Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Robert Novak on on Nov. 6, 2004 after Bush won a narrow victory:
Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?NOVAK: Of course it is. It's a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn't a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. ... So the people who say there's not a mandate want the president, now that he's won, to say, Oh, we're going to accept the liberalism that the -- that the voters rejected. But Mark, this is a conservative country, and it showed it on last Tuesday.
Robert Novak on Nov. 5, 2008:
The first Democratic Electoral College landslide in decades did not result in a tight race for control of Congress.When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama's win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
Damn, Obama said he'd bring change but I didn't think it would be this fast.
Politics
Comments
I love the mentality:
Republican pundit in 2004: "3.5 million votes, 51% = mandate from the people"
Republican pundit in 2008: "Just 7.5 million votes, only 53% = no mandate, narrow victory"
Republican pundit in 2000: "Control of both houses and the presidency by narrow margins (2000) = universal support for the conservative agenda"
Republican pundit in 2008: "Control of both houses and electoral college landslide = moderation and compromise is necessary if Obama wants to succeed."
The hypocrisy ... oh the hypocrisy.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 6, 2008 9:39 AM
Novak, ah yes. He's the one who facilitated treason by an unnamed source (Rove) in the White House. Aren't accessories to treason supposed to be shot?
Posted by: gary l. day | November 6, 2008 10:00 AM
I was going to say that after the election, if Novak saw his shadow we would have a week without wingnut-whining but then I remembered that Count Novakula casts no shadow. At least the Daily Show will still have wingnut fodder.
Posted by: Badger3k | November 6, 2008 10:39 AM
I was standing in line at the supermarket the other day and the guy behind me saw the Enquirer with Ted Kennedy's picture on the front page and said, "It's good that he's dying but bad that his niece will get his seat"--I wish I had remembered Novak. Tucker Carlson will probably fill his slippers quite well.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2008 11:11 AM
I'm not even surprised by the hypocrisy anymore. I'd be more surprised if they didn't spew BS.
Posted by: IasonOuabache | November 6, 2008 11:56 AM
Good point, IasonOuabache.
I think I'd be much more surprised to see an actual consistent position from any of the right wing talking heads.
Posted by: FastLane | November 6, 2008 12:00 PM
Just about what one would expect from a piece of filth like Nazi Novak, a member in good standing with Opus Dei and an asshole buddy of Robert Hansson, the Russian spy.
Posted by: SLC | November 6, 2008 12:05 PM
Robert Novak wouldn't know a mandate if it bounced off his windshield.
Posted by: Taz | November 6, 2008 1:05 PM
Now that you liberals have a mandate, what are you going to do with it? I expect that with a majority in the House and Senate, a commie in the White House and the potential to stack the Supreme Court, you-all should be able to transform the USA into a socialist eutopia that makes the Swedes hang their heads in shame.
Newt Gingrich gave the Congress 100 days to enact the conservative agenda he felt was mandated by the Repbulican control. They failed. He admitted it.
How long should we give the liberals now that their party has control of pretty much the entire Federal government?
This post is primarily tongue-in-cheek, very weakly influenced by the "Absurd Right Wing Spin" thread, but I would like to know what the liberals are actually going to do. When Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker, there were high expectations, none of which have come to pass.
Is it really going to be any different now? If so, how?
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 6, 2008 1:16 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 6, 2008 1:32 PM
>
The trouble with responding to Enquist's from-the-right query is that there is no acceptable answer for them. From the far-right pov, answer A will be "they're doing nothing" and answer B will be "everything they're doing is ineffectual at best, destructive at worst." Everyone is vulnerable to confirmation bias--but it's particularly virulent on the far range of the spectrum, right AND left.
Posted by: gary l. day | November 6, 2008 1:53 PM
The Democrats have had 49 seats in the Senate and a president who would veto any good they tried to do. Let's see what happens once the Democrats have real power. I can guarantee you Obama won't veto health care for poor sick children.
Posted by: Brandon | November 6, 2008 1:55 PM
Citizen Enquist:
Isn't that a swedish name? Whatever.
When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the house the reptilicans embarked on a scorched earth policy--sometheing they had demanded the democrats not do as it was unpatriotic. Not having anything like a vetoproof majority Pelosi has had to pick her fights (full disclosure: I dislike her AND Reid--a lot). Now that she will have a WH that will support the majorities initiative, well you can do the math. Also, the Bush administration is doing what they can to make the situation even worse before they are forced to vacate the WH--the fucking scumbags.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2008 1:55 PM
Eutopia: a positive utopia, different in that it means "perfect" but not "fictional".
