Deltoid Enterprise Institute

Sorry, but you got nothin' on this chick.

Nice Tim.

I'd like to go out there in front of AEI with a sign that says, "thank us for the Iraq War strategy".

For CEI you could hold up a sign, "We'll take Cato's droppings"

Yeah, you're right, ben. Atlas was especially nasty, whereas we just gently mocked. After our lobotomy, we'll get on mocking war widows.

Hilarious!

"Yeah, you're right, ben. Atlas was especially nasty, whereas we just gently mocked. After our lobotomy, we'll get on mocking war widows."

I dunno, I saw some middle fingers there. Sheehan is a total dip, not like an ordinary grieving war mother, but one who exploits her son's death for...? The repeated "grieving" in front of the camera was a little more than a bit creepy.

Sheehan is a total dip, not like an ordinary grieving war mother, but one who exploits her son's death for...? The repeated "grieving" in front of the camera was a little more than a bit creepy.

My, my, my. That about encapsulates it, doesn't it?

I'm sure our lovely Ben, by now, no longer questions why he doesn't mix much at parties, why he gets few invitations to social events, why his dates are few and far between and his porn bill is high, why he finds his views reflected in the small minority in polls.

But vive le difference, right Benben? Takes all kinds, right? Galileo was persecuted, eh?

Best,

D

Benwagon,

I wouldn't pretend to be buds with Iain Murray to flip him off secretly under his nose. I would dress up as a giant polar bear and pretend I was munching his head while playfully giving him a million noogies. From across the street. Another key difference is that my skin wouldn't be orange like Pammy's.

"but one who exploits her son's death for...? "

I believe she is exploiting her son's death, for purposes of grief, closure, and seeking to assign responsibility in the public eye to those actually responsible. How tacky.

"The repeated "grieving" in front of the camera was a little more than a bit creepy."

Yeah, you wouldn't see Rudi Guiliani or George Bush doing that.

Sorry folks, just because so-called conservatives call anyone who disagrees with them over the war moonbats doesn't mean they don't exist. Cindy Sheehan is a raving anti-American anti-semite and no amount of sympathy towards her or animosity towards the Bush administration changes that.

Now moving back to the topic at hand, I'm somewhat disappointed that punko-pinko missed the Heritage Foundation while he was at it.

Scott, you wrote: "Cindy Sheehan is a raving anti-American anti-semite and no amount of sympathy towards her or animosity towards the Bush administration changes that".

I think this is a load of old twaddle, if you pardon the expression.

Please define for me what an 'anti-American' is (let's leave the anti-Semitic comment aside). I suppose that would include anybody - Cindy Sheehan also - who argues that the US foreign policy is built on three pillars:

1. The subjugation of other countries assets; 2. nullification of economic models to those forwarded by the Pentagon, State Department, and US Treasury, and 3. Outright expansionism.

By your definition, 'anti-Americans' can be actual American citizens, even those born on American soil (like Cindy Sheehan).

Given that there is plenty of empirical evidence supporting points 1 to 3, and given the thrust of your argument, I expect that you'd list the following Americans: Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Chalmers Johnson, Derrick Jensen, Paul Craig Roberts, Norman Solomon, Howard Zinn, Andrew Bacevish, Stan Goff, Mickey Z, James Carroll, Paul Street, Tom Engelhardt, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter and many other critics of the Bush regime all as 'anti-Americans' because they have all argued in support of points one, two or three (and sometimes all three) above.

In my view from the outside, I'd argue that the real anti-Americans are those violating international law in government and pursuing policies causing death of peoples abroad on a rather large scale in their pursuit of political and economic agendas. I would also argue that those calling for the US to respect international law, and to use the great power the country has prudently and in pursuit of truly noble and humanitarian ends are true Americans: that would include all of the people on my list above (and Cindy Sheehan as well).

Anyone who doesn't give full subservience and obesience and give up all their fraydums to our lord Gee Dubya is by definition Anti-Murrican, Jeff.

