Working through the five stages of grief

Dana Milbank, while crowing over President Obama’s re-election, says that Republicans are going through the 5 stages of grief:

Denial. “I think this is premature,” Karl Rove protested on Fox News election night, after the cable network, along with other news outlets, correctly projected that President Obama had won Ohio — and therefore the presidency. “We’ve got to be careful about calling things.”

Bargaining. “We’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions,” House Speaker John Boehner offered Wednesday, shifting his budget negotiating posture before reconsidering the next day, but “the president must be willing to reduce spending and shore up entitlement programs.”

Depression. “If Mitt Romney cannot win in this economy, then the tipping point has been reached,” Ann Coulter said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. “It’s over. There is no hope.”

Anger. “We should have a revolution in this country,” tweeted flamboyant mogul Donald Trump, who had served as a prominent surrogate for Romney. “This election is a total sham and a travesty.”

Acceptance. Uh, well, there hasn’t been much of that yet.

via Dana Milbank: Republicans working through their grief – The Washington Post.

Well, let’s work on that last one. First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004.  They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again, if they needed to give up their liberalism and become more like Republicans.  That was for the president just before this one.  And now the Democrats have re-elected their guy and are as triumphalistic as 2004 Republicans.  And now look at those woe-begone Democrats and those crowing Republicans.  The pendulum swings, the wheel turns, and fortunes keep changing.

Furthermore, those of us who believe in limited government should also believe in the limited importance of government. True, this election will mean that government will get stronger and, perhaps more concerning, that the general public wants it to get stronger. But our country is too big and complicated to control or even to figure out.  Attempts to control and to figure out everything and everyone invariably fail, making for new political opportunities.

Yes, conservatives will have lots to resist.  Republicans will need to regroup and address their failures.

But this election surely doesn’t mean the end of America, as I have been hearing.  The government as presently constituted does not prevent us from going to church, enjoying time with our families, having a good meal, reading an interesting book, or exercising other facets of our humanity.  We are far, far from state totalitarianism, and if you don’t think so read up on life in the former Soviet Union or present-day North Korea.

Christians in particular should cultivate some perspective from a much-much bigger picture.  However you voted–and I  recognize that some Christians are overjoyed with this outcome that others are mourning–I invite your meditation on Psalm 146, the whole thing, an exploration of whom we must trust including for things we think are political:

Put not your trust in princes,
    in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
    on that very day his plans perish.

 Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
    whose hope is in the Lord his God,
 who made heaven and earth,
    the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever;
    who executes justice for the oppressed,
    who gives food to the hungry. . . .

The Lord will reign forever,
    your God, O Zion, to all generations.
Praise the Lord!  (Psalm 146:3-7)

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Indeed, let us all pray that the breath of the current prince not depart, since – in our particular kingdom – the vice-prince would then ascend.

  • Pete

    Indeed, let us all pray that the breath of the current prince not depart, since – in our particular kingdom – the vice-prince would then ascend.

  • Pete

    Sorry – just had to snark out a little bit. Not quite to “acceptance” yet. Getting there.

  • Pete

    Sorry – just had to snark out a little bit. Not quite to “acceptance” yet. Getting there.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    We are done for.

    This country will never recover. The Romans thought they would last forever, but we know that all earthly kingdoms will pass away.

    With conservatives dying off and ignorant (about the American way) young people taking their places, as well as millions of illegal immigrants flooding in from the South, there’s no way to stem the tide.

    When you have a President who has done such a miserable job for 4 years, and he wins handily, it does not bode well. If you could somehow change those two factors above, along with fixing the media enablers, you might have a chance. But I don’t see that happening. We have run our course.

    If I were king, I would decree that people who don’t pay taxes cannot vote. They we could fix the situation. That will never.

    We are now the land of the fleeced and the home of the tame. Get used to it.

    I am not saying though, that we should give up. We just need to get real.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    We are done for.

    This country will never recover. The Romans thought they would last forever, but we know that all earthly kingdoms will pass away.

    With conservatives dying off and ignorant (about the American way) young people taking their places, as well as millions of illegal immigrants flooding in from the South, there’s no way to stem the tide.

    When you have a President who has done such a miserable job for 4 years, and he wins handily, it does not bode well. If you could somehow change those two factors above, along with fixing the media enablers, you might have a chance. But I don’t see that happening. We have run our course.

    If I were king, I would decree that people who don’t pay taxes cannot vote. They we could fix the situation. That will never.

    We are now the land of the fleeced and the home of the tame. Get used to it.

    I am not saying though, that we should give up. We just need to get real.

  • Michael B.

    The mood among American conservatives is now one of apocalyptic despair. Having convinced themselves that this election arrayed freedom against tyranny, they now must wonder: Did their country just democratically vote in favor of tyranny?

    On Fox News election night, BIll O’Reilly explained the meaning of the election: the “white establishment” was now outnumbered by minorities. “The demographic are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore.” And these untraditional Americans “want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.” O’Reilly’s analysis is echoed across the conservative blogosphere. The (non-white) takers now outnumber the (white) makers. They will use their majority to pillage the makers and redistribute to the takers. In the process, they will destroy the sources of the country’s wealth and end the American experiment forever.

    You’ll hear O’Reilly’s view echoed wherever conservatives express themselves. Happily, the view is wrong, and in every respect. America is not a society divided between “makers” and “takers.” Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement. The line between “making” and “taking” is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white.

    ~~
    From an Article called “Conservatives, don’t despair” by David Frum: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair It’s a great article and worth reading in full. It reminds us for those who think that Obama wants too much gov’t control, that 50 years ago there was a top tier tax rate of 91% and mandatory military service for males.

  • Michael B.

    The mood among American conservatives is now one of apocalyptic despair. Having convinced themselves that this election arrayed freedom against tyranny, they now must wonder: Did their country just democratically vote in favor of tyranny?

    On Fox News election night, BIll O’Reilly explained the meaning of the election: the “white establishment” was now outnumbered by minorities. “The demographic are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore.” And these untraditional Americans “want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it, and he ran on it.” O’Reilly’s analysis is echoed across the conservative blogosphere. The (non-white) takers now outnumber the (white) makers. They will use their majority to pillage the makers and redistribute to the takers. In the process, they will destroy the sources of the country’s wealth and end the American experiment forever.

    You’ll hear O’Reilly’s view echoed wherever conservatives express themselves. Happily, the view is wrong, and in every respect. America is not a society divided between “makers” and “takers.” Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement. The line between “making” and “taking” is not a racial line. The biggest government program we have, Medicare, benefits a population that is 85% white.

    ~~
    From an Article called “Conservatives, don’t despair” by David Frum: http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/12/opinion/frum-conservatives-despair It’s a great article and worth reading in full. It reminds us for those who think that Obama wants too much gov’t control, that 50 years ago there was a top tier tax rate of 91% and mandatory military service for males.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve @ 3 – Calm down, man. Civilization survived after the collapse of Rome. It will continue to survive after the collapse of the United States, though that is unlikely to occur any time soon.

    I am however not quite so equanimous as Michael B. @ 4. If all that he can muster up to separate us from true tyranny is a 91% top tax rate and military conscription, are we really that far off? The problems that we face though are the manifold petty tyrannies of an unhinged and unaccountable federal bureaucracy enabled and encouraged by a derelict Congress and aggressive Executive. Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame – they have repeatedly sought to eviscerate the powers of Congress to oversee and regulate the Executive, and continually argued for a more powerful Executive. We now have a presidency that has decided that it can unilaterally declare martial law and take over large swathes of the economy by fiat without any Congressional approval or over their objections. I’m reminded once again of H.L. Mencken’s pithy truth: democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

  • SKPeterson

    Steve @ 3 – Calm down, man. Civilization survived after the collapse of Rome. It will continue to survive after the collapse of the United States, though that is unlikely to occur any time soon.

    I am however not quite so equanimous as Michael B. @ 4. If all that he can muster up to separate us from true tyranny is a 91% top tax rate and military conscription, are we really that far off? The problems that we face though are the manifold petty tyrannies of an unhinged and unaccountable federal bureaucracy enabled and encouraged by a derelict Congress and aggressive Executive. Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame – they have repeatedly sought to eviscerate the powers of Congress to oversee and regulate the Executive, and continually argued for a more powerful Executive. We now have a presidency that has decided that it can unilaterally declare martial law and take over large swathes of the economy by fiat without any Congressional approval or over their objections. I’m reminded once again of H.L. Mencken’s pithy truth: democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

  • Mary

    A little off topic. Most presidential historians and political wonks tell us that the second term of a president can count on being rocked by scandal. Not so for Barack Obama we are told. Too squeaky clean.
    Now before his second term even starts, all hell is breaking loose. Will he be too distracted to enact all of the “doomsday” programs? Not if the media covers for him yet again. Can you say “plausible deniability”?

  • Mary

    A little off topic. Most presidential historians and political wonks tell us that the second term of a president can count on being rocked by scandal. Not so for Barack Obama we are told. Too squeaky clean.
    Now before his second term even starts, all hell is breaking loose. Will he be too distracted to enact all of the “doomsday” programs? Not if the media covers for him yet again. Can you say “plausible deniability”?

  • Dan Kempin

    Hmm. I wonder if this blog should temporarily adopt St. Jerome as a patron saint.* He was one of the sharpest minds in the church of his time, with a strong secular education, and he was a vociferous and skilled debater. He was also at times very harsh to his opponents in debate, quite capable of being verbally ferocious.

    And, it is said, he never got over the fall of Rome. Just sayin’. No stage 5 for Jerome, if that appeals to any of you.

    *Not to pray to him or anything like that. Saints can’t answer prayers, you know, and if Jerome could, he would probably just insult you anyway for praying to a saint. I’m thinking of a temporary patron saint as more of a powerless figurehead that helps to shape our self image. You know, like the queen or an evangelism committee.

  • Dan Kempin

    Hmm. I wonder if this blog should temporarily adopt St. Jerome as a patron saint.* He was one of the sharpest minds in the church of his time, with a strong secular education, and he was a vociferous and skilled debater. He was also at times very harsh to his opponents in debate, quite capable of being verbally ferocious.

    And, it is said, he never got over the fall of Rome. Just sayin’. No stage 5 for Jerome, if that appeals to any of you.

    *Not to pray to him or anything like that. Saints can’t answer prayers, you know, and if Jerome could, he would probably just insult you anyway for praying to a saint. I’m thinking of a temporary patron saint as more of a powerless figurehead that helps to shape our self image. You know, like the queen or an evangelism committee.

  • SKPeterson

    Here’s an interesting take as well.

    http://lfb.org/today/are-these-the-end-times/

  • SKPeterson

    Here’s an interesting take as well.

    http://lfb.org/today/are-these-the-end-times/

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    SKPeterson,

    I am calm. I am just stating the facts. I know that the world will keep spinning. I also believe that I have a pretty good idea of what a world without the good ol’ USA (as we have known it) will look like. And it won’t be pretty. I do care about the kind of world that my kids and grandkids will inherit.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    SKPeterson,

    I am calm. I am just stating the facts. I know that the world will keep spinning. I also believe that I have a pretty good idea of what a world without the good ol’ USA (as we have known it) will look like. And it won’t be pretty. I do care about the kind of world that my kids and grandkids will inherit.

  • Carl Vehse

    Coincidentally, citizens in 32 states have started petitions to secede from the Union.

    In the meantime don’t forget imprecatory prayers for God’s protection against the traitor that was re-elected, and the traitors (and the dead) who voted for him.

  • Carl Vehse

    Coincidentally, citizens in 32 states have started petitions to secede from the Union.

    In the meantime don’t forget imprecatory prayers for God’s protection against the traitor that was re-elected, and the traitors (and the dead) who voted for him.

  • Tom Hering

    Carl, I know we’ve discussed your meds before, but I think you really need to talk to your doctor about adjusting them.

  • Tom Hering

    Carl, I know we’ve discussed your meds before, but I think you really need to talk to your doctor about adjusting them.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Seceding from the Union will never happen. I take those efforts to be nothing more than an expression of frustration on the part of people who don’t know what else to do. It doesn’t even really “send a message” to those in power, who don’t really care that half the country is upset and angry about the direction that America is headed. To them it is nothing but whining about losing.

    “You lost; it’s SUPPOSED to taste like a [crap] sandwich!” is their attitude.