Perhaps it wasn't an error?
Posted by: Guyincognito | November 6, 2008 1:57 PM
Eutopia: what they're striving for in Europe.
Posted by: ildi | November 6, 2008 2:07 PM
Michael Enquist:
The huge difference here is that before, the Democrats held a razor-thin majority and faced a Republican president; they could only pass something on partisan lines if they managed to keep all the aisle-crossers in line, and then Bush would just veto it because there was no hope of gathering a super-majority. The upshot was that the passage of "control" two years ago gave the Democrats the ability to stop the Republican agenda cold, but not enough to enact their own without a lot of negotiation with Republicans.
Now they have a more solid simple majority under control, and a friendly president. Which means they're finally a driving force, not just an unbeatable roadblock. We'll see what they do with that power.
Posted by: Nentuaby | November 6, 2008 2:17 PM
Yeah. We wouldn't want to be anything like one of the richest, best educated, healthiest, and most stable countries in the history of the world.
Posted by: Ick of the East | November 6, 2008 3:23 PM
Michael Enquist -
Thanks for the chuckle. Seriously, that was fucking great. I find it terribly amusing when (presumably) adults throw tantrums to rival those of my ten month old, when he doesn't get his way the moment it occurs to him he really wants something.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 6, 2008 4:00 PM
I actually think that Robert Novak might have had quite a few mandates.
Posted by: wobert | November 6, 2008 4:32 PM
Wow, aren't we an angry bunch of poor sports. You freaking got your wish and you are still bitchin and screaming. The Never Happy Party- you worked so hard to "get your country back" yet you have no clue what to do with it now. It will be interesting to see who you will be blaming when Oblahma fails....
Posted by: Jeff | November 6, 2008 5:41 PM
I sense that Michael Enquist morphing...
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 6, 2008 6:08 PM
Several people here confident that the liberals have enough numbers to actually accomplish something.
But is it true?
How many truly loyal Democrats are there in each house? What can be done when the Republicans decide to filibuster everything? And you know they will.
And where is Tip O'Neil when you need him?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 6, 2008 6:22 PM
Must be more of that Liberal Media Bias we keep hearing about...
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 6, 2008 7:04 PM
Well, it'll be interesting to see how many of the Vichycrats keep kissing up to the Republicans once the latter don't control the White House...
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 6, 2008 7:08 PM
Jeffy:
WTF are you going on about?
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2008 7:10 PM
Uh, Jeff?
What democommie said. And I'd like to know precisely what sort of "bitching and screaming" you saw in this thread previous to your (suspiciously trollish) screed.
Posted by: Chris Krolczyk | November 6, 2008 7:22 PM
I rest my case....thank god all the voting machines worked this time
Posted by: Jeffy | November 6, 2008 7:25 PM
what sort of "bitching and screaming" you saw in this thread previous to your (suspiciously trollish) screed
How bout this entire thread? Why not celebrate your victory? Talk about your change, your hype, I mean hope? Everyone is so fuckin negative on here. You don't want to fix anything, just complain. "Move On"
Posted by: Jeff | November 6, 2008 7:31 PM
Well, I doubt he meant it, but: Utopia from ou (no) + topia (place) = place that does not exist, while Eutopia from eu (good) = good place, perfect place. A socialist eutopia sounds like a worthy aim to me.
Posted by: The Ridger | November 6, 2008 8:09 PM
Well Jeff, with the mess that the Obama Administration is going to inherit,it's going to take more than 5 minutes to fix the innumerable problems. After the initial euphoria of an historic election victory,it's back to reality and the plethora of economic problems that the country faces.
A nine trillion dollar foreign debt, let me see,an increase in taxes to pay it off,but if we increase taxes to much we run the risk of stifling consumer spending. Which leads to a drop off in demand, which leads to higher unemployment,which in turn puts more pressure on the Federal budget.Realistically it will probably take the entire term of the next Administration just to lay the foundations for future economic prosperity.And no discernable difference will be noticed in the short term.