Best,

D

I think that Sheehan has said some dumb things, but she's like 423,688 on my list of problems, right between shoelace aglet loss and the utter lack of creativity in McNugget sauces in the past two decades.

And I propose Crayola come out with a "tanning bed orange" in honor of miss Atlas.

Pinko, you're right. That bit by Atlas is pretty low. Better to just tell her up front what you think, or have a discussion, if possible.

Dano, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Galileo reference.

Like I said, the polar bear method is quite preferable. And has more teh funny.

Dano, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Galileo reference.

I think that's a comparison to Fred Thompson who fancies himself a latter day Galileo because he denies anthropogenic global warming.

I forgot to include an appropriate sarcastic reference to Thompson as Nixon mole, S&L lobbyist, character actor, reluctant presidential candidate and now revolutionary climate scientist.

Don't mess with Thompson, I've got $50 on him as the next POTUS. I'd prefer Huckabee, but he's too low key to get elected, but he'd make a good V.P.

"I've got $50 on him as the next POTUS."

Care to make it $100. Hell, name any figure up to $500, I'll give you 10:1 odds. In fact, I'll give you 5:1 he doesn't get the nomination and an even odds bet he drops out before the convention.

Who do you think will win the Nom, Ian, both GOP and DEM? I'm curious. I put my money in the hat before Thompson made it official. I still think he has a serious chance, but not as good as I thought before he signed up.

For the GOP, I just hope it isn't Giuliani or Romney. I also wish the Dems would nominate Richardson, but I know that's a pipe dream. I'd vote for Richardson over Giuliani or Romney any day.

I think the most likely outcome is Clinton winning overly Giuliani.

Even amongst Democrats, Clinton has high negatives but unless Obama or one of the other candidates can solidify the anti-Clinton vote, she'll win easily. Even if that does happen, I think she'll win the nomination narrowly.

The main risk for Giuliani is that Rommney beats him in Iowa and New Hampshire and Thompson beats him in south Carolina meaning he goes into Super Tuesday with a string of losses to his name.

Dano, I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Galileo reference.

The Galileo optic was a denialist FUD technique trotted out 2002-2003 as a metaphor for the usual suspects' stance against the evidence. That is: Galileo opposed the status quo! We oppose the status quo too! Therefore, we are right like Galileo was!!!! -heart!-

As we're talking about recycling lately on this site, I recycled the optic for the denialists.

Best,

D

"I think the most likely outcome is Clinton winning overly Giuliani".

Either way, there won't be much difference in policy between the two. Tweedle dum versus tweedle dee. And this is what they call the world's 'leading democracy'... one thing for sure, it ain't based on policies; hence why US elections are traditionally fought on grounds of 'personality'. The big issues are buried because both property parties espouse more-or-less the same ideas. The notion that someone can emerge from the ranks of the poor in America to win an election is almost unheard of... the winner will always come from the 'monied establishment', and guess which constituency they represent?

Jeff -

Is this the same as in 2000 when the USA had Bush vs. Gore - dosen't matter who wins, they are both the same?

"Either way, there won't be much difference in policy between the two."

No but there may be a big difference in competence.

Back in 2004. my sig file on various message boards rerad: "A vote for Kerry is a vote for a return to COMPETENT conservative plutocratic oligarchy."

That may be a less than ringing endorsement but the last eight years have demonstrated the pitfalls of the most likely alternative.

OMG, I actually agree on something with Jeff Harvey!

"I think the most likely outcome is Clinton winning overly Giuliani."

Now there's where I'd put money down. While I think it's likely that Clinton will win the Dem Nom, I think she has zero chance in the final election. I think she will lose by a landslide to anyone. Same for Obama. Why the heck isn't Richardson doing better? He has a better chance in my opinion overall.

I also hope you are wrong about Giuliani. I'd take any other candidate over him or Romney.

"I think she has zero chance in the final election."