    So, Obama won. Let’s get over it. We got 2 years to think about the midterm elections, and 4 years to strategerize about the next president.

    The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
     Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
     Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Seceding from the Union will never happen. I take those efforts to be nothing more than an expression of frustration on the part of people who don’t know what else to do. It doesn’t even really “send a message” to those in power, who don’t really care that half the country is upset and angry about the direction that America is headed. To them it is nothing but whining about losing.

    “You lost; it’s SUPPOSED to taste like a [crap] sandwich!” is their attitude.

    So, Obama won. Let’s get over it. We got 2 years to think about the midterm elections, and 4 years to strategerize about the next president.

    The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
     Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit,
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
     Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

  • Kirk

    Carl Vehse logic:

    Having a different political persuasion than Carl Vehse: traitorous

    Petitioning to secede from the Union because your party lost an election: not traitorous

  • Kirk

    Carl Vehse logic:

    Having a different political persuasion than Carl Vehse: traitorous

    Petitioning to secede from the Union because your party lost an election: not traitorous

  • SAL

    Grief is appropriate if something has been lost.

    On the other hand something bittersweet has been gained. When things get hopeless enough there is serenity that comes when you cease your worries and accept something is irrevocably lost.

    Families of lost children find a relief in discovering the truth about their lost child even when it is painful. Those who care for relatives with terminal illnesses find a grim relief when long expected death finally comes.

    Until futility is put in the clearest terms you continue to worry about something that is already lost. The past few weeks has given people the opportunity to feel relief in something that has long been dying. My only concern is how many people still refuse to look on the corpse and accept what lies before them.

  • SAL

    Grief is appropriate if something has been lost.

    On the other hand something bittersweet has been gained. When things get hopeless enough there is serenity that comes when you cease your worries and accept something is irrevocably lost.

    Families of lost children find a relief in discovering the truth about their lost child even when it is painful. Those who care for relatives with terminal illnesses find a grim relief when long expected death finally comes.

    Until futility is put in the clearest terms you continue to worry about something that is already lost. The past few weeks has given people the opportunity to feel relief in something that has long been dying. My only concern is how many people still refuse to look on the corpse and accept what lies before them.

  • DonS

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again, if they needed to give up their liberalism and become more like Republicans.

    I do not remember that. I remember anger at “stolen elections”, conspiracy theories, and a longstanding accusation that Ohio, in particular, had been stolen by Diebold. Here’s a website: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/2004votefraud_ohio.html

  • DonS

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again, if they needed to give up their liberalism and become more like Republicans.

    I do not remember that. I remember anger at “stolen elections”, conspiracy theories, and a longstanding accusation that Ohio, in particular, had been stolen by Diebold. Here’s a website: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/2004votefraud_ohio.html

  • Steve Billingsley

    Good Lord.
    Stages of grief for losing an election? I know politics matters and elections have consequences, etc….but it took me about 8 hours (a night’s sleep and morning coffee) to get over it. Obama won….good for him. I don’t agree with his policy recommendations in general – but I pray for him daily (along with our other leaders, political and otherwise) and hope that he does a good job and that we live in peace.

    Life is too short to waste such energy.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Good Lord.
    Stages of grief for losing an election? I know politics matters and elections have consequences, etc….but it took me about 8 hours (a night’s sleep and morning coffee) to get over it. Obama won….good for him. I don’t agree with his policy recommendations in general – but I pray for him daily (along with our other leaders, political and otherwise) and hope that he does a good job and that we live in peace.

    Life is too short to waste such energy.

  • Carl Vehse
  • Carl Vehse
  • passing throgh

    I do hope they secede.

    The IQ level of the rest of the nation will rise rapidly.

  • passing throgh

    I do hope they secede.

    The IQ level of the rest of the nation will rise rapidly.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > passing throgh

    You mean, driving by, don’t you?

    > The IQ level of the rest of the nation will rise rapidly.

    Yawn.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > passing throgh

    You mean, driving by, don’t you?

    > The IQ level of the rest of the nation will rise rapidly.

    Yawn.

  • SKPeterson

    passing through @ 18 – How trite. Banal and boring even. I thought leftists were supposed to be current and with it. I’ve only seen that snide little comment about 500 times on the news stories about secession. Never any substantive critique of the merits for or against succession, but just the casually smug “What can you expect from the peasantry” sort of unthinking, reactionary knee-jerk dismissal. How do you know that a Texas secession wouldn’t diminish the IQ level of the rest of the nation? I would wager that if Estonia or Latvia or Switzerland can make a go of it, Texas quite easily could. Unless of course the rest of the United States decided that the best thing they could do for putting Texas in its rightful place would be a sustained carpet bombing campaign.

    Now, some have said that Texas should leave but take with it, its portion of the national debt. However, it could fairly be said that it never agreed to the levels debt the federal government has incurred. But if we set the limit at $15 trillion, 1/50th of the debt would work out to $300 billion. Steep, but with a $1.33 trillion economy, that’s workable. Even at $600 billion, it would probably be worth it, since it could then escape many of the dead hand regulations burdening the economy and have a more rapidly growing economy.

    If Texans are smart, they would secede – they’d be far better off in the short, medium and long terms than they are being hitched to the decrepit and failing enterprise that is the USA.

  • SKPeterson

    passing through @ 18 – How trite. Banal and boring even. I thought leftists were supposed to be current and with it. I’ve only seen that snide little comment about 500 times on the news stories about secession. Never any substantive critique of the merits for or against succession, but just the casually smug “What can you expect from the peasantry” sort of unthinking, reactionary knee-jerk dismissal. How do you know that a Texas secession wouldn’t diminish the IQ level of the rest of the nation? I would wager that if Estonia or Latvia or Switzerland can make a go of it, Texas quite easily could. Unless of course the rest of the United States decided that the best thing they could do for putting Texas in its rightful place would be a sustained carpet bombing campaign.

    Now, some have said that Texas should leave but take with it, its portion of the national debt. However, it could fairly be said that it never agreed to the levels debt the federal government has incurred. But if we set the limit at $15 trillion, 1/50th of the debt would work out to $300 billion. Steep, but with a $1.33 trillion economy, that’s workable. Even at $600 billion, it would probably be worth it, since it could then escape many of the dead hand regulations burdening the economy and have a more rapidly growing economy.

    If Texans are smart, they would secede – they’d be far better off in the short, medium and long terms than they are being hitched to the decrepit and failing enterprise that is the USA.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    This is such ridiculous manipulation. I didn’t want the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Was that grief? Like every time you don’t get what you want, it is stages of grief? Whatever. What a bunch of baloney. No grief here. Not in denial. Just hedging bets based on likely scenarios given the stupid choices people here have made because they based their decisions on incorrect information.

    When Reagan beat Mondale 525 to 13, did Democrats have to listen to this drivel? Seriously people. This is so silly.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    This is such ridiculous manipulation. I didn’t want the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Was that grief? Like every time you don’t get what you want, it is stages of grief? Whatever. What a bunch of baloney. No grief here. Not in denial. Just hedging bets based on likely scenarios given the stupid choices people here have made because they based their decisions on incorrect information.

    When Reagan beat Mondale 525 to 13, did Democrats have to listen to this drivel? Seriously people. This is so silly.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Unless of course the rest of the United States decided that the best thing they could do for putting Texas in its rightful place would be a sustained carpet bombing campaign.

    Yeah, I don’t know if all those Texans in the military would be up for bombing civilians in Texas. They might hit their own houses.

    http://www.statemaster.com/state/TX-texas/mil-military

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Unless of course the rest of the United States decided that the best thing they could do for putting Texas in its rightful place would be a sustained carpet bombing campaign.

    Yeah, I don’t know if all those Texans in the military would be up for bombing civilians in Texas. They might hit their own houses.

    http://www.statemaster.com/state/TX-texas/mil-military

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    50 years ago there was a top tier tax rate of 91% and mandatory military service for males.

    Right, and China’s manufacturing capacity was exactly the same then as now. In fact everything back then was the same as it is now. Oh, wait.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    50 years ago there was a top tier tax rate of 91% and mandatory military service for males.

    Right, and China’s manufacturing capacity was exactly the same then as now. In fact everything back then was the same as it is now. Oh, wait.

  • fjsteve

    Michael B., same ol’ Conservative=Racist schtick eh? Do you ever get tired of going there? I have to believe that even you don’t buy half the stuff you say here but maybe that’s just the optimist in me.

  • fjsteve

    Michael B., same ol’ Conservative=Racist schtick eh? Do you ever get tired of going there? I have to believe that even you don’t buy half the stuff you say here but maybe that’s just the optimist in me.

  • kerner

    I’m not usually a fan of the daily Kos, but the Cartoon here sums up the republican reaction better than Dana Milbank. At lesat I think it does. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1159232/-YES-PLEASE-The-Five-Stages-of-Grief-in-the-FOX-NEWS-Universe

    So calm down everyone.

    And for goodness sake, Carl, never mind seceding from the union. What the states need to do is secede from obamacare:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333040/obamacare-still-vulnerable-michael-f-cannon

    we need to keep our heads, people.

  • kerner

    I’m not usually a fan of the daily Kos, but the Cartoon here sums up the republican reaction better than Dana Milbank. At lesat I think it does. (You may have to scroll down to see it)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1159232/-YES-PLEASE-The-Five-Stages-of-Grief-in-the-FOX-NEWS-Universe

    So calm down everyone.

    And for goodness sake, Carl, never mind seceding from the union. What the states need to do is secede from obamacare:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333040/obamacare-still-vulnerable-michael-f-cannon

    we need to keep our heads, people.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dear (many) Republicans and “conservatives”, when did you guys get so whiny? Seriously, cut that crap out. Do you need a time-out?

    “We are done for.” (@3) Please. I might be inclined to listen to you if you were saying such things when Your Team was in power. Then at least your pessimism would be consistent with reality. And that reality is this: our country is not significantly more or less “done for” now than it was under Bush. Of course it will end some day, but if you think this signals a sea change, you’re just being a bad sport.

    Speaking of sports, isn’t this whining just poor sportsmanship? Or, more accurately, the bellowing of sports fans whose team has lost? If our country is done for, it’s because it’s populated by people who obsess over politics like it were football, and forget to live productive lives that influence the culture for the good. And “conservatives”, of all people, should get that. “Oh, boo-hoo, my candidate will not control the government! However will we shape the culture now? Government is everything!” You sound like a liberal.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dear (many) Republicans and “conservatives”, when did you guys get so whiny? Seriously, cut that crap out. Do you need a time-out?

    “We are done for.” (@3) Please. I might be inclined to listen to you if you were saying such things when Your Team was in power. Then at least your pessimism would be consistent with reality. And that reality is this: our country is not significantly more or less “done for” now than it was under Bush. Of course it will end some day, but if you think this signals a sea change, you’re just being a bad sport.

    Speaking of sports, isn’t this whining just poor sportsmanship? Or, more accurately, the bellowing of sports fans whose team has lost? If our country is done for, it’s because it’s populated by people who obsess over politics like it were football, and forget to live productive lives that influence the culture for the good. And “conservatives”, of all people, should get that. “Oh, boo-hoo, my candidate will not control the government! However will we shape the culture now? Government is everything!” You sound like a liberal.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @26

    Amen.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @26

    Amen.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@15):

    I do not remember that.

    Then you have an exceedingly poor memory that is oddly populated with useless trivia. You sound like you’ve been consuming partisan media for well over a decade, if all you remember is left-wing conspiracy theories.

    Seriously, it took me almost no time to find but one of many articles from 2004 at The New Republic (which I consider fairly representative of liberal thought) reacting to the presidential election. I haven’t read the whole article, but a quick perusal suggests that, by swapping a few words here and there, it could easily be an analysis printed in a conservative outlet today.

    Maybe you don’t remember Karl Rove and his would-be “permanent Republican majority”. There were years it seemed like he pulled it off. And yet who’s talking about the genius of Rove these days?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@15):

    I do not remember that.

    Then you have an exceedingly poor memory that is oddly populated with useless trivia. You sound like you’ve been consuming partisan media for well over a decade, if all you remember is left-wing conspiracy theories.

    Seriously, it took me almost no time to find but one of many articles from 2004 at The New Republic (which I consider fairly representative of liberal thought) reacting to the presidential election. I haven’t read the whole article, but a quick perusal suggests that, by swapping a few words here and there, it could easily be an analysis printed in a conservative outlet today.