A pullback in the American overseas commitment is a sure bet,much to the chagrin of the neo con 'tards who are presently in charge.I suppose though Jeff you expect it all to be peaches and cream in a couple of days,hate to disappoint,a big mess means a big clean up.Also,the present mob still have time to make matters even worse.
In the situation that the USA finds itself in,economically, socially and militarily, keeping it simple is not an answer or an option.
Posted by: wobert | November 6, 2008 8:32 PM
"How bout this entire thread? Why not celebrate your victory? Talk about your change, your hype, I mean hope? Everyone is so fuckin negative on here."
Uh, specific example?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 6, 2008 8:40 PM
If you name a place "Utopia", doesn't it kind of defeat the whole purpose? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2008 8:59 PM
Incidentally 'eutopia' is unnesscessary neologism.
Sir Thomas More wrote "Utopia" in 1516 describing an imaginary island with perfect laws, morals, laws and so on. Thus 'utopia' became a perfect, but imaginary place.
Since the initial vowel was dropped "ou-" [gk: "not"] became conflated with "eu-" [gk: "good, well].
Over time the synonym of 'utopia' became 'dystopia'.
Thus endth the lesson -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2008 9:16 PM
Not in Texas apparently.
Posted by: wobert | November 6, 2008 9:16 PM
Boy, there seems to be a number of unhappy reptilicanshitheads commenting over here yesterday and today. Wonder what brought that on? People like Jeff just hate it when reality smacks them upside the head.
Posted by: democommie | November 6, 2008 9:39 PM
Sorry to rant, but the whole "evil socialism" thing has been bugging me-
Oh no, modern Capitalist nations with Socialist safety nets - how "frightening"! Has this person ever BEEN to Sweden or other parts of Europe criticized as Socialist? They must have spent time in a Swedish ghetto- oh yeah, there aren't any.
I am sure it's "terrifying" that there are wealthy nations where a basic standard of living is a human right, and everyone contributes to it proportionately. So many Americans prefer to live in a country full of poverty, crime, greed, instability, insecurity, and gross inequality, so long as they don't have to pay a dime in taxes towards the "common good". (Mention that phrase, and you are a radical)"Every man for himself" should not the basis for a modern society.
But how do we compare to a "socialist" Sweden???
Let's see, they have:
Accessible, excellent health care, economic security when faced with life's tragedies, high quality education across the nation, clean cities that don't have dangerous "ghettos", truly family friendly policies, nice parks without legions of homeless people, a commitment to the environment and more.
Plus:
access to the world best goods and services (and have the money to buy them!), jobs with 4 week paid vacations. There is great architecture and Art, a solid economy, plenty of wealth.
Now here is what we have:
The most costly health care in the world, with poor health outcomes, vast dangerous areas of blight and decay, large parts of the population living in poverty, quality education only for the fortunate, crime, declining wages, disappearing jobs, no job security, no safety net, a homeless problem, lots of wealth but only for 1% of citizens, not enough high paying jobs, 8 years of recession, rotting infrastructure, corporate thievery, shredded freedoms, and an overall decline in security and standard of living for 98% of our citizens.
But we pay less in taxes- not much when you add them all up and MORE if you count the value of the services. But we don't have to share, or worry about the rest of the community- yep that makes it ALL WORTH IT!!!!
That attitude is killing us.
It's not perfect in Sweden, but it they do have it better than we do- all because they realize that bettering society as a whole benefits the INDIVIDUAL AS WELL.
If anyone can point out a modern, industrialized society that has a better standard of living than the US, and the same freedoms we have, that is conservative, radically free-market, with privatized services (NO SOCIALIST PROGRAMS or SAFETY NETS!!!) PLEASE let me know where it is.
From my experience, all places with better overall standards (health/education/economy/lifespan) for 98% of their citizens are CAPITALIST with SOCIALIST features.
StaceyJW
Posted by: StaceyJW | November 6, 2008 9:41 PM
What StaceyJW said, and I'm from Sweden. A capitalist country with a conservative government. At least until 2010, then they're out - like their [neo]conservative brethren in the USA they never seem to get the hang of the Finances...but then again, I'd think it would be a bad idea to ask *me* to water your plants while you're on vacation for 2 months (I water my plants every six weeks, whether they need it or not); why have people who don't think there should really *be* a government, much less a "society", in that very government?! [/rant]
And for the record, there are homeless people here, only quite few (enough for you "conservatives"?). Socialist country, my @$$. But hey! There are no Gulags. Just come and visit, I'd be happy to accomodate.