Clinton won virtually every single county in New York state in her re-election bid, including counties that have virtually never voted Democrat in living memory.

Yes, she's a polarising figure but that works both ways - there's a big chunk of the electorate that won't vote for her but there's another big chunk that will turn out heavily for her. That includes many independents and even some Republicans.

If Republicans remain demoralised and divided, they're unlikely to vote in the same numbers as at the last poll and Hillary will likely squeak in.

I honestly can't see any of the Republican candidates other than Thompson energising the conservative base the way Bush did in 2004. But Thompson is too far behind in terms of money and organisation to get the nomination and even if he gets it in playing to the base he's likely to alienate moderate Republicans and independents who are much more skeptical about the Republican Party now than they were in 2004.

Of course, as we saw in 92 with Perot and 2000 with Nader, third party candidates can have a dramatic effect on the outcome. (Personally I blame Buchanan's piss-poor Reform Party campaign of 2000 for the Bush administration. If he'd pulled anything like the same number of votes as Perot, Gore would have won easily.)

The Republican nominee will need not only to beat the Democrat but persuade moderate Republicans not to back Unity '08 (if they ever actually settle on a ticket) while convincing unhappy religious conservatives to turn out in record numbers once again and head off any possible challenge from the Constitution Party or likes of Ron Paul or Tancredo running as an independent.

My view of this is all pretty irrelevant but I'm an inveterate political junkie - its the only blood sport that's still legal.

I agree with you that I'd prefer Richardson to either Clinton or Obama but at this point I think he's running mainly in hopes of picking up the VP slot - he could potentially deliver New Mexico and maybe a couple of the neighbouring states like Nevada for the Democrats and his foreign policy experience would help compensate for both front-runners' lack of experience in that area.

"That includes many independents and even some Republicans."

I don't think so, but what do I know.

"its the only blood sport that's still legal."

True! I do enjoy the national elections, win or lose. Way more fun than the crummy Super Bowl or World Series.

I think you'll see conservatives turn out in force because the specter of looming 100% Democrat government will be looming, and that scares the snot out of us, much as a 100% Republican government bothers the left.

In any event, if Clinton gets the nomination, it will be very interesting to see what folks do at the polls. And to say that NY is not a good predictor for the political behavior of the rest of the USA is an understatement.

"And to say that NY is not a good predictor for the political behavior of the rest of the USA is an understatement."

Yes but Clinton won in upstate rural areas that probably haven't gone Democrat since FDR.

"Yes but Clinton won in upstate rural areas that probably haven't gone Democrat since FDR."

That may be so, but the exit polls, here show that she won only 20% of the vote from declared Republicans, and lost a higher percent of the vote among declared democrats, especially men.

I don't know anything about Spencer, and I do know that national sentiment was against the Repubs in 2006, that's why the Dems took over the congress. I don't think that will be the case this time around... while Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, the approval ratings for congress are significantly lower.

Care for a friendly wager, Ian? If Clinton wins, I pay up, if Thompson wins, you pay up, if neither wins, then it's a push. How's that sound?

As for the wager, how about the loser has to wear a pro Clinton (ben) or Thompson (Ian) T-shirt to work for a day? And there has to be photo evidence. I don't know about you, but my labmates would enjoy that, should I lose.

I think I gotcha, Ian. It doesn't look like the Republicans did any better (in fact they did worse) against Democrats in 2004. Schumer beat Mills 71% to 24% in 04. So like I said, NY is not a good indicator of National behavior.

Also, in Clinton's 2006 victory, according to Wikipedia, voter turnout was a meager 23.3%. It's possible/likely, that a lot of Republicans stayed home on election night that night.

A lot of that probably had to do with disapproval of Bush etc, which is something we probably won't see in the Presidential election of 2008, since Bush isn't a factor.

"...since Bush isn't a factor."

The fact that the DC Republican establishment (not just Bush) shows new signs of corruption every day, "isn't a factor."

I'll give you credit for your optimism, anyway.