    Maybe you don’t remember Karl Rove and his would-be “permanent Republican majority”. There were years it seemed like he pulled it off. And yet who’s talking about the genius of Rove these days?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for all this secession talk, it is, of course, nothing more than whiny take-my-ball-home-ism. Trust me, no one will be talking about it in two years. Especially if the Senate goes Republican. And then, voila, hey, it wasn’t such a bad country, after all, what do you know.

    Still, I’d love to see someone try it. Just for the Schadenfreude.

    I would wager that if Estonia or Latvia or Switzerland can make a go of it, Texas quite easily could.

    SK (@20) … I, um. Seriously? That’s your comparison? Texas had, at best, ten years of being its own nation, during which time, if I recall, Texas wasn’t exactly all rah-rah about independence. I mean, there’s a reason a large majority of Texans voted to become Americans — they knew a better deal when they saw it.

    And, you know, Switzerland, Estonia, and Latvia just might have had a more coherent and cohesive identity on their own — even their own unique languages (eh, 2/3)! Texans’ cultural identity is largely comprised of trinket-shop slogans and the appropriation of marketing appeals. Heck, if anything, Texans have often viewed themselves as the True ‘Muricans. So, no, I don’t see a lot of hope for a pre-existing unique cultural identity to naturally lend itself to political situation.

    But that’s not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the best thing the US has going for it right now is a system of laws drawn up by people who were, at least to some degree, distrustful of government and wanted to restrain it. And the history of the past century or more in this country tells me that most people, Republicans or Democrats, don’t really appreciate that system of laws, and have worked to get it out of the way. With some success.

    So if you were to lop off a chunk of the country and give them the chance to draw up their own, new, set of laws, I can virtually guarantee you they would be horrible. Oh, they might reflect whatever is in vogue among Republicans right now. But they almost certainly wouldn’t embody small-government ideals. (Because, duh, small-government ideals are not actually in vogue among Republicans right now.) I mean, heck, have any of you even read your state’s constitution?

    So have at it, folks. Secede. I’ll make some popcorn.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for all this secession talk, it is, of course, nothing more than whiny take-my-ball-home-ism. Trust me, no one will be talking about it in two years. Especially if the Senate goes Republican. And then, voila, hey, it wasn’t such a bad country, after all, what do you know.

    Still, I’d love to see someone try it. Just for the Schadenfreude.

    I would wager that if Estonia or Latvia or Switzerland can make a go of it, Texas quite easily could.

    SK (@20) … I, um. Seriously? That’s your comparison? Texas had, at best, ten years of being its own nation, during which time, if I recall, Texas wasn’t exactly all rah-rah about independence. I mean, there’s a reason a large majority of Texans voted to become Americans — they knew a better deal when they saw it.

    And, you know, Switzerland, Estonia, and Latvia just might have had a more coherent and cohesive identity on their own — even their own unique languages (eh, 2/3)! Texans’ cultural identity is largely comprised of trinket-shop slogans and the appropriation of marketing appeals. Heck, if anything, Texans have often viewed themselves as the True ‘Muricans. So, no, I don’t see a lot of hope for a pre-existing unique cultural identity to naturally lend itself to political situation.

    But that’s not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the best thing the US has going for it right now is a system of laws drawn up by people who were, at least to some degree, distrustful of government and wanted to restrain it. And the history of the past century or more in this country tells me that most people, Republicans or Democrats, don’t really appreciate that system of laws, and have worked to get it out of the way. With some success.

    So if you were to lop off a chunk of the country and give them the chance to draw up their own, new, set of laws, I can virtually guarantee you they would be horrible. Oh, they might reflect whatever is in vogue among Republicans right now. But they almost certainly wouldn’t embody small-government ideals. (Because, duh, small-government ideals are not actually in vogue among Republicans right now.) I mean, heck, have any of you even read your state’s constitution?

    So have at it, folks. Secede. I’ll make some popcorn.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    #22 The last time states declared independence from the central government, the central government slaughtered thousands of civilians and unleashed total war to conquer those states. The central government then occupied those states militarily for a decade.

    It’s unwise to try independence again when we have a central government even more powerful then the one we had in 1861.

  • http://steadfastlutherans.org/ SAL

    #22 The last time states declared independence from the central government, the central government slaughtered thousands of civilians and unleashed total war to conquer those states. The central government then occupied those states militarily for a decade.

    It’s unwise to try independence again when we have a central government even more powerful then the one we had in 1861.

  • SKPeterson

    AsTodd @ 29 – Fair points, but then again I’m an Articles man so any attempt to throw off the shackles is of interest. But, yes, this is not serious and is mostly just sour grapes.

    However, I do think Texas could legitimately hold its own as an independent nation. We equate size with success – bigger is better. I’m not so sure. As to laws, the original 1836 Constitution would be a good start. It was even supported by the Spanish speaking Texicans. Anyhow, secession is fun to think about however unlikely.

  • SKPeterson

    AsTodd @ 29 – Fair points, but then again I’m an Articles man so any attempt to throw off the shackles is of interest. But, yes, this is not serious and is mostly just sour grapes.

    However, I do think Texas could legitimately hold its own as an independent nation. We equate size with success – bigger is better. I’m not so sure. As to laws, the original 1836 Constitution would be a good start. It was even supported by the Spanish speaking Texicans. Anyhow, secession is fun to think about however unlikely.

  • Grace

    This isn’t about Obama or Romney per se, it is a result of man not depending upon God, or believing in HIS Son, which results in a faulty view, of God’s precepts, and HIS Gospel sent to us, through Jesus Christ our only Savior.

    We have a country with no leader, a ship without sails. Without a sail, this country will flounder around until it sinks. The BEST NEWS IS; we who believe in Christ are NOT without a sail, we have the Savior of our lives, the only one who can save us of our sins, and redeem us from sin.

    The news regarding General Petraeus, is but the tip of the storm, a long storm, that has gather momentum for decades. Evil beckons – this nation is ripe for the course. It’s been going down the cliff, greased for the occasion, for a very long time.

    We as Believers, must drop to our knees, begging God for our loved ones, those who have strayed. Who knows how difficult it will become.

    Secession isn’t the answer today, anymore than it was years ago. It’s a lazy way of fleeing the situation, which sits on one continent, within a section of many states – it’s foolish to even think about. It would cause more problems, civil wars, than this country endured during the civil war, and the situations which proceeded it, and then followed.

  • Grace

    This isn’t about Obama or Romney per se, it is a result of man not depending upon God, or believing in HIS Son, which results in a faulty view, of God’s precepts, and HIS Gospel sent to us, through Jesus Christ our only Savior.

    We have a country with no leader, a ship without sails. Without a sail, this country will flounder around until it sinks. The BEST NEWS IS; we who believe in Christ are NOT without a sail, we have the Savior of our lives, the only one who can save us of our sins, and redeem us from sin.

    The news regarding General Petraeus, is but the tip of the storm, a long storm, that has gather momentum for decades. Evil beckons – this nation is ripe for the course. It’s been going down the cliff, greased for the occasion, for a very long time.

    We as Believers, must drop to our knees, begging God for our loved ones, those who have strayed. Who knows how difficult it will become.

    Secession isn’t the answer today, anymore than it was years ago. It’s a lazy way of fleeing the situation, which sits on one continent, within a section of many states – it’s foolish to even think about. It would cause more problems, civil wars, than this country endured during the civil war, and the situations which proceeded it, and then followed.

  • Grace

    I should have used the word “preceded” rather than “proceeded” in the above post @ 32.

  • Grace

    I should have used the word “preceded” rather than “proceeded” in the above post @ 32.

  • Norman Teigen

    Carl Vehse helped to re-elect President Obama. I tracked his slanderous referrals to the President as a traitor. For each one of these sinful remarks, I made a contribution to the President’s re-election fund. I maxed out at $1,000. Congratulations, Carl, you helped to re-elect my man.

    Norman Teigen, Layman
    Evangelical Lutheran Synod

  • Norman Teigen

    Carl Vehse helped to re-elect President Obama. I tracked his slanderous referrals to the President as a traitor. For each one of these sinful remarks, I made a contribution to the President’s re-election fund. I maxed out at $1,000. Congratulations, Carl, you helped to re-elect my man.

    Norman Teigen, Layman
    Evangelical Lutheran Synod

  • DonS

    tODD @ 28: Read my comment again. I’m not sure what your Karl Rove slam was about, but whatever. It certainly had nothing to do with what I said.

    All I said was that I do not remember a big Democratic movement toward rethinking whether they needed to move toward Republican positions in view of the 2004 election results. Citing an anecdotal article by an orthodox Jewish commentator who, in 2004, still supported the Iraq War, hardly a Democratic mainstream position in 2004, does not refute my opinion. And I hardly think the New Republic was representative of Democratic thought in 2004. That would be like saying David Brooks is representative of Republican thought in 2012.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 28: Read my comment again. I’m not sure what your Karl Rove slam was about, but whatever. It certainly had nothing to do with what I said.

    All I said was that I do not remember a big Democratic movement toward rethinking whether they needed to move toward Republican positions in view of the 2004 election results. Citing an anecdotal article by an orthodox Jewish commentator who, in 2004, still supported the Iraq War, hardly a Democratic mainstream position in 2004, does not refute my opinion. And I hardly think the New Republic was representative of Democratic thought in 2004. That would be like saying David Brooks is representative of Republican thought in 2012.

  • kerner

    Norman Teigen @ 34:

    So, is that the Democrat equivalent of a drinking game or something? Maybe we Republicans should do something similar every time Obama blames his problems on George W. Bush. With funding like that would generate we’d win the next election for sure. :D

  • kerner

    Norman Teigen @ 34:

    So, is that the Democrat equivalent of a drinking game or something? Maybe we Republicans should do something similar every time Obama blames his problems on George W. Bush. With funding like that would generate we’d win the next election for sure. :D

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@32):

    the tip of the storm … ripe for the course … going down the cliff, greased for the occasion

    Yes, and if we can hit that bull’s-eye then the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards… Checkmate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@32):

    the tip of the storm … ripe for the course … going down the cliff, greased for the occasion

    Yes, and if we can hit that bull’s-eye then the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards… Checkmate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@35):

    I’m not sure what your Karl Rove slam was about, but whatever.

    It was about what I said it was: there was a time, all of a decade ago, when Republicans were crowing about having achieved a political realignment that would keep them in power forever. And not a few Democrats feared the Republicans had actually pulled it off. It is my contention that the political situation has changed since then. And will change yet again, likely in the not-too-distant future.

    Citing an anecdotal article by an orthodox Jewish commentator…

    Wait, what does his being Jewish have to do with anything? Are you arguing that neither Peter Beinart nor The New Republic (or, you know, Jews typically) are liberal? The whole point was that, contrary to your “not remembering” it, Democrats/liberals “were going through the very same depression” in 2004.

    I pulled an example out of Google in less than a minute. There are more. That was the whole point. Shall I find dozens more, only to have you bat each one down individually with a wave of your hand? What will it take to convince you that your memory might be a wee bit off?

    And where do you get the chutzpah to sniff at “anecdotal” articles that are not “representative of Democratic thought”, given that you bandied about (@15) WhatReallyHappened.com? Oh, yes, now that site is highly reputable among Democrats and liberals, and perfectly representative of their thought. Much more so than The New Republic. How silly of me.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@35):

    I’m not sure what your Karl Rove slam was about, but whatever.

    It was about what I said it was: there was a time, all of a decade ago, when Republicans were crowing about having achieved a political realignment that would keep them in power forever. And not a few Democrats feared the Republicans had actually pulled it off. It is my contention that the political situation has changed since then. And will change yet again, likely in the not-too-distant future.

    Citing an anecdotal article by an orthodox Jewish commentator…

    Wait, what does his being Jewish have to do with anything? Are you arguing that neither Peter Beinart nor The New Republic (or, you know, Jews typically) are liberal? The whole point was that, contrary to your “not remembering” it, Democrats/liberals “were going through the very same depression” in 2004.

    I pulled an example out of Google in less than a minute. There are more. That was the whole point. Shall I find dozens more, only to have you bat each one down individually with a wave of your hand? What will it take to convince you that your memory might be a wee bit off?