Posted by: Pastor Bentonit | November 6, 2008 10:03 PM
Opps - Earlier I posted a sceed on 'eutopia' but spellchecked 'antonym' to 'synonym' in error, well anyway you get the idea. 'utopia' = 'eutopia' in English.
Stacey - Amen to that! apparently the 'Republican Retard Brigade' invading this thread have never heard of the saying: "A rising tide floats all boats". -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2008 10:07 PM
Why would anyone doubt that when I wrote eutopia, that's exactly what I meant?
I know the difference between eutopia, utopia, dystopia and myopia, in spite of my American public-school education. But I've also learned something from DingoJack. Thank you, sir.
So what's the agenda for the Democrats and how quickly do they intend to make it happen ... and .... who will they be able to blame when it doesn't? Not your projected hopes. What are the Democrats actually going to DO?
Who is StaceyJW talking about? I think that is what Ed means with his discussion about argumentum ad labelum.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 1:22 AM
"What are the Democrats actually going to DO?"
One just can't take the Democrats out of context - Obama is going to have to reach across the aisle.
Decisions will have to be made by a coalition of Democrats and Libertarians working together, hand in hand, because the stunning and undeniable landslide for Bob Barr has finally ensured them the long-overdue "seat at the table".
I don't know about you folks, but I am sick and tired of seeing nothing but vote totals for Bob Barr splashed everywhere, pundits feverishly talking about the "paradigm shift" which the tsunami of electoral and popular votes he garnered has engendered. Why can't the political swamis on TV and the internet simply just shut up already about the dawning of the New Age of American Three Party Rule?
I, for one, welcome our new Libertarian Overlords and look forward to the new benevolent hegemony.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 7, 2008 2:00 AM
Which still begs the question, Gingerbreaker, what exactly do the Democrats mean to do with their new majority? I'm trying to figure out what their agenda is. What's their plan? We heard a lot about hope - hope is a good thing - but little from those who will take the oath of office in January about what their actual plans are.
Do you have any idea of what they will do, not just what you hope they will do?
Thanks,
ME
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 2:18 AM
Its late Thursday night. The election was Tuesday. I think they deserve a little patience.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 7, 2008 3:22 AM
Thompson/Novak 2012: The all-gargoyle ticket!
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 7, 2008 5:23 AM
Re Lurkbot
Given Mr. Novaks' brain cancer problem, it is extremely unlikely that he will be around in 2012.
Posted by: SLC | November 7, 2008 7:18 AM
SLC - Nah radical lobectomy, and straight into the Presidency.
Hell a deficiency in brains never hurt the election chances of Warren G Harding, Ronald Reagan or George the least, why would the Republicans change their style now? :) -DJ
"Palin/Novak 2012 - No intelligence allowed"
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2008 7:51 AM
Michael Enquist said:
Really? I'm at home with a soar throat, a fever, and a headache, but even I can come up with some of the actual plans Obama announced. Just to name one: stimulate renewable energy, which could lead to new business opportunities in a young and growing industrial sector, creating jobs and investment opportunities, while at the same time reducing oil dependency. Now go do your homework and read about the other proposals, instead of relying on other people to do your homework for you. What, you expect us to tell the future? Since none of them is actually in office yet, how could we know what they will actually do, rather than what they told us they want to do? Really, if nothing else, this question suggests that you've already decided that no answer is going to satisfy you.
Posted by: Beowulff | November 7, 2008 8:02 AM
Ugh, sore throat of course. Better take some more aspirin.
Posted by: Beowulff | November 7, 2008 8:04 AM
OK, maybe the Democrats will teach me to look up words like "eutopia" before I criticize people.
I thought I was at least going to be able to critique Dingo Jack on synonym/antonym, but he beat me to it. :)
Posted by: James Hanley | November 7, 2008 8:14 AM
Stupid Dingo, forgot to pay attention to the spellchecker >:( DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | November 7, 2008 8:50 AM
Anyone who wants to know what the incoming administration wants to do can actually do some research and check out the agenda themselves, rather than asking the peanut gallery and pretending it doesn't exist.
Posted by: MT | November 7, 2008 9:00 AM
Beowulff,
I'm asking you-all because you-all voted for the Democrats, so I would expect that you know what you voted for, shouldn't you? (I know what I voted for: None of those offered.)
