based on that premise, sows division within the country that may take years or generations to wash out. Unlike most you may encounter, I am more than willing to debate you – on the issues, on the facts. I won’t be disrespectful or dismissive to you unless you treat me that way first. You interested? Be careful – the truth is not really on your side, here.

I’ve outlined one issue by which Obama has divided us. You can respond by showing how this is not divisive. But stick to the issue of how taking what is mine by force to give to someone else who has not earned it is not divisive. I’d be even more fascinated to see you turn this into something unifying.

Once we’ve finished this one, you can choose a point on which you believe Obama has brought unity to the country and we can debate that. Fair enough?

No more assumptions about my motives, no more making unsupportable claims, no more emotional responses with no factual foundations … just a discussion of the issues. If you think you can do that … I LOVE that sort of thing. I have to say it’s because most people end up finding they prefer the end results of Conservative principles more than Liberal ones. That’s not my fault … It’s just the nature of the discussion …

You game?

It must be that I am lying.

I quoted Marrero word for word.

Marrero made the accusation that I “did not quote [him] accurately”.

Yes, Marrero is a liar.

Trying to redefine the word “inaccurate” to suddenly mean WAAAAAAAAAAAH!-You-didn’t-quote-everything-I-wanted-you-to-quote! is the sort of blatant intellectual dishonesty we’ve all come to expect from the wingnut right.

Well, where to begin.

First, the contention that the past eight years have been some sort of high-water-mark of left-wing screeching is idiotic, but it’s a fixture of the rhetoric on the far-right. The press (the “liberal media”) is in fact corporate-right — spend five minutes on Media Matters if you have a sudden unprecedented thirst for evidence. The press gave the president a pass, and as a result Bush had free reign — even despite the 9/11 circumstances — to expand the executive’s powers in a way that should have had folks like Ken in an apoplectic rage. Instead, at that time and until recently, it was an ends-means calculation and the culture of attack and vilification that paid for their pony. It’s going to take sensible Americans a long time and a lot of money to pay for that disgusting eight years of excess and hubris.

Now when the worm is turned suddenly we’re all about cool-headed issues and judging people by their conduct. Its BS, and plainly visible BS. I’m not here to convince — I’ve written you off except as enjoyable tauntees.

I’m not in evidence mode here—familiar ground for you and yours, ken, who haven’t made a reasonable argument from common ground since you went on Orange Alert on 9/12. This is personal, as you might say.

I think it’s reasonable to claim an anti-Obama bias; that doesn’t address the question of a pro-Obama bias; in fact, the presence of a pro-black-candidate bias is evidence for both positions, since they both certainly exist. Do you contend that one vote is better than the other? Because legions of your “48 percenter” screechmonkeys do, and in increasingly strident tones. That’s not racist, oh no. It’s cool-headed and rational. Snort. People have been voting against black people, in one way or another, for a good long time, so who can blame folks if they take their chance. Funny, of course, is how often far-right whackos get all worked up about it, when the essential movement of the McCain campaign — yes, the essence of the effort — was to motivate people to vote against Obama based on race. Why? In what might be a truly historic shift, the republican base has become measurably stupider than the democratic base. Twenty years of anti-science, anti-education chickens coming home to shit all over people like Ken, who actually value things and hope to make complex, occasionally ambiguous, intellectually elusive points. Twenty years of pandering to religious dumbasses who are just looking for another sweaty combover to send money to. Twenty years of people establishing their righteous addiction to very simple hatred. I saw McCain at a rally where his policy points were shouted down by people screaming “Hussein!” Now that it didn’t work, you want to turn the Exxon Valdez of slander and political ordure and veiled redneck nastiness around and seize the high ground (when I mix ‘em, I mix ‘em good.) Whoa! you notice. Shoot, we can’t win on Utah and Oklahoma any more!

It’s a mandate not because of 4%, or another 5%, but because GW Bush claimed a mandate for his presidency — one that rapidly became the most disgraceful, ineffective, and disastrous on record — on the basis of a substantial loss in the popular vote. HE, and you, chose the most convenient statistic — not the electoral thrashing, but the popular vote swing—to make the case. I haven’t heard anybody recently say, “Obama needs a cap busted in his ass because he doubled McCain’s electoral vote count.” Yet the same australopithecines happily played the electoral vote card in 2000, and more than a few spun the 2004 vote that way, too, though it was more ambiguous.
So salud and be happy with your “loyal minority”. I wish you luck in concocting just the right stew of hatred and bigotry and fear and stupidity and godswopped left-behind pentecostal muttering to keep them together, and maybe cobble together another victory or two, and rely on Cornhofe and Inyn as your Senate brain-trust, and that jittery elf-man Newt Gingrich to concoct just the right strategy to give you another decade or two of damage to the nation. Go on with those strategies—they sound fine, just fine. I especially like the “redistribution of wealth” meme. Even the Acornian dregs of Cleveland understood that any tax at all is ROW. And it’s tough to get all Socialist on our asses when the repubicans (sic, if you please) are nationalizing banks and automakers as fast as they can write the checks.

I’ll be watching, as always, to see if you are so reasonable as you claim. If you are, I’ll ignore it, since reasonable and balanced and so on is normal patriotic citizenship.

ice, out

@Ice and TM –
I’ll take that as a “Thanks but we’re not interested in actually talking about the issues.”

I appreciate your initial interest. I’ll just take my whiny, lying, obstructionist, Right Wing backside on home and inbreed with the rest of us …

Thanks for saving the country for us while I’m indisposed. It sure is nice to know you compassionate and selfless souls are out here taking care of the country while we slave away for our corporate masters ...

I’ll take that as a “Thanks but we’re not interested in actually talking about the issues.”

Not quite. In truth, it’s: “Thanks, but we’re not interested in talking about anything with a known liar.”

Marrero got caught lying, and is pissed about it. Too bad. He might have tried not lying to begin with, but that would require a degree of intellectual honesty that Marrero has yet to display.

Ice9 did, in fact, respond substantially to Marrero’s bafflegab. Marrero’s quick retreat is clear evidence that he is the one who is not interested in actually talking about the issues.