    And where do you get the chutzpah to sniff at “anecdotal” articles that are not “representative of Democratic thought”, given that you bandied about (@15) WhatReallyHappened.com? Oh, yes, now that site is highly reputable among Democrats and liberals, and perfectly representative of their thought. Much more so than The New Republic. How silly of me.

  • SKPeterson

    Maybe somebody could help me out here. Considering Karl Rove and the supposed political realignment ensuring a Republican majority in perpetuity emanating from his evil machinations, I have not heard similar paeans to the architects of this year’s electoral triumph for the Democrats. Have I just missed it?

  • SKPeterson

    Maybe somebody could help me out here. Considering Karl Rove and the supposed political realignment ensuring a Republican majority in perpetuity emanating from his evil machinations, I have not heard similar paeans to the architects of this year’s electoral triumph for the Democrats. Have I just missed it?

  • Trey

    @Norman #34

    Why are you obsessed what someone else does or say? There are people on the left who say ridiculous things about Bush, but that doesn’t automatically mean any GOPer gets my vote. This is the guilt by association fallacy. Maybe since you claim to be Lutheran, you should give money to pro-life causes for every vile and monstrous statements and policies directed by Obama and the Democrats toward unborn persons. This would be a better use of your time and actually do some good.

  • Trey

    @Norman #34

    Why are you obsessed what someone else does or say? There are people on the left who say ridiculous things about Bush, but that doesn’t automatically mean any GOPer gets my vote. This is the guilt by association fallacy. Maybe since you claim to be Lutheran, you should give money to pro-life causes for every vile and monstrous statements and policies directed by Obama and the Democrats toward unborn persons. This would be a better use of your time and actually do some good.

  • Norman Teigen

    Get a grip, Trey. To call the daily elected President of the United States a traitor is , besides foolish and untrue, a sin against the Fourth and Eighth Commandments. Get over it, Sir. The election is over. Obama won, Romney lost. Stop believing all that bilge that is sometimes regarded as honest political discourse.

    I not only claim to be a Lutheran, I am a Lutheran from the time of my baptism to the present. How dare you say such a foolish and insulting thing. Shame on you.

  • Norman Teigen

    Get a grip, Trey. To call the daily elected President of the United States a traitor is , besides foolish and untrue, a sin against the Fourth and Eighth Commandments. Get over it, Sir. The election is over. Obama won, Romney lost. Stop believing all that bilge that is sometimes regarded as honest political discourse.

    I not only claim to be a Lutheran, I am a Lutheran from the time of my baptism to the present. How dare you say such a foolish and insulting thing. Shame on you.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 38:

    It was about what I said it was: there was a time, all of a decade ago, when Republicans were crowing about having achieved a political realignment that would keep them in power forever. And not a few Democrats feared the Republicans had actually pulled it off. It is my contention that the political situation has changed since then. And will change yet again, likely in the not-too-distant future.

    Um, OK. I agree that politics is cyclical, but, again, Karl Rove or anything you said in the above paragraph had nothing to do with me or my comment.

    Wait, what does his being Jewish have to do with anything? Are you arguing that neither Peter Beinart nor The New Republic (or, you know, Jews typically) are liberal?

    As I said already, I am arguing that Marty Peretz, the editor of The New Republic in 2004, and Peter Beinart were not typical liberals — they were Iraq War supporters because of their strong support for Israel. They were very much in favor, at that time, of Democrats re-assessing their anti-war fervor, for example.

    It’s interesting how my recollection concerning widespread suspicion of the Ohio voting results is simply dismissed by you as nonsense, to the point where you impugn my memory as being “an exceedingly poor memory that is oddly populated with useless trivia.” You also accuse me of consuming “partisan media”. Well, maybe, but it’s leftist media. Daily Kos is STILL talking about Ohio 2004 here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/12/1160865/-Why-Are-Dems-Lettings-Themselves-be-Pummeled-on-Vote-Fraud-After-Ohio-2004

    Also, check out the last paragraph of this Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

    On January 6, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a Congressional objection to the certification of Ohio’s Electoral College votes.[69][70] The Senate voted the objection down 1–74; the House voted the objection down 31–267.[69] It was only the second Congressional objection to an entire State’s electoral delegation in U.S. history; the first instance was in 1877, when all the electors from three southern states were challenged, and one from Oregon.

    I know your anecdotal evidence is WAY better than anyone else’s, but …you might try a dash of humility every now and then.

    To clarify, I never said anything about Republicans, and I never said that no Democrat considered adopting more Republican-like policies after Kerry’s defeat in 2004, and I certainly never said that no Democrat, anywhere, could have possibly expressed such a sentiment. I simply said that I didn’t remember that sentiment being in the public consciousness — what I remember was a considerable outcry that the election was fixed. And, yes, I recognize that there are certain Republicans claiming such things now, but that was not my point. If I have a point at all on the issue, it would be that Republicans tend to do a lot more hand wringing than Democrats do. And, I doubt that a Republican U.S. Senator will challenge the votes of a state’s electors when the time comes.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 38:

    It was about what I said it was: there was a time, all of a decade ago, when Republicans were crowing about having achieved a political realignment that would keep them in power forever. And not a few Democrats feared the Republicans had actually pulled it off. It is my contention that the political situation has changed since then. And will change yet again, likely in the not-too-distant future.

    Um, OK. I agree that politics is cyclical, but, again, Karl Rove or anything you said in the above paragraph had nothing to do with me or my comment.

    Wait, what does his being Jewish have to do with anything? Are you arguing that neither Peter Beinart nor The New Republic (or, you know, Jews typically) are liberal?

    As I said already, I am arguing that Marty Peretz, the editor of The New Republic in 2004, and Peter Beinart were not typical liberals — they were Iraq War supporters because of their strong support for Israel. They were very much in favor, at that time, of Democrats re-assessing their anti-war fervor, for example.

    It’s interesting how my recollection concerning widespread suspicion of the Ohio voting results is simply dismissed by you as nonsense, to the point where you impugn my memory as being “an exceedingly poor memory that is oddly populated with useless trivia.” You also accuse me of consuming “partisan media”. Well, maybe, but it’s leftist media. Daily Kos is STILL talking about Ohio 2004 here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/12/1160865/-Why-Are-Dems-Lettings-Themselves-be-Pummeled-on-Vote-Fraud-After-Ohio-2004

    Also, check out the last paragraph of this Wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies

    On January 6, 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio in filing a Congressional objection to the certification of Ohio’s Electoral College votes.[69][70] The Senate voted the objection down 1–74; the House voted the objection down 31–267.[69] It was only the second Congressional objection to an entire State’s electoral delegation in U.S. history; the first instance was in 1877, when all the electors from three southern states were challenged, and one from Oregon.

    I know your anecdotal evidence is WAY better than anyone else’s, but …you might try a dash of humility every now and then.

    To clarify, I never said anything about Republicans, and I never said that no Democrat considered adopting more Republican-like policies after Kerry’s defeat in 2004, and I certainly never said that no Democrat, anywhere, could have possibly expressed such a sentiment. I simply said that I didn’t remember that sentiment being in the public consciousness — what I remember was a considerable outcry that the election was fixed. And, yes, I recognize that there are certain Republicans claiming such things now, but that was not my point. If I have a point at all on the issue, it would be that Republicans tend to do a lot more hand wringing than Democrats do. And, I doubt that a Republican U.S. Senator will challenge the votes of a state’s electors when the time comes.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@42), honestly, it’s like you don’t even remember what you were originally replying to.

    Karl Rove or anything you said in the above paragraph had nothing to do with me or my comment.

    Seriously? Again, try reading Veith’s original claim:

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again…

    Yeah, Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” had to do with that.

    And, just for kicks, exactly who or what media outlet was, to you, a “typical liberal” in 2004? You give me some names, and I’ll go find you examples of 2004 hand-wringing.

    Because, even if TNR was not typical in their approach to Iraq, that remains utterly beside the point here. They did claim to speak for the left wing, and the left wing did, in fact, consume that media. So, again, that one article does bear up Veith’s original claim. It is not the only example, however. You get that, right?

    And I don’t know why you’d rather talk about Ohio. Sure, there were people on the left talking about that, too. That does not preclude that there were also Democrats doing what Veith and I are claiming. Are you just trying to derail the issue?

    (Also, come on, you do get that Daily Kos is a journal platform, right? Anyone can write there. You could start a Kos diary. Unless you find something there from Markos himself, the odds that any particular post is representative of general liberal thought are questionable. I, too, could cherry-pick Free Republic posts to make my point.)

    So, yeah, I still would hold up a TNR piece over a random Kos diary, much less a fringe conspiracy site I’ve never even heard of, as being more indicative of the larger group’s thought.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@42), honestly, it’s like you don’t even remember what you were originally replying to.

    Karl Rove or anything you said in the above paragraph had nothing to do with me or my comment.

    Seriously? Again, try reading Veith’s original claim:

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again…

    Yeah, Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” had to do with that.

    And, just for kicks, exactly who or what media outlet was, to you, a “typical liberal” in 2004? You give me some names, and I’ll go find you examples of 2004 hand-wringing.

    Because, even if TNR was not typical in their approach to Iraq, that remains utterly beside the point here. They did claim to speak for the left wing, and the left wing did, in fact, consume that media. So, again, that one article does bear up Veith’s original claim. It is not the only example, however. You get that, right?

    And I don’t know why you’d rather talk about Ohio. Sure, there were people on the left talking about that, too. That does not preclude that there were also Democrats doing what Veith and I are claiming. Are you just trying to derail the issue?

    (Also, come on, you do get that Daily Kos is a journal platform, right? Anyone can write there. You could start a Kos diary. Unless you find something there from Markos himself, the odds that any particular post is representative of general liberal thought are questionable. I, too, could cherry-pick Free Republic posts to make my point.)

    So, yeah, I still would hold up a TNR piece over a random Kos diary, much less a fringe conspiracy site I’ve never even heard of, as being more indicative of the larger group’s thought.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 43:

    DonS (@42), honestly, it’s like you don’t even remember what you were originally replying to.

    Karl Rove or anything you said in the above paragraph had nothing to do with me or my comment.

    Seriously? Again, try reading Veith’s original claim:

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again…

    Yeah, Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” had to do with that.

    Yes, seriously. For the umpteenth time, the point of the part of Dr. Veith’s post I quoted @ 15 was directed to the Democrats’ response, i.e. attitude, not any possible cause Republicans might have attributed to Bush’s win, i.e. Karl Rove. All I was saying is that I don’t remember any audible Democratic chest-beating, or any significant hand wringing by Democrats that they were going to have to become more like Republicans if they wanted to win future elections. Rather, the more dominant theme, immediately post election, was that Bush had stolen another one. I’m not saying that it was a mainstream Democratic view. But it certainly gained enough traction that a Democratic U.S. Senator (an idiot, to be sure — we’re real proud of Barbara Boxer here in CA) and 31 Democratic House members voted against recognizing the Ohio Bush electors because of this view.

    31 congresspeople and 1 U.S. senator is a lot more than a “random Kos diary”.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 43:

    DonS (@42), honestly, it’s like you don’t even remember what you were originally replying to.

    Karl Rove or anything you said in the above paragraph had nothing to do with me or my comment.

    Seriously? Again, try reading Veith’s original claim:

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again…

    Yeah, Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” had to do with that.

    Yes, seriously. For the umpteenth time, the point of the part of Dr. Veith’s post I quoted @ 15 was directed to the Democrats’ response, i.e. attitude, not any possible cause Republicans might have attributed to Bush’s win, i.e. Karl Rove. All I was saying is that I don’t remember any audible Democratic chest-beating, or any significant hand wringing by Democrats that they were going to have to become more like Republicans if they wanted to win future elections. Rather, the more dominant theme, immediately post election, was that Bush had stolen another one. I’m not saying that it was a mainstream Democratic view. But it certainly gained enough traction that a Democratic U.S. Senator (an idiot, to be sure — we’re real proud of Barbara Boxer here in CA) and 31 Democratic House members voted against recognizing the Ohio Bush electors because of this view.

    31 congresspeople and 1 U.S. senator is a lot more than a “random Kos diary”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@44), oh, are we already to the point in the discussion where you refuse to answer my questions?