Your fever perhaps has made your reading comprehension a little foggy, because my very line that you quoted makes a distinction between what they, the elected Democrats, want and what those who voted for them want.
You can believe what you want, facts notwithstanding, if it makes you feel better. Most people do - that's what the "Binary Thinking" thread is about.Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 9:04 AM
MT,
The reasons that I ask the "peanut gallery" are, as noted above, those who voted for the D's ought to know what they voted for, and because I can follow up with the p.g., to find out -why- they thought that was worth voting for.
I learned from the bailout fiasco that I have zero influence with my elected officials. One even said, in effect, "I don't like this legislation at all but I voted for it anyway, 'cause we have to do something."
Perhaps I can influence/be influenced by those who decided "hope" is sufficient to elect a President. But, as the Xians like to point out, "Faith [hope] without works is dead."
I did learn a little from Brandon and democommie's responses to my comments about the '06 increase in D congressmen and why it seemed like it made no difference.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 9:18 AM
Michael Enquist:
Perhaps. But you still asked us about what the Dems will do, not what they plan to do. I might have a fever, but I can still see the difference. Can you?
What facts? The fact that I gave you a concrete example of Obama's plans and you completely ignored it? Or the fact that it is ridiculously easy to get that information, even for someone living in Europe? So enlighten me, then, what sort of answer would satisfy you?
And when you initially said: "I would like to know what the liberals are actually going to do," were you lying? You were given a concrete example and even a link to their complete agenda, so now you know. However, those answers clearly didn't satisfy you, you didn't respond to either.
And now you say this:
This clearly shows you asked the question for a whole different reason than mere curiosity. What are you trying to prove with this line of questioning? I could make guesses, but I'd rather have you tell us.
Posted by: Beowulff | November 7, 2008 10:09 AM
Beowulff,
I did tell you. Just below the paragraph you quoted.
But, I went to Change.gov, I'm reading it, and I guess, by your and MT's way of thinking, I don't need to talk to anyone on this thread any more.
I will go over to Orac's page, however, and let those concerned citizens know that if they want to comment about the rumored appointment of RFJ, jr. to head EPA, then Change.gov would be one place they can express their concern.
Don't come over there, Beowulff and MT, because those folks are talking about what the Obama administration is going to do, or may do, and already wanting to influence its course. You'd be frustrated that they're not just reading and sitting quitely.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 11:17 AM
Michael Enquist:
Are you familiar with the term, "concern troll". I only ask because you definitely sound like one.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2008 11:32 AM
To begin:
First: An executive order to ban all retards from getting involved in financial matters. Look what they have done. Tax-cutting Reagan and Bush the (R)etarded are responsible for 92% of the national debt. That is 16 years out of 232 years. The claim that tax cuts increase revenue is nor born out by the size of the deficits they created.
Then: Cancel all signing statements. Close Guantanamo. Turn attention to Iraq about how to get out of there as rapidly as possible. Switch to Afghanistan and see what the options are there. Followed by an announcement that the US will consider talking to all nations who are willing to seriously negotiate.
Followed by Healthcare:
3 finger approach.
1. Universal Healthcare run by the government like, or similar to the highly popular Medicare. A fee (tax) will be charged and no restrictions placed on choice of (essential) medical service. No elective or unnecessary services will be provided.
2. A privately run company as the above, which will be non-profit, but have option to cover all and any services.
3. Insurance companies as exist now
Any citizen may opt out of any of the three but must enroll in one and provide proof similar to the procedure currently in effect for automobiles in California. 1 and 2 exist for payment of services only and available to doctors and hospitals who agree, just like Medicare.
Posted by: ronhohn | November 7, 2008 11:44 AM
democommie,
No. Enlighten me. But I hope I'm not one of "them" but one of "us."
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 11:56 AM
"But how do we compare to a "socialist" Sweden???
Let's see, they have:
Accessible, excellent health care, economic security when faced with life's tragedies, high quality education across the nation, clean cities that don't have dangerous "ghettos", truly family friendly policies, nice parks without legions of homeless people, a commitment to the environment and more.
Plus:
access to the world best goods and services (and have the money to buy them!), jobs with 4 week paid vacations. There is great architecture and Art, a solid economy, plenty of wealth."
