Bush supporters' aftermath thread

You might have an argument Blatham if you could name a single conservative minority that the Left has not attempted everything in the book to block nomination.

And yes, the Left gives all ideologically conservative nominees a bad time. But a careful analysis of the particular rhetoric and animosity directed toward minorities is more than the norm. I think minority nominations are particularly threatening as each one does chisel away at the racist image of conservatism that the Left has so carefully crafted and promoted. I will express that as my opinion at this time. But I have an awful lot of well educated, learned opinion out there sharing it. Including Thomas Sowell.

Why is it that the poorest minority cities in the US are all controlled by Dems? They blame the Republicans for the poverty but in all the years of control of these areas they haven't improved but have gotten worse year in and year out. The schools don't have funding the people are still on welfare after more then one generation the housing hasn't improved neither has their way of life. Crime is still rampant and children can't read or compete with their burb peers. If the Dems are the party of the minority and the poor how come things have only gotten worse?

"The 45% of voters who make up the middle class -- those with household incomes between $30,000 and $75,000 -- delivered healthy victories to George Bush and House Republicans in 2004."

The study is based on Third Way's analysis of 2004 exit polls. Among the five principal findings are that white middle-income voters supported President Bush by 22 percentage points. The study concluded that the "economic tipping point -- the income level above which white voters were more likely to vote Republican than Democrat -- was $23,700."

Black voters supported the presidential candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and House Democrats by significant margins regardless of their income levels, but white middle-class voters tended to vote more like wealthy voters. "Democrats were not competitive at all among the white middle class," according to the study.

The report also contained alarming news for Democrats about Hispanic voters. The more Hispanics move into the middle class, the less they vote Democratic.

Based on the analysis of exit polls, Kerry's margin over Bush among Hispanics with household incomes below $30,000 was 21 percentage points, but among those with incomes between $30,000 and $75,000, it was 10 points.

Source

Well, I'm not sure astute is the most appropriate adjective, timber.

How it would burn for you to agree.

But finn certainly is earnest in all the above. He's is right though that the Newshour went a step down from Gigot to Brooks. And there was a similar descention earlier in moving from Gergen to Gigot. Of course, Chomsky was even earlier, and before that, it was either the Irish Catholic's God or the Spanish Inquisition, I don't recall now. Down, down...

Gergen is a quisling, and therefore it is not surpising that he might appeal to you.

I'm afraid I am unable to follow the path you suggest: Brooks - Gigot -Gergen - Chomsky - God - Torquemondo.

Only blatham is capable of suggesting that Chomsky is a a link in the conservative puditry chain of the News Hour.

I am glad to see that you acknowledge God (if only the Irish version) as conservative.

Once God jumped on the conservative train, it sort of left his antecedents irrelative. Nevertheless, how do you know that 14th century Jews and heretics were not deserving of the kind mercies of the rack?

Remember though, that when we are dealing with Finn, we are dealing with someone who has moved from New York to Dallas, a trajectory which which anyone but a fundamentalist would validly conclude to be clear evidence of devolution (leaving aside the possibility of an Intelligent Designer in Practical Joker mode).

Anyone but a fundamentalist and the entire US population residing outside of New York, Connecticut, Massachusets, Florida (Little NY) and California. But then what else might we expect from a Canadian who longs to be a New Yorker, let alone an American.

Making or suggesting causal relationships in the manner I've done, or in the manner which finn does in his notions on children's programming (or as others do with portrayals of violence, etc) is a dicey move. At least, it is for us. One would think some statistical analyses could be brought to bear which would illuminate even if human systems are so complex (amazing article in todays NY Times magazine on analyses of the huge email data base from Enron). Of course, either of us might be right, we just ought not to be certain.

Huh? I didn't imagine that you would respond to an assertion of my astuteness with obtuseness.

I've read and reread this gibberish at least six times and I still can't grasp what you are trying to argue. The only reference I made to children's programming was that, clearly, Coulter is not included in it. I might agree with you that impressionable children might be corrupted by Coulter, but that is an absurd argument. Almost as absurd as the argument that Coulter is, somehow, capable of corrupting the minds of American adults.

Finn assumes I am calling for, or would call for, some mandated solution for the problem I perceive. I don't. I would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine immediately upon ascention to the throne which has mysteriously gotten under someone else's bum, but that doesn't solve my peeve - uncareful partisan yelling replacing careful and more objective discourse.

Do you really mean to suggest that there is not a balancing weight of Leftistist bile to Coulter's? Oh how sweet that a Leftist, inadvertantly, admits that the combined efforts of Leftist pundits (i.e. Franken, Garafalo, Clift, Dionne, Rich, Alterman, Ivans, Goodman, Krugman and Dowd...to name a few.) is overwhelmed by Ann Coulter!

There's nothing for it but to continue pointing in the direction I point, suggesting that attention to detail and accuracy can be very important indeed.

You two,

An unfortunate and consistent rhetorical (at the least) flaw. "You two...." "You three..."

and others, suggest a categorical difference between 'entertainment' and 'news'. Sure, once you use those terms, the difference is already constructed. But let's look at a couple of things.