    All I was saying is that I don’t remember any audible Democratic chest-beating

    And clearly you’re going to ignore the one example I’ve already provided you. And, it would seem, refuse to give me any examples of sources you would deem sufficiently Democratic. I guess that’s one way to win an argument.

    And, quelle surprise, you’re continuing to flog the Ohio thing, as if that were the only possible thing that Democrats did in response to Ohio. Or, more likely, it’s all you really want to talk about.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@44), oh, are we already to the point in the discussion where you refuse to answer my questions?

    All I was saying is that I don’t remember any audible Democratic chest-beating

    And clearly you’re going to ignore the one example I’ve already provided you. And, it would seem, refuse to give me any examples of sources you would deem sufficiently Democratic. I guess that’s one way to win an argument.

    And, quelle surprise, you’re continuing to flog the Ohio thing, as if that were the only possible thing that Democrats did in response to Ohio. Or, more likely, it’s all you really want to talk about.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 45: “And clearly you’re going to ignore the one example I’ve already provided you.” Hmm. Um, no. I’ve discussed it at length. See above. And for the reasons I carefully and thoroughly laid out, I explained that I don’t think Beinart’s response to the election resonated with the Democratic electorate, which was not pro-war, as he was. You may disagree, that is your prerogative.

    “And, it would seem, refuse to give me any examples of sources you would deem sufficiently Democratic. I guess that’s one way to win an argument.” Hmm, again. Did I not cite sources back to you? Did I not cite an article reminding you that 1 U.S. Senator and 31 U.S. Congresspeople (!), all Democrats, refused to recognize the Ohio electors because they believed that the election had been stolen from Kerry in Ohio? Why do your sources count, and mine don’t, I wonder? One conservative Democratic writer vs. 32 elected federal officials. Hmm.

    And, quelle surprise, you’re continuing to flog the Ohio thing, as if that were the only possible thing that Democrats did in response to Ohio. Or, more likely, it’s all you really want to talk about.

    In my recollection, the “Ohio thing” occupied a lot more public attention than TNR. Which is all you seem to really want to talk about.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 45: “And clearly you’re going to ignore the one example I’ve already provided you.” Hmm. Um, no. I’ve discussed it at length. See above. And for the reasons I carefully and thoroughly laid out, I explained that I don’t think Beinart’s response to the election resonated with the Democratic electorate, which was not pro-war, as he was. You may disagree, that is your prerogative.

    “And, it would seem, refuse to give me any examples of sources you would deem sufficiently Democratic. I guess that’s one way to win an argument.” Hmm, again. Did I not cite sources back to you? Did I not cite an article reminding you that 1 U.S. Senator and 31 U.S. Congresspeople (!), all Democrats, refused to recognize the Ohio electors because they believed that the election had been stolen from Kerry in Ohio? Why do your sources count, and mine don’t, I wonder? One conservative Democratic writer vs. 32 elected federal officials. Hmm.

    And, quelle surprise, you’re continuing to flog the Ohio thing, as if that were the only possible thing that Democrats did in response to Ohio. Or, more likely, it’s all you really want to talk about.

    In my recollection, the “Ohio thing” occupied a lot more public attention than TNR. Which is all you seem to really want to talk about.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@46): For. The. Love. Of. Pete. Seriously, all you want to talk about is this Ohio thing, isn’t it? I mean, the evidence says yes.

    I’ve asked you, repeatedly, what media outlets you will not brush aside with a dismissive wave of your hand, as you have TNR. What sources, exactly, will you allow as evidence of Veith’s original claim? Have you provided any answers? No. All you’ve done is talk about Ohio, as if that’s all that any Democrats were possibly talking about back in the day. I’d like to prove you wrong, but I’m not going to waste me time guessing what outlets you may or may not deem as sufficiently “Democratic”.

    So why don’t you, finally, answer my question? Does the Daily Kos count? Can I show you from their archives? Or does all my evidence have to come from kook conspiracy sites that you appear to hold in higher regard than any Democrat I’ve ever met?

    I’ve seriously come to question your ability to assess media quality, from your arguments here. Because you seem to think that, when it comes to representativeness and authority, all of these are the same: a D-level conspiracy site, a site that allows anyone to set up an account and post, and a magazine with national circulation.

    That’s equivalent to my saying that the following are all equally authoritative examples of Republican thought: WhatReallyHappened.com (which also cites Rush Limbaugh authoritatively in discussing Vince Foster, so it’s a bipartisan wack-job site), a random post on Free Republic, and an article from The American Conservative.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@46): For. The. Love. Of. Pete. Seriously, all you want to talk about is this Ohio thing, isn’t it? I mean, the evidence says yes.

    I’ve asked you, repeatedly, what media outlets you will not brush aside with a dismissive wave of your hand, as you have TNR. What sources, exactly, will you allow as evidence of Veith’s original claim? Have you provided any answers? No. All you’ve done is talk about Ohio, as if that’s all that any Democrats were possibly talking about back in the day. I’d like to prove you wrong, but I’m not going to waste me time guessing what outlets you may or may not deem as sufficiently “Democratic”.

    So why don’t you, finally, answer my question? Does the Daily Kos count? Can I show you from their archives? Or does all my evidence have to come from kook conspiracy sites that you appear to hold in higher regard than any Democrat I’ve ever met?

    I’ve seriously come to question your ability to assess media quality, from your arguments here. Because you seem to think that, when it comes to representativeness and authority, all of these are the same: a D-level conspiracy site, a site that allows anyone to set up an account and post, and a magazine with national circulation.

    That’s equivalent to my saying that the following are all equally authoritative examples of Republican thought: WhatReallyHappened.com (which also cites Rush Limbaugh authoritatively in discussing Vince Foster, so it’s a bipartisan wack-job site), a random post on Free Republic, and an article from The American Conservative.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 47: What are you talking about? The article I cited concerning the U.S. Senator and 31 U.S. Congresspeople who voted not to recognize the Ohio electors in 2004 was a Wikipedia article, not WhatHappened.com. And, it was well sourced. Check it out. The point, of course, is that there was no perceptible groundswell of feeling in Democratic ranks, as Dr. Veith alleged, that they should become more Republican to attempt to win back voters.

    I’ve asked you, repeatedly, what media outlets you will not brush aside with a dismissive wave of your hand, as you have TNR.

    I didn’t “brush aside” TNR. I explained why I did not think it was representative of Democratic thought in 2004, since it was pro-war and the Democrats essentially ran against the war. You have never responded to this argument substantively — choosing rather to simply accuse me of dismissing your vaunted evidence. I guess I’m just supposed to bow down in obeisance to the great tODD and his uncanny ability to supply evidence to prove whatever he feels like proving. Any discussion about what that evidence, in fact says, is “brushing it aside”. And, then insisting that I respond to a hypothetical — pre-validating whatever future evidence you choose, in your beneficence, to bless me with. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence, beyond a single TNR article written by a guy who was in a very small minority of pro-war Democrats, for a publication that was in that same minority in 2004, of this supposed groundswell of Democratic handwringing, so how am I supposed to know what would be persuasive? You haven’t even acknowledged the additional evidence I provided related to those obviously highly “repentant” Democratic politicians.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 47: What are you talking about? The article I cited concerning the U.S. Senator and 31 U.S. Congresspeople who voted not to recognize the Ohio electors in 2004 was a Wikipedia article, not WhatHappened.com. And, it was well sourced. Check it out. The point, of course, is that there was no perceptible groundswell of feeling in Democratic ranks, as Dr. Veith alleged, that they should become more Republican to attempt to win back voters.

    I’ve asked you, repeatedly, what media outlets you will not brush aside with a dismissive wave of your hand, as you have TNR.

    I didn’t “brush aside” TNR. I explained why I did not think it was representative of Democratic thought in 2004, since it was pro-war and the Democrats essentially ran against the war. You have never responded to this argument substantively — choosing rather to simply accuse me of dismissing your vaunted evidence. I guess I’m just supposed to bow down in obeisance to the great tODD and his uncanny ability to supply evidence to prove whatever he feels like proving. Any discussion about what that evidence, in fact says, is “brushing it aside”. And, then insisting that I respond to a hypothetical — pre-validating whatever future evidence you choose, in your beneficence, to bless me with. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence, beyond a single TNR article written by a guy who was in a very small minority of pro-war Democrats, for a publication that was in that same minority in 2004, of this supposed groundswell of Democratic handwringing, so how am I supposed to know what would be persuasive? You haven’t even acknowledged the additional evidence I provided related to those obviously highly “repentant” Democratic politicians.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@48), look, this isn’t difficult. But I’ll spell it out, all the same.

    I provided one article in defense of my and Veith’s assertion. You said that article doesn’t count because its source is not representative enough of Democratic thought. Which means that you clearly regard yourself as an arbiter of Democratic legitimacy in media sources.

    So it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to tell me which media sources (from 2004) were representative of Democratic thought. It’s not a hypothetical. Your very argument here presumes that you possess such knowledge. So, once again — and how many times must I ask you this — will you tell me what some of those sources that you would accept are?

    Honestly, this is not a difficult question, and it just seems to me that you’re dodging it at this point.

    Allow me to continue to belabor this point: the reason I haven’t tried offering any other “shreds of evidence” is because I don’t want to go through this game with you every time, with your saying, “Oh, that one doesn’t count … no, not that one, either … nope, none of those count.” You see? If you’re capable of telling me which sources will not be allowed as evidence, then you are equally capable of telling me which ones will. Get it?

    And, since you obviously haven’t noticed, you’re the only one talking about Ohio. You seem to think that the fact that anyone was talking about Ohio necessarily precludes them from in any way “going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush”. That is, in short, ridiculous. Ohio is completely orthogonal to the issue being discussed here. It is a red herring.

    Please, please, please reveal your secret list of media sources that are sufficiently representative of Democratic thought.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@48), look, this isn’t difficult. But I’ll spell it out, all the same.

    I provided one article in defense of my and Veith’s assertion. You said that article doesn’t count because its source is not representative enough of Democratic thought. Which means that you clearly regard yourself as an arbiter of Democratic legitimacy in media sources.

    So it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to tell me which media sources (from 2004) were representative of Democratic thought. It’s not a hypothetical. Your very argument here presumes that you possess such knowledge. So, once again — and how many times must I ask you this — will you tell me what some of those sources that you would accept are?

    Honestly, this is not a difficult question, and it just seems to me that you’re dodging it at this point.

    Allow me to continue to belabor this point: the reason I haven’t tried offering any other “shreds of evidence” is because I don’t want to go through this game with you every time, with your saying, “Oh, that one doesn’t count … no, not that one, either … nope, none of those count.” You see? If you’re capable of telling me which sources will not be allowed as evidence, then you are equally capable of telling me which ones will. Get it?

    And, since you obviously haven’t noticed, you’re the only one talking about Ohio. You seem to think that the fact that anyone was talking about Ohio necessarily precludes them from in any way “going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush”. That is, in short, ridiculous. Ohio is completely orthogonal to the issue being discussed here. It is a red herring.

    Please, please, please reveal your secret list of media sources that are sufficiently representative of Democratic thought.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 49: I agree this isn’t that difficult. I responded to Dr. Veith’s post by saying that I didn’t remember a discernible attitude among Democrats, immediately post-election, to move toward Republican positions in view of the election results. Instead, I remember anger and a feeling that Bush had stolen the election again, with a focus on Ohio, and cited a source. You said my memory must be extremely faulty, disparaged my citation, and cited one article in support of the notion that one Democrat, who was pro-Iraq War (how many Democrats were pro-Iraq War by 2004?), contemplated moving more toward Republican positions. Well, it just so happened that I read TNR fairly regularly in those days, and heard a number of radio interviews with Peter Beinart, and knew that he was pro-war at that time, so I brought it up with you. I don’t really see how you can hold to the position that a pro-war Democrat was at all representative of the Democratic party in 2004, but if you want to explain why Mr. Beinart is representative of Democrats in 2004 (which you have not done), I will be glad to listen.