Sweden's population is ca. 9.1 million, about the combined total of New York City and Detroit, Michigan. US pop. is a shade less than 306 million. Figures on the BBC website suggest that 2006 unemployment stats in Sweden (before the recent global meltdown) were about 15%, compared to 6.5 % presently here in the U.S. Life expectancies are better in Sweden, 79 yrs. for men (vs. 76 yrs. US) and 83 yrs. for women (vs. 81 yrs. US). Per capita GNI according to the World Bank 2007 is $46,060 in
Sweden vs. $46,040 in the U.S. The Swedish economic system is consciously and deliberately based on a public-private ownership model. Reportedly about 30% of the population works for the government.
I've not travelled in Sweden, but I have visited Norway, which is culturally and socially pretty similar. It is possible to be panhandled on the streets of Oslo w/in a few blocks of Parliament, just as might happen in Washington D.C. w/in a few blocks of the White House. In Alesund, I was given to understand that the national government actually dictated what style of furniture was allowed in private homes and offices, that might be visible from the street. This sort of "nanny-statism" appeals to some, evidently, but I find it kind of cloying ... :-/
Posted by: Scott M. | November 7, 2008 12:06 PM
Is that bastard novak still alive?
His brain tumor is having a noticeable effect on his capability of dealing with mathematical abstractions such as "margins of victory", etc.
Posted by: Ex-Canuck | November 7, 2008 12:17 PM
This is typical Republican nonsense. They always change the rules when they lose. They throw their weight around when they are in power demanding that the Democrats go along with every appointment and piece of legislation they want to push through no matter how awful it is and the Democrats oblige. Then when the Democrats take power they are expected to work in a non-partisan fashion and compromise to get things done. Just look how hard the Republican congress fought many Clintion appointments while the Democrats let some terrible appointments go through without so much as a peep. The few times that they did speak up they were crucified. While I believe compromise is the best way to get things done part of me just wants the Democrats to kick the Republicans while they are down like they did to the Democrats for years. Maybe they will actually be able to accomplish something if they do.
Posted by: chris | November 7, 2008 12:29 PM
Michael Enquist said:
I quoted three paragraphs, actually, but I imagine by the paragraph you mean the one I quoted from the post addressed at MT. I'm sorry, but the rest of that simply sounded like an incoherent rant to me. No, wait, I'm not sorry, it's not really my fault that you can't make yourself clear.
The only thing I could distill out of all your posts combined, is that it appears you are insinuating everyone here is sheepishly and naively following the Democrats, blinded by "hope", with no sense of reality. However, instead of just coming out and saying so, you are "simply asking questions". I think I'm going to have to side with democommie here, this sounds exactly like concern trolling to me.
Now, I could have misread your posts, but so far you have given me little reason to believe this is likely, starting with your absurd claim that the Democrats never communicated their plans, the claim that I originally responded to and that was easily refuted by MT and me.
Actually, now that I think of it, if you claim you never knew what the Democratic plans were, despite them being easy to find, how could you make an informed decision to not vote for the Democrats? Just asking a question, you know.
You don't know the slightest thing about MT or me, yet you claim to know "our kind of thinking"? Looks like you could learn a thing or two yourself from that "Binary Thinking" thread that you referred to earlier.
And what exactly is it about "our way of thinking" that says that you don't need to talk to the people here anymore anyway? Did I, or anyone else, ever say that the Democratic plans are beyond criticism? Or are you referring to some other unspoken assumption about us?
How noble of you. Of course, unlike you, the people there actually did their homework, and they already know about Change.gov.
Right. So great of you to tell me what to do, and to tell me what I'd get frustrated at, now I don't have to figure that out for myself anymore. Thank you. You know, this is the sort of condescending remark that takes comments beyond sharply debating a topic and straight into troll territory.Posted by: Beowulff | November 7, 2008 12:49 PM
i was walking with my wife on the beach yesterday when we came upon the bleached and dead remains of one Robert Novak. i went to touch the carcass but my wife said to me, "DON'T TOUCH IT, THE INCIPIDNESS RUBS OFF ONTO THINGS THAT TOUCH IT!" so i let it alone for the flies to have.
Posted by: chuckUfarley | November 7, 2008 2:56 PM
Beowulff,
Nothing in your post above has anything to do with what I wrote, so I leave you to your fantasies.
