I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to this comment:

I'm confused. What is it you are objecting to? Are you suggesting Republicans shouldn't be despised for their antiquated ideas of "patriotism" and professed beliefs in their imaginary sky god, or whatever?

you are a true American obviously.. as that swell gal, Gov Palin has demonstrated, ignorance of matters of the state is the new 'value'. Just like swept up hand flags are the new 'lapel pins'.

It is after all.. all about the narrative ...

I agree, and I'm shocked Republicans could even think they could gain political points vainly attempted to equate being a Mayor of a city with being a community organizer. Or being the chief executive of a state with a population about the same size as Delaware's with making executive decisions in a political campaign. That's just silly and I don't know how they expected to get away with that nonsense.

What the Republicans should be despised for, and not really the republicans but the neocons currently in power, is this--using "patriotism" as a weapon against those whose political ideas differ from their own, and suggesting a lack of such patariotism against their opponents.

The standard weapon of the neocons is to do that, you can see it here on the boards since the beginning. Dissent is squahed by the appelation of "you're not patriotic, you're a socialist, you're a Quisling, you're a traitor, you're Lord Haw Haw." That's what's hateful about the neocons attempts at argument.

Of course, it's all they have, since their policies have failed so miserably, but try telling folks that the economy is bad, that we're in recession, that the war in Iraq is folly, or that the President is okay with Americans torturing people, and the answer you'll receive is "you are not an American."

No real American would find that less than despicable.

Thank goodness moderate centrists would never stoop to questioning one's "Americanism" based upon strongly worded allegory-laden dissenting opinion.

I shall, of course, rely upon your good judgment in the future as to who is or isn't a "real American."

Suggest why my saying the neocons use "patriotism" or the lack of it as a charge levelled against those who disagree with them.

Then disprove anything I said in my above post.

And we can begin a discussion.

Otherwise...shh.

My dear Dax. You're trying to confuse me, I think. All I did was acknowledge your professed ability to tell who "real Americans" are by what they do or do not find despicable and pledged to learn at the knee of the master.

You shouldn't look a gift disciple in the mouth.

Dude.. you are preaching to the choir.. I mean as if .. it's just crazy.. after all.. you're boy Rove has already laid down the problems with Governors ...

"Rove singled out Virginia governor Tim Kaine, also a Face The Nation guest, as an example of such a pick.

"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America." (FYI:former mayor of Richmond, population 200,000, former lieutenant governor of Virginia and now current Virginia governor)

Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"


After all Wasilla had a population of 9,000 when Palin was mayor.. and she's been Governor for almost 2 years.. and 3 electoral votes for the state of Alaska

when in reality..

"Obama acknowledged that his campaign had focused attention on his experience as a community organizer. But Obama said, "I would argue that doing work in the community to try and create jobs, to bring people together, to rejuvenate communities that have fallen on hard times, to set up job-training programs in areas that have been hard hit when the steel plants closed, that that's relevant only in understanding where I'm coming from, who I believe in, who I'm fighting for and why I'm in this race.

They haven't talked about the fact that I was a civil rights lawyer; they haven't talked about the fact that I taught constitutional law; they haven't talked about my work in the state legislature, in the United States Senate. They're talking about the three years of work that I did right out of college as if... I'm making the leap from two or three years out of college into the presidency." The Nation


it's refreshing to know that, you, too, see this ridiculous hyprocisy and strategy to not talk about the economy they trashed in 8 years.. The torture programs and prisons they advocated in 8 years.. The denigration of the US Constitution they've been able to achieve in 8 years... The environment they've managed to rape and pillage from for 8 years.

Well, now. I think there might be some room to quibble with your interpretation of what you, yourself, quote Rove as saying. You seem to see Rove talking about "the problems with Governors." Let's look, again, at what Karl Rove said:


I believe one could reasonably conclude that Rove wasn't point out problems with governors, but problems with "undistinguished" governors.


That's a point. But except for the mere mention of "job titles" Obama hasn't talked about those things either. OK, so he was a "civil rights lawyer." Was he good at it? What, if anything, did he accomplish? Did he argue any important cases before the courts? How did those cases turn out?

OK, so he "taught constitutional law." So what? Was there something in particular about that he can point to, other than he was a teacher? My Ex is a teacher. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for her for anything.

OK, so he was in the Illinois State Legislature. What, if any accomplishments, can he point to? I know it must piss him off when Republicans talk about how many times he voted "present." But does Mr. Obama have anything to present that might counter that image? He needs to talk about it.

Of course, there's his election to the U.S. Senate. That's commendable. His opponent in the race, as well as his V.P. running mate have also been elected to the Senate. But has Mr. Obama done anything, had his name on anything, been the driving force behind anything while he was in the Senate? I know he likes to remind people that he was "against the war" but of course, when the Senate was voting in favor of military action in Iraq Mr. Obama wasn't in the Senate, so his opposition cannot be backed up with an "on-the-record" vote since he wasn't there. But it would be helpful if he could expand upon what he's done since he was in the U.S. Senate.

We know he went to Harvard Law School after graduating from Columbia. Rather remarkable in itself since Harvard Law, from what I hear, tends to be rather snooty about who the admit and who they don't, and people who graduated without "honors" don't often get into Harvard Law. But Obama did.

Obama was a member of the Harvard Law Review, even being named editor, yet there seems to be a dearth of papers and articles he might have published during his time there. Perhaps they've been misplaced, but those might be worthwhile things to trot out to bolster Obama's qualifications.

Just to digress a moment, and I hesitate to suggest this, but based upon Mr. Obama's seemingly lackluster careers in college, in teaching, in the law, and in political office, a real cynic might sneeringly suggest that Barack Obama is the poster child for Affirmative Action. And such a cynic might further suggest that there is every possibility that Affirmative Action could result in the election of the President of the United States.

But back to business, if John McCain were to stand up and say, "I was a Navy Pilot, a U.S. Representative and a U.S. Senator so you need to elect me president." I'm sure some folks would be inclined to ask,"Excuse me, Senator, but could you sort of flesh those out for us a little bit."


Perhaps they hold alternate opinions on the matter. After all, if they thought like you do, then it follows that you would probably be voting for them.