    I also cited further evidence of my view that the theme that the election was stolen in Ohio rang a lot louder in Democratic circles than any notion that Democrats needed to move toward Republican positions. One U.S. Senator and 31 U.S. House members voting against recognizing the Ohio electors was an extraordinary act, and strong evidence for my position. However, while you have been accusing me of failing to pre-validate any further evidence you may decide to offer, you have utterly ignored this compelling evidence for my recollection.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 49: I agree this isn’t that difficult. I responded to Dr. Veith’s post by saying that I didn’t remember a discernible attitude among Democrats, immediately post-election, to move toward Republican positions in view of the election results. Instead, I remember anger and a feeling that Bush had stolen the election again, with a focus on Ohio, and cited a source. You said my memory must be extremely faulty, disparaged my citation, and cited one article in support of the notion that one Democrat, who was pro-Iraq War (how many Democrats were pro-Iraq War by 2004?), contemplated moving more toward Republican positions. Well, it just so happened that I read TNR fairly regularly in those days, and heard a number of radio interviews with Peter Beinart, and knew that he was pro-war at that time, so I brought it up with you. I don’t really see how you can hold to the position that a pro-war Democrat was at all representative of the Democratic party in 2004, but if you want to explain why Mr. Beinart is representative of Democrats in 2004 (which you have not done), I will be glad to listen.

    I also cited further evidence of my view that the theme that the election was stolen in Ohio rang a lot louder in Democratic circles than any notion that Democrats needed to move toward Republican positions. One U.S. Senator and 31 U.S. House members voting against recognizing the Ohio electors was an extraordinary act, and strong evidence for my position. However, while you have been accusing me of failing to pre-validate any further evidence you may decide to offer, you have utterly ignored this compelling evidence for my recollection.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, it’s striking how many conversations have ended, as this one now has, with your simply refusing to answer my questions.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don, it’s striking how many conversations have ended, as this one now has, with your simply refusing to answer my questions.

  • DonS

    It’s an unanswerable question, tODD. It’s a hypothetical. I responded to one specific piece of evidence. I don’t really know how to respond to non-evidence.

    And, of course, you completely ignored my evidence and questions, but I guess somehow yours are more vital.

  • DonS

    It’s an unanswerable question, tODD. It’s a hypothetical. I responded to one specific piece of evidence. I don’t really know how to respond to non-evidence.

    And, of course, you completely ignored my evidence and questions, but I guess somehow yours are more vital.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So, for the record, you consider the question “What media outlets were representative of Democrats’ thoughts in 2004?” to be, and I quote, “unanswerable”. Mm-hmm. Sure. I don’t believe you.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So, for the record, you consider the question “What media outlets were representative of Democrats’ thoughts in 2004?” to be, and I quote, “unanswerable”. Mm-hmm. Sure. I don’t believe you.

  • DonS

    Well, tODD @ 53, I certainly don’t remember the Democratic media outlets of 2004, in toto, and I am not a Democrat. However, I do not believe that the pro-war position was a mainstream Democratic one in 2004. Do you? You never responded to my substantive refutation substantively, so I have no idea.

    In fact, of course, you never responded to anything I said substantively. I’m the only one who is supposed to be substantive, I guess.

  • DonS

    Well, tODD @ 53, I certainly don’t remember the Democratic media outlets of 2004, in toto, and I am not a Democrat. However, I do not believe that the pro-war position was a mainstream Democratic one in 2004. Do you? You never responded to my substantive refutation substantively, so I have no idea.

    In fact, of course, you never responded to anything I said substantively. I’m the only one who is supposed to be substantive, I guess.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dodge, dodge, dodge. “In toto”? Please. You haven’t even named one.

    Sure looks aaaaaaawfully convenient that you know for sure that one source I tried doesn’t count, but cannot — no matter how! many! times! I ask — name one that would. I guess we’ll both just have to agree that your memory is superior to any facts, because all facts have been summarily dismissed from evidence. And isn’t that nice?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dodge, dodge, dodge. “In toto”? Please. You haven’t even named one.

    Sure looks aaaaaaawfully convenient that you know for sure that one source I tried doesn’t count, but cannot — no matter how! many! times! I ask — name one that would. I guess we’ll both just have to agree that your memory is superior to any facts, because all facts have been summarily dismissed from evidence. And isn’t that nice?

  • DonS

    Hmm, tODD @ 55. Why don’t you defend that one source substantively, instead of resorting to the snarky taunt. Where am I wrong, tODD? I’m still waiting for you to actually say something substantive.

  • DonS

    Hmm, tODD @ 55. Why don’t you defend that one source substantively, instead of resorting to the snarky taunt. Where am I wrong, tODD? I’m still waiting for you to actually say something substantive.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@56):

    Why don’t you defend that one source substantively, instead of resorting to the snarky taunt.

    Um, hello? Because you’ve already dismissed it, that’s why! What value is there in my trying to convince you otherwise? Do you think that you’ve demonstrated yourself open to persuasion on this point? Come on.

    I have been, for many, many comments now, been trying to discover what sources you will consider, because I am convinced that it will not be hard to find evidence for Veith’s and my claim, contrary to your position. So I’m willing to let TNR go, because it’s not worth my time.

    Which is sort of a funny thing to say, given how very much time I’ve wasted simply trying to get you to name a few — a few, mind you! — sources that you would be open to considering. Personally, I just think at this point you don’t want to actually look at the facts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@56):

    Why don’t you defend that one source substantively, instead of resorting to the snarky taunt.

    Um, hello? Because you’ve already dismissed it, that’s why! What value is there in my trying to convince you otherwise? Do you think that you’ve demonstrated yourself open to persuasion on this point? Come on.

    I have been, for many, many comments now, been trying to discover what sources you will consider, because I am convinced that it will not be hard to find evidence for Veith’s and my claim, contrary to your position. So I’m willing to let TNR go, because it’s not worth my time.

    Which is sort of a funny thing to say, given how very much time I’ve wasted simply trying to get you to name a few — a few, mind you! — sources that you would be open to considering. Personally, I just think at this point you don’t want to actually look at the facts.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 57: You do understand the difference between “dismissing” something and refuting it, don’t you? I considered the source you cited, and responded substantively as to why I didn’t agree with you that the author was representative of Democratic thought in 2004. That’s not the same as “dismissing” it. I am opinionated, but not closed minded.

    Of course, it would help your argumentation a bit if you didn’t open your argument with insulting things like

    Then you have an exceedingly poor memory that is oddly populated with useless trivia. You sound like you’ve been consuming partisan media for well over a decade, if all you remember is left-wing conspiracy theories.

    . Measured argument goes a long way toward the goal substantive discussion, rather than resorting to insults.

    So, tell me where I’m wrong, substantively, in my refutation that a pro-war Democrat in 2004 was not representative of mainstream Democratic thought.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 57: You do understand the difference between “dismissing” something and refuting it, don’t you? I considered the source you cited, and responded substantively as to why I didn’t agree with you that the author was representative of Democratic thought in 2004. That’s not the same as “dismissing” it. I am opinionated, but not closed minded.

    Of course, it would help your argumentation a bit if you didn’t open your argument with insulting things like

    Then you have an exceedingly poor memory that is oddly populated with useless trivia. You sound like you’ve been consuming partisan media for well over a decade, if all you remember is left-wing conspiracy theories.

    . Measured argument goes a long way toward the goal substantive discussion, rather than resorting to insults.

    So, tell me where I’m wrong, substantively, in my refutation that a pro-war Democrat in 2004 was not representative of mainstream Democratic thought.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@58), heal thyself.

    Also, hello?

    I’m willing to let TNR go, because it’s not worth my time.

    I don’t care about TNR. I’m giving it to you. It’s yours. Point: Don. Let’s look at the rest of the available evidence, shall we?

    But you still haven’t answered my question. My simple, basic question. I know you won’t, at this point. I mean, if you would, you’d have done so by now, wouldn’t you? I just enjoy seeing how many ways you can conjure up to avoid answering it.

    You want to convince me your argument here is not merely the product of a decade’s worth of consuming right-wing “partisan media”? Then let’s discuss the media that, by definition, falls outside that narrow scope. Let’s see what the evidence actually says.

    You tell me where to look, and I’ll do the research. It’s so easy. The only reason I could think you would not accept such an invitation is … oh, but then, you’re above that, aren’t you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@58), heal thyself.

    Also, hello?

    I’m willing to let TNR go, because it’s not worth my time.

    I don’t care about TNR. I’m giving it to you. It’s yours. Point: Don. Let’s look at the rest of the available evidence, shall we?

    But you still haven’t answered my question. My simple, basic question. I know you won’t, at this point. I mean, if you would, you’d have done so by now, wouldn’t you? I just enjoy seeing how many ways you can conjure up to avoid answering it.

    You want to convince me your argument here is not merely the product of a decade’s worth of consuming right-wing “partisan media”? Then let’s discuss the media that, by definition, falls outside that narrow scope. Let’s see what the evidence actually says.

    You tell me where to look, and I’ll do the research. It’s so easy. The only reason I could think you would not accept such an invitation is … oh, but then, you’re above that, aren’t you?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 59: So, rather than engage substantively on the war issue, and actually support your statement that the TNR article you cited represented mainstream Democratic views, you’ll just concede? OK.

    So, you haven’t answered ANY of my questions, even though you began this conversation by attacking and impugning my memory. Do you think the votes of 33 duly elected Democratic members of Congress to not recognize the Ohio electors indicates anything about the attitude of Democrats toward their loss in the 2004 election?

    And, OK, I’ll answer your question: A partial list of media reflecting mainstream Democratic thought in 2004: Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, Slate, New York Times, Dan Rather/CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC (actually not typical — far left), CNN, the Lost Angeles Times, USA Today …

  • DonS

    tODD @ 59: So, rather than engage substantively on the war issue, and actually support your statement that the TNR article you cited represented mainstream Democratic views, you’ll just concede? OK.

    So, you haven’t answered ANY of my questions, even though you began this conversation by attacking and impugning my memory. Do you think the votes of 33 duly elected Democratic members of Congress to not recognize the Ohio electors indicates anything about the attitude of Democrats toward their loss in the 2004 election?

    And, OK, I’ll answer your question: A partial list of media reflecting mainstream Democratic thought in 2004: Newsweek, Time, Washington Post, Slate, New York Times, Dan Rather/CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC (actually not typical — far left), CNN, the Lost Angeles Times, USA Today …

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@60), by far the easiest of those to search is Slate, since it seems to consist of more opinion pieces than the others.

    Still, it took me almost no time to find this rather extensive series of essays on exactly the thing Veith and I were talking about. It’s called “Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue: Depressed liberals analyze what ails them.”

    I could search out the other sources, but I’d have to work harder, and right there are collected over a dozen essays on the very point Veith and I were making.

    If you don’t recall any of that, again, I’d suggest it’s because you weren’t actually listen to liberals in 2004, you were listening to right-wing partisan media attempt to characterize liberals in such a way as to ridicule them. Thus your near-exclusive focus on Ohio as the only possible thing liberals could have been talking about.

    I still think you’re in denial about your partisan bubble, but at least, after many repeated requests, you did finally answer my question so I could prove you wrong. Like I suspected, it wasn’t that hard. Once you finally coughed up a list.

    Now it’s your turn to tell me why none of those Slate essays count.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@60), by far the easiest of those to search is Slate, since it seems to consist of more opinion pieces than the others.

    Still, it took me almost no time to find this rather extensive series of essays on exactly the thing Veith and I were talking about. It’s called “Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue: Depressed liberals analyze what ails them.”

    I could search out the other sources, but I’d have to work harder, and right there are collected over a dozen essays on the very point Veith and I were making.

    If you don’t recall any of that, again, I’d suggest it’s because you weren’t actually listen to liberals in 2004, you were listening to right-wing partisan media attempt to characterize liberals in such a way as to ridicule them. Thus your near-exclusive focus on Ohio as the only possible thing liberals could have been talking about.

    I still think you’re in denial about your partisan bubble, but at least, after many repeated requests, you did finally answer my question so I could prove you wrong. Like I suspected, it wasn’t that hard. Once you finally coughed up a list.

    Now it’s your turn to tell me why none of those Slate essays count.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Also, for the record, Don, I’d really love to know how you’d characterize The New Republic in 2004, since it is obviously not reliably Democratic enough. Centrist? Republican?

    Because it is wholly risible that you would rate TNR as somehow to the right of, well, nearly every actual news outlet out there.

    Sure, sure, there was Beinart’s stance on Iraq. I get that. It’s one issue. You might also have noticed that Beinart also wrote a book called The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. And, according to your list, I am to understand that this man is less reliably liberal than anyone writing articles at Newsweek or CNN. Sure, okay.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Also, for the record, Don, I’d really love to know how you’d characterize The New Republic in 2004, since it is obviously not reliably Democratic enough. Centrist? Republican?