Posted by: MIchael Enquist | November 7, 2008 3:02 PM
Michael,
I didn't imply that you didn't have to come back here. If you didn't know what Obama's agenda was (which was implied by your questions), I pointed you at it. If you have issues with it (or other people's understanding of it), feel free to weigh in.
If your agenda is that people here don't seem to be aware of Obama's plans, why not just say so and give examples, rather than asking trollish leading questions?
Posted by: MT | November 7, 2008 3:04 PM
Michael Enquist:
I don't think that you're a concern troll, anymore. I know, now, that you're an asshat.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2008 4:27 PM
democommie,
See? I knew you were going to label me one of "them."
MT,
Projection on candidates is a common practice. The Religious Right projected their hopes on Bush in both elections, more in '04 than '00, but have they recieved what they voted for? I wanted to try to do an end run around the MSM version of P-E Obama and find out what people knew is going to come to pass.
Every D runs on the promise to make life easier for the poor and disenfranchised. Clinton certainly did not accomplish that. Carter tried, but failed miserably. I'm a libertarian through and through, but I actually hope that the Obama adminsitration can deliver on its promises of ending the war in Iraq, dismantling al Qaeda, shutting down most of our overseas bases, providing at least minimal socialized medicine for those who cannot provide it for themselves, de-linking medical insurance and employment - in other words, making it portable, and doing everything possible to make all minorities feel like they are part of America.
As a libertarian, I believe those things can be accomplished by making government much, much smaller, but since almost no one listens to libertarians, then - so long as the goals are accomplished - I'm willing to tolerate the liberal/socialistic methods that will be employed. But I would like to know that those goals will be accomplished.
Posted by: Michael Enquist | November 7, 2008 5:15 PM
Michael Enquist:
"Every D runs on the promise to make life easier for the poor and disenfranchised. Clinton certainly did not accomplish that. Carter tried, but failed miserably."
Horseshit. That's your reading of the situation. I can as easily say that every R runs on the notion of fucking everybody except their friends--all of 'em. There has never been and can never be a republican whose anything other than a mendacious liar and a thief. There. I think that about squares it up.
I'm all for making the government smaller. Shitcan the DoD and DHS for starters. I know, it'll get a little dicey if we don't have a standing army and about a half million or so "minders" to keep a lid on the internal and external threats. But just think how much less you'll pay in taxes! Once we've seen how well that's going then we can get rid of the the Social Security Administration, the IRS, HUD, DoEd, the VA and the FDA.
We won't just wind up with smaller government, we'll wind up with a smaller population--and a very well armed one I'd bet.
I have no idea what Obama's plans are--he didn't ask me to sit in on any of the meetings. I only know that no matter how crackbrained they might turn out to be that there is zero chance they'd be worse than four more years of the GOP.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2008 6:56 PM
Can someone please explain to me why libertarians always start sentences with "As a libertarian..."? Such an unnecessary preamble. "As a gay man, I eschew vaginal sex."
Seriously, they all do this. Okay, sorry, not all, just the ones who write things down.
Posted by: gil mann | November 7, 2008 7:31 PM
Taz,
Please put a warning sign to that. I was laughing so hard I almost fell back from my chair.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 7, 2008 11:21 PM
It's shorthand for : As a libertarian the world I'm referring to exists only in my head. I call it Libertardia. In Libertardia when there is no gov't control over corporations whatsoever everything goes great and dandy, unlike in the real world (see recent economic diaster). Also in Libertardia Ron Paul is the second coming of Christ, unlike in your world where he is a crank who doesn't believe in evolution and somehow has ardent followers.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 7, 2008 11:46 PM
And right after criticizing people for labeling you as one of "them", you paint all Democrats with the same brush and then label yourself a libertarian. No group thinking there, not at all.
Tough luck, life doesn't give any guaranteed outcomes.Posted by: Beowulff | November 8, 2008 5:32 AM
"Can someone please explain to me why libertarians always start sentences with "As a libertarian..."?"
It's a public service - it saves the rest of us a lot of reading time.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 8, 2008 6:52 AM
Libertarians:
I have always wondered how simply shrinking the government would solve all of our problems. Please enlighten me.
SJW
Posted by: StaceyJW | November 9, 2008 4:42 AM
Libertarians:
I have always wondered how simply shrinking the government would solve all of our problems. Please enlighten me.
SJW
Posted by: StaceyJW | November 9, 2008 4:45 AM