    Because it is wholly risible that you would rate TNR as somehow to the right of, well, nearly every actual news outlet out there.

    Sure, sure, there was Beinart’s stance on Iraq. I get that. It’s one issue. You might also have noticed that Beinart also wrote a book called The Good Fight: Why Liberals—and Only Liberals—Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again. And, according to your list, I am to understand that this man is less reliably liberal than anyone writing articles at Newsweek or CNN. Sure, okay.

  • DonS

    tODD, I guess you have finally given up your notion that mainstream media is non-partisan, since, except for Slate, all I did was give you a list of MSM media outlets ;)

  • DonS

    tODD, I guess you have finally given up your notion that mainstream media is non-partisan, since, except for Slate, all I did was give you a list of MSM media outlets ;)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@63), no, I’m just ignoring most of what you say these days, since it seems so obviously informed by the overconsumption of one-sided, right-wing media. You got offended when I started this conversation by pointing that out, and yet here we are. I’ve shown you that your memory about 2004 was wrong — from just one of the sources you finally, finally deigned to name, no less — and it still doesn’t seem to have sunk in for you. I doubt it was ever possible to change your mind by exposing it to facts. Oh well.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@63), no, I’m just ignoring most of what you say these days, since it seems so obviously informed by the overconsumption of one-sided, right-wing media. You got offended when I started this conversation by pointing that out, and yet here we are. I’ve shown you that your memory about 2004 was wrong — from just one of the sources you finally, finally deigned to name, no less — and it still doesn’t seem to have sunk in for you. I doubt it was ever possible to change your mind by exposing it to facts. Oh well.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 64: The only thing I get offended by is personal pettiness. Argumentation by ad hominem and innuendo rather than by reference to logic and facts. Our discussion began with me merely making an observation that I did not recall, in 2004, this Democratic sentiment, as stated by Dr. Veith in the original post: “They (Democrats) too were worrying…if they needed to give up their liberalism and become more like Republicans”. Instead, I recall anger at what was perceived a stolen election in Ohio. Obviously, I was not saying that every Democrat thought the election was stolen, 0r that no Democrat thought that Democrats should get more conservative. But I recall a lot more anger than I do a sense that Democrats should begin moving in the direction of Republican policies.

    You responded by citing an (yes, a single) article in TNR and using it as a hammer to insist that my memory had been “proven” wrong, and was “exceedingly poor”. Argumentation by anecdote , coupled with a personal insult! An odd approach, but you are tODD, so that’s how you roll.

    I responded with evidence that 32 Democratic elected members of Congress voted against recognizing the Ohio electors because of a belief that the election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. I also reminded you that TNR was pro-war in 2004, and the Democrats has specifically campaigned against Bush’s prosecution of the war. So, TNR might not be a good representation of Democrats in 2004. You have persistently ignored Ohio electors evidence and the pro-war issue. Instead, I am treated to the new tidbit that “I’m just ignoring most of what you say these days, since it seems so obviously informed by the overconsumption of one-sided, right-wing media.” Now, what that false, baseless, charge has to do with our conversation, I have no idea. But I guess the focus on personal attack does allow you to conveniently ignore the factual basis underpinning my original comment. You can live in your own little dream world where your anecdotes are better than anyone else’s anecdotes, and “prove” that you are “right” and I am “wrong”.

    Incidentally, did you read the Slate essays you cited? They repudiate, as a whole, any notion of continuing on with the 1990′s DLC approach of becoming more conservative, shrinking government, and moving to the right on moral issues. They insist that red states are Neanderthal in their thinking. And they focus primarily on messaging, not policy adjustments. And these were published the very day after the 2004 election, when Democrats would have been expected to be at their most circumspect.

    But, of course, you “proved” me wrong. Because you said so. Nothing more, like dealing with facts and substantive argument, need occur.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 64: The only thing I get offended by is personal pettiness. Argumentation by ad hominem and innuendo rather than by reference to logic and facts. Our discussion began with me merely making an observation that I did not recall, in 2004, this Democratic sentiment, as stated by Dr. Veith in the original post: “They (Democrats) too were worrying…if they needed to give up their liberalism and become more like Republicans”. Instead, I recall anger at what was perceived a stolen election in Ohio. Obviously, I was not saying that every Democrat thought the election was stolen, 0r that no Democrat thought that Democrats should get more conservative. But I recall a lot more anger than I do a sense that Democrats should begin moving in the direction of Republican policies.

    You responded by citing an (yes, a single) article in TNR and using it as a hammer to insist that my memory had been “proven” wrong, and was “exceedingly poor”. Argumentation by anecdote , coupled with a personal insult! An odd approach, but you are tODD, so that’s how you roll.

    I responded with evidence that 32 Democratic elected members of Congress voted against recognizing the Ohio electors because of a belief that the election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. I also reminded you that TNR was pro-war in 2004, and the Democrats has specifically campaigned against Bush’s prosecution of the war. So, TNR might not be a good representation of Democrats in 2004. You have persistently ignored Ohio electors evidence and the pro-war issue. Instead, I am treated to the new tidbit that “I’m just ignoring most of what you say these days, since it seems so obviously informed by the overconsumption of one-sided, right-wing media.” Now, what that false, baseless, charge has to do with our conversation, I have no idea. But I guess the focus on personal attack does allow you to conveniently ignore the factual basis underpinning my original comment. You can live in your own little dream world where your anecdotes are better than anyone else’s anecdotes, and “prove” that you are “right” and I am “wrong”.

    Incidentally, did you read the Slate essays you cited? They repudiate, as a whole, any notion of continuing on with the 1990′s DLC approach of becoming more conservative, shrinking government, and moving to the right on moral issues. They insist that red states are Neanderthal in their thinking. And they focus primarily on messaging, not policy adjustments. And these were published the very day after the 2004 election, when Democrats would have been expected to be at their most circumspect.

    But, of course, you “proved” me wrong. Because you said so. Nothing more, like dealing with facts and substantive argument, need occur.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@65), you complain about:

    Argumentation by ad hominem and innuendo rather than by reference to logic and facts.

    And yet I can’t help but notice that you keep dismissing any facts I introduce as evidence.

    And please. This was never merely a discussion over what you happened to recall or not. You were clearly disputing Veith’s (and my) version of history. Which you have repeatedly attempted to do by trying to make the discussion solely about Ohio, as if it were a simple either-or choice. I have done my best to point out to you, repeatedly (@43, 45, 47, 61), that it is not. I get it, Don. All you really want to talk about is Ohio, not what any other Democrats were talking about. Hey, whaddya know, it really does sound like your version of history was almost completely informed by right-wing media sources that also like to cherry-pick their stories so as to make Democrats look paranoid and ridiculous! This is why I don’t really care what you happen to “recall” or not, and have attempted to make this about what we can actually find out there in Factland. A search that you have engaged in only very, very reluctantly.

    You responded by citing an (yes, a single) article in TNR and using it as a hammer to insist that my memory had been “proven” wrong…

    Wrong again. First of all, you might notice that I only ever claimed to “prove” you wrong when I referred to the 16 Slate articles. So that’s shoddy of you. Secondly, are you serious? I introduced the link to TNR as such:

    Seriously, it took me almost no time to find but one of many articles from 2004 at The New Republic…

    Do you see that? Am I claiming it’s the sum total of all possible evidence? Or am I claiming it’s the first thing I found without trying very hard, suggesting that there might be a lot more where that came from? Again, shoddy work, Don.

    You then went on to complain about “Argumentation by anecdote”, even as your main argument here has been based on something as flimsy as what you happen to “recall” or not. Oh, and one vote in Congress. And a conspiracy-nut site. Yes, that certainly is far more substantative than “argumentation by anecdote”, isn’t it, Don? Certainly no way any other Democrats could’ve been thinking something else, huh?

    And even if TNR wasn’t toeing the line with respect to the Iraq War, you still vastly overplay your hand in denying that they were otherwise “fairly representative of liberal thought”, as I originally claimed. Their pages were written by liberals. Read by liberals. They referred to themselves as “liberals”. Yes, I think we could learn a thing or two about the liberal response to 2004 by reading TNR — better than by reading a mainstream news outlet, as you suggested. But you want to ignore the TNR, article, so I didn’t bother to argue the point very much. It was, as I said, merely the first article I’d found that substantiated Veith’s point.

    And may I note here that you’ve conveniently forgotten most of Veith’s original statement, to which you responded:

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again, if they needed to give up their liberalism and become more like Republicans.

    You have, of course, focused entirely on the last phrase, completely ignoring the rest of it. Again, convenient.

    But, yes, I did at least skim the Slate essays. And, even if we ignore the rest of Veith’s original statement and only focus, like you, on the last part for some reason, I still see plenty of evidence for that — from a source that you yourself suggested.

    Vision without details beats details without vision. President Bush put forward a powerful and compelling philosophy of what the government should do at home and abroad: Expand liberty. You can disagree with Bush’s implementation of that vision, but objecting to it as a matter of principle isn’t a political winner. …

    People are voting Republican because they think you’re weak. And, let’s face it, you are weak. You say you’ll defend this country, but then you go on about consulting other governments, cultivating goodwill, and playing well with others. You make a world full of terrorists sound like kindergarten. … I’m not asking you to act like you care about this stuff. I’m asking you to care about it for real, and not just at election time. …

    Democrats need to move right. This is the animating philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council, a reform group within the Democratic Party. [Yes, the author then goes on to decry the DLC; but please note that he at least acknowledges the prominence of this strain of Democratic thought -- unlike you, Don] …

    When thinking of values, faith, and how to win elections, it’s useful to ask, What Would Clinton Do? Bill Clinton always combined economic liberalism with a handful of cultural issues designed to appeal to red-state voters: welfare reform, crime, and national service. … For that reason, I think the Democrats must swallow hard and reassess their approach to abortion. … the Democrats need to be able to speak about faith in a way that doesn’t seem phony and alien. …

    Before the Democrats can cure their morality deficit disorder, they must first diagnose the insidiously effective strain of virtue advanced by the Republicans. …

    Today, as liberals, as Democrats, and as progressive voters, we must acknowledge with humility that what we stand for no longer resonates with a sizeable chunk of voting Americans. …

    So, dump the croissants and spend some time at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall. Go to the local Wal-Mart, not to Starbucks. The Democrats might learn a lot more and then begin to understand the long road to winning this republic back.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@65), you complain about:

    Argumentation by ad hominem and innuendo rather than by reference to logic and facts.

    And yet I can’t help but notice that you keep dismissing any facts I introduce as evidence.

    And please. This was never merely a discussion over what you happened to recall or not. You were clearly disputing Veith’s (and my) version of history. Which you have repeatedly attempted to do by trying to make the discussion solely about Ohio, as if it were a simple either-or choice. I have done my best to point out to you, repeatedly (@43, 45, 47, 61), that it is not. I get it, Don. All you really want to talk about is Ohio, not what any other Democrats were talking about. Hey, whaddya know, it really does sound like your version of history was almost completely informed by right-wing media sources that also like to cherry-pick their stories so as to make Democrats look paranoid and ridiculous! This is why I don’t really care what you happen to “recall” or not, and have attempted to make this about what we can actually find out there in Factland. A search that you have engaged in only very, very reluctantly.

    You responded by citing an (yes, a single) article in TNR and using it as a hammer to insist that my memory had been “proven” wrong…

    Wrong again. First of all, you might notice that I only ever claimed to “prove” you wrong when I referred to the 16 Slate articles. So that’s shoddy of you. Secondly, are you serious? I introduced the link to TNR as such:

    Seriously, it took me almost no time to find but one of many articles from 2004 at The New Republic…

    Do you see that? Am I claiming it’s the sum total of all possible evidence? Or am I claiming it’s the first thing I found without trying very hard, suggesting that there might be a lot more where that came from? Again, shoddy work, Don.

    You then went on to complain about “Argumentation by anecdote”, even as your main argument here has been based on something as flimsy as what you happen to “recall” or not. Oh, and one vote in Congress. And a conspiracy-nut site. Yes, that certainly is far more substantative than “argumentation by anecdote”, isn’t it, Don? Certainly no way any other Democrats could’ve been thinking something else, huh?

    And even if TNR wasn’t toeing the line with respect to the Iraq War, you still vastly overplay your hand in denying that they were otherwise “fairly representative of liberal thought”, as I originally claimed. Their pages were written by liberals. Read by liberals. They referred to themselves as “liberals”. Yes, I think we could learn a thing or two about the liberal response to 2004 by reading TNR — better than by reading a mainstream news outlet, as you suggested. But you want to ignore the TNR, article, so I didn’t bother to argue the point very much. It was, as I said, merely the first article I’d found that substantiated Veith’s point.

    And may I note here that you’ve conveniently forgotten most of Veith’s original statement, to which you responded:

    First of all, remember that the Democrats were going through the very same depression with the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004. They too were worrying if their party would survive, if they could ever win the hearts of an American majority again, if they needed to give up their liberalism and become more like Republicans.

    You have, of course, focused entirely on the last phrase, completely ignoring the rest of it. Again, convenient.

    But, yes, I did at least skim the Slate essays. And, even if we ignore the rest of Veith’s original statement and only focus, like you, on the last part for some reason, I still see plenty of evidence for that — from a source that you yourself suggested.

    Vision without details beats details without vision. President Bush put forward a powerful and compelling philosophy of what the government should do at home and abroad: Expand liberty. You can disagree with Bush’s implementation of that vision, but objecting to it as a matter of principle isn’t a political winner. …

    People are voting Republican because they think you’re weak. And, let’s face it, you are weak. You say you’ll defend this country, but then you go on about consulting other governments, cultivating goodwill, and playing well with others. You make a world full of terrorists sound like kindergarten. … I’m not asking you to act like you care about this stuff. I’m asking you to care about it for real, and not just at election time. …

    Democrats need to move right. This is the animating philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council, a reform group within the Democratic Party. [Yes, the author then goes on to decry the DLC; but please note that he at least acknowledges the prominence of this strain of Democratic thought -- unlike you, Don] …

    When thinking of values, faith, and how to win elections, it’s useful to ask, What Would Clinton Do? Bill Clinton always combined economic liberalism with a handful of cultural issues designed to appeal to red-state voters: welfare reform, crime, and national service. … For that reason, I think the Democrats must swallow hard and reassess their approach to abortion. … the Democrats need to be able to speak about faith in a way that doesn’t seem phony and alien. …

    Before the Democrats can cure their morality deficit disorder, they must first diagnose the insidiously effective strain of virtue advanced by the Republicans. …

    Today, as liberals, as Democrats, and as progressive voters, we must acknowledge with humility that what we stand for no longer resonates with a sizeable chunk of voting Americans. …

    So, dump the croissants and spend some time at a Veterans of Foreign Wars hall. Go to the local Wal-Mart, not to Starbucks. The Democrats might learn a lot more and then begin to understand the long road to winning this republic back.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 66: “And yet I can’t help but notice that you keep dismissing any facts I introduce as evidence.” — I didn’t dismiss it, I addressed it, and explained why I didn’t think it made my recollection false, as you claimed. You may disagree, which should have caused you to respond with explanation as to why you think I’m wrong. That’s discussion. Instead, you resorted to name calling and disparagement. At the same time, you completely ignored the evidence I presented.

    And please. This was never merely a discussion over what you happened to recall or not. You were clearly disputing Veith’s (and my) version of history.

    NO, I was disputing Dr. Veith’s version of history. You had not arrived on scene. With respect to you, I have merely been defending my original statement against your aggressive attacks, which began with your first comment, even though nothing I said was hostile to you. Unfortunately, you have refused to engage.

    Which you have repeatedly attempted to do by trying to make the discussion solely about Ohio, as if it were a simple either-or choice.

    Huh? I never tried to make this solely about Ohio. In my initial comment, I cited Ohio as being, in my recollection, a more prominent sentiment among Democrats than any notion of moving toward Republican positions. You responded that I had cited to a site you did not respect, so I followed up with a Wikipedia article reminding you that 33 Democratic members of Congress were so enraged by the Ohio issue that they voted not to recognize the Ohio electors. You ignored that, so the discussion could not advance any farther.

    Hey, whaddya know, it really does sound like your version of history was almost completely informed by right-wing media sources that also like to cherry-pick their stories so as to make Democrats look paranoid and ridiculous!

    That’s absurd. The initial site I cited to was a left-wing site, and then I cited to Wikipedia, which documented the vote. On what basis do you make the completely unwarranted assumption that I was “almost completely informed by right-wing media sources”? You’re just making stuff up, tODD.

    Do you see that? Am I claiming it’s the sum total of all possible evidence? Or am I claiming it’s the first thing I found without trying very hard, suggesting that there might be a lot more where that came from? Again, shoddy work, Don.

    But, tODD, when the “first thing” is refuted, you should ante up more evidence, if you are going to insist on your point, or respond to the refutation. Explain why you think a small minority of Democrats who argued that Democrats should be more respectful of the fact that we were at war during the campaign, and continued to argue that in the immediate aftermath of the election loss, are somehow exemplary of the fact that Democrats, because of the election loss, were saying that they should move toward Republican policies. In other words, engage in substantive discussion. Defend your citation, as I did. But you chose a different course — demagogue your opponent. That’s shoddy. And shabby.

    You then went on to complain about “Argumentation by anecdote”, even as your main argument here has been based on something as flimsy as what you happen to “recall” or not.

    Um, that’s what my initial comment was based on. What I recall. I wasn’t writing a treatise. Which is why I found you aggressive attempt to “disprove” my recollection so absurd.

    Oh, and one vote in Congress. This deserves sole billing, for your arrogance. The “one vote in Congress” involved an utterly routine vote to recognize state electors for the Electoral College coronation of President Bush. This would have come out if you had substantively engaged in discussion, instead of demagoguing. See this article for more background on the process, and how rare it is for Congress to raise any objection to state electors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 Excerpt from the article:

    Objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it did occur during the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. Vice President Gore, who as Vice President was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised only by several House members and would have favored his candidacy, after no Senators would agree to jointly object. Objections were again raised in the vote count of the 2004 elections, and on that occasion the document was presented by one Representative and one Senator. Although the joint session was suspended, the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both Houses of Congress. If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a State’s votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally.

    You have, of course, focused entirely on the last phrase, completely ignoring the rest of it. Again, convenient.

    I’m confused by this comment, tODD. I was only ever responding to the last phrase. I quoted the rest of the paragraph initially for context. I’m entitled to respond to whatever I want to, aren’t I? Just checking. Perhaps I should have made that a little clearer in my first comment, but it’s a blog comment after all!. I certainly clarified that fact in my subsequent comments, and you could have asked, rather than attacked, if you were unclear as to the point I was making.

    And, even if we ignore the rest of Veith’s original statement and only focus, like you, on the last part for some reason

    Yes, um, the reason being that this part is all I was responding to. A pretty good one, indeed.

    As for the quotation at the end of your comment, that’s why I said this @65:

    They repudiate, as a whole, any notion of continuing on with the 1990′s DLC approach of becoming more conservative, shrinking government, and moving to the right on moral issues.

    Overall, the one essay that mentions moving right, out of 16, the one you quote from, has an overall them of repudiating this idea. Indeed, it says that “Democrats need to move right. This is the animating philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council”, but to support this notion, it cites to a 1996 article, a long time before 2004! I don’t think this essay “disproves” my recollection, as you seem smugly to insist.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 66: “And yet I can’t help but notice that you keep dismissing any facts I introduce as evidence.” — I didn’t dismiss it, I addressed it, and explained why I didn’t think it made my recollection false, as you claimed. You may disagree, which should have caused you to respond with explanation as to why you think I’m wrong. That’s discussion. Instead, you resorted to name calling and disparagement. At the same time, you completely ignored the evidence I presented.

    And please. This was never merely a discussion over what you happened to recall or not. You were clearly disputing Veith’s (and my) version of history.

    NO, I was disputing Dr. Veith’s version of history. You had not arrived on scene. With respect to you, I have merely been defending my original statement against your aggressive attacks, which began with your first comment, even though nothing I said was hostile to you. Unfortunately, you have refused to engage.

    Which you have repeatedly attempted to do by trying to make the discussion solely about Ohio, as if it were a simple either-or choice.

    Huh? I never tried to make this solely about Ohio. In my initial comment, I cited Ohio as being, in my recollection, a more prominent sentiment among Democrats than any notion of moving toward Republican positions. You responded that I had cited to a site you did not respect, so I followed up with a Wikipedia article reminding you that 33 Democratic members of Congress were so enraged by the Ohio issue that they voted not to recognize the Ohio electors. You ignored that, so the discussion could not advance any farther.

    Hey, whaddya know, it really does sound like your version of history was almost completely informed by right-wing media sources that also like to cherry-pick their stories so as to make Democrats look paranoid and ridiculous!

    That’s absurd. The initial site I cited to was a left-wing site, and then I cited to Wikipedia, which documented the vote. On what basis do you make the completely unwarranted assumption that I was “almost completely informed by right-wing media sources”? You’re just making stuff up, tODD.

    Do you see that? Am I claiming it’s the sum total of all possible evidence? Or am I claiming it’s the first thing I found without trying very hard, suggesting that there might be a lot more where that came from? Again, shoddy work, Don.

    But, tODD, when the “first thing” is refuted, you should ante up more evidence, if you are going to insist on your point, or respond to the refutation. Explain why you think a small minority of Democrats who argued that Democrats should be more respectful of the fact that we were at war during the campaign, and continued to argue that in the immediate aftermath of the election loss, are somehow exemplary of the fact that Democrats, because of the election loss, were saying that they should move toward Republican policies. In other words, engage in substantive discussion. Defend your citation, as I did. But you chose a different course — demagogue your opponent. That’s shoddy. And shabby.

    You then went on to complain about “Argumentation by anecdote”, even as your main argument here has been based on something as flimsy as what you happen to “recall” or not.

    Um, that’s what my initial comment was based on. What I recall. I wasn’t writing a treatise. Which is why I found you aggressive attempt to “disprove” my recollection so absurd.

    Oh, and one vote in Congress. This deserves sole billing, for your arrogance. The “one vote in Congress” involved an utterly routine vote to recognize state electors for the Electoral College coronation of President Bush. This would have come out if you had substantively engaged in discussion, instead of demagoguing. See this article for more background on the process, and how rare it is for Congress to raise any objection to state electors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29 Excerpt from the article:

    Objections to the electoral vote count are rarely raised, although it did occur during the vote count in 2001 after the close 2000 presidential election between Governor George W. Bush of Texas and the Vice President of the United States, Al Gore. Vice President Gore, who as Vice President was required to preside over his own Electoral College defeat (by five electoral votes), denied the objections, all of which were raised only by several House members and would have favored his candidacy, after no Senators would agree to jointly object. Objections were again raised in the vote count of the 2004 elections, and on that occasion the document was presented by one Representative and one Senator. Although the joint session was suspended, the objections were quickly disposed of and rejected by both Houses of Congress. If there are no objections or all objections are overruled, the presiding officer simply includes a State’s votes, as declared in the certificate of vote, in the official tally.

    You have, of course, focused entirely on the last phrase, completely ignoring the rest of it. Again, convenient.

    I’m confused by this comment, tODD. I was only ever responding to the last phrase. I quoted the rest of the paragraph initially for context. I’m entitled to respond to whatever I want to, aren’t I? Just checking. Perhaps I should have made that a little clearer in my first comment, but it’s a blog comment after all!. I certainly clarified that fact in my subsequent comments, and you could have asked, rather than attacked, if you were unclear as to the point I was making.

    And, even if we ignore the rest of Veith’s original statement and only focus, like you, on the last part for some reason

    Yes, um, the reason being that this part is all I was responding to. A pretty good one, indeed.

    As for the quotation at the end of your comment, that’s why I said this @65:

    They repudiate, as a whole, any notion of continuing on with the 1990′s DLC approach of becoming more conservative, shrinking government, and moving to the right on moral issues.

    Overall, the one essay that mentions moving right, out of 16, the one you quote from, has an overall them of repudiating this idea. Indeed, it says that “Democrats need to move right. This is the animating philosophy of the Democratic Leadership Council”, but to support this notion, it cites to a 1996 article, a long time before 2004! I don’t think this essay “disproves” my recollection, as you seem smugly to insist.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X