First, who gains from this shift away from 'talking heads' and towards 'yelling blondes with cleavage'?

First of all, there is little distinction between "talking heads" and "yelling (Coulter, however, never yells) blondes with cleavage (Coulter, however, has minimal cleavage. To the extent she invokes lust it is through the simple minded American love for blonde hair, and her short skirts ---rarely accentuated to their full effect).

The distinction is between journalistic reporters of facts (and there are so few of them) and pundits providing their opinions. You seem to want to hold Coulter to the standards (such as they are) of the former, when she has never claimed to be anything but the latter.

The corporations that compete for ad dollars. That the polity gains is unlikely. Consumer demand fulfilled isn't necessarily a good thing, as we might conclude considering the free-market demand for nuclear or biological weapons technologies.

Huh?

Please do not become such a Leftist cliche! You don't like Coulter...therefore it is essential that you draw in Corporate America and ad dollars..

Somewhere in this obtuse conflagration is the suggestion that democracy is not good for the nation: Consumers like Coulter, consumers buy products that seem to be assocaited with Coulter (this, of course, ignores the reality that Coulter doesn't shill for any product), consumers somehow resonnate with Coulter's arguments...But this is bad! Consumers and citizens cannot be trusted to form their own opinions. They need blatham and Franken, and Krugman to tell them how to think.

Or let's look at engineering and careful attention to detail and accuracy. Does one want Ann Coulter checking off on the blueprints? Why not? Does one want Rupert Murdoch in charge overall? Well, for Rupert, his interests would lead him to build poorly, film the collapses, and pull in the ad dollars from all those deliciously excited viewers.

Good grief! Has anyone suggested that Coulter should approve the blueprints? Gratuitiously introduce Murdoch to support the notion that we are shackled by ideology. Neither Coulter nor Murdoch have anywhere near the power and influence which you decry. Hysteria from an otherwise rational poster remains hysteria.

Less flippantly, consider the courts. Would the judge, or that court's community, prefer some strict and careful attention to detail and factual representation? Why? Why not set up the court out in the sun with big bleachers around and return to those heady days of justice as 'entertainment'? You'd get bigger crowds.

Beyond the pale.

Or government. We demand - at least we bloody well ought to demand - that government speaks to us not in the Coulter mode but in the Gergen mode. We want them to tell us the truth, to be transparent, to be nuanced and careful. Or is it ok, for the broad polity I mean, for government to simply keep us preoccupied and 'entertained' with exciting wars and fictional accounts?

So now you would extend the criticism of Coulter to the criticism of the government. Sadly, I always expected this sort of ridiculous linkage whenever I saw your burn hot on Coulter.

Memo to baltham: Coulter is not, in anyway, a representative of the American Government. Only an ideological ass would hold otherwise. It is hard to accept that you might be such an ass..

Well, I'm not sure astute is the most appropriate adjective, timber.

How it would burn for you to agree.

But finn certainly is earnest in all the above. He's is right though that the Newshour went a step down from Gigot to Brooks. And there was a similar descention earlier in moving from Gergen to Gigot. Of course, Chomsky was even earlier, and before that, it was either the Irish Catholic's God or the Spanish Inquisition, I don't recall now. Down, down...

Gergen is a quisling, and therefore it is not surpising that he might appeal to you.

I'm afraid I am unable to follow the path you suggest: Brooks - Gigot -Gergen - Chomsky - God - Torquemondo.

Only blatham is capable of suggesting that Chomsky is a a link in the conservative puditry chain of the News Hour.

I am glad to see that you acknowledge God (if only the Irish version) as conservative.

Once God jumped on the conservative train, it sort of left his antecedents irrelative. Nevertheless, how do you know that 14th century Jews and heretics were not deserving of the kind mercies of the rack?

Remember though, that when we are dealing with Finn, we are dealing with someone who has moved from New York to Dallas, a trajectory which which anyone but a fundamentalist would validly conclude to be clear evidence of devolution (leaving aside the possibility of an Intelligent Designer in Practical Joker mode).

Anyone but a fundamentalist and the entire US population residing outside of New York, Connecticut, Massachusets, Florida (Little NY) and California. But then what else might we expect from a Canadian who longs to be a New Yorker, let alone an American.

Making or suggesting causal relationships in the manner I've done, or in the manner which finn does in his notions on children's programming (or as others do with portrayals of violence, etc) is a dicey move. At least, it is for us. One would think some statistical analyses could be brought to bear which would illuminate even if human systems are so complex (amazing article in todays NY Times magazine on analyses of the huge email data base from Enron). Of course, either of us might be right, we just ought not to be certain.

Huh? I didn't imagine that you would respond to an assertion of my astuteness with obtuseness.

I've read and reread this gibberish at least six times and I still can't grasp what you are trying to argue. The only reference I made to children's programming was that, clearly, Coulter is not included in it. I might agree with you that impressionable children might be corrupted by Coulter, but that is an absurd argument. Almost as absurd as the argument that Coulter is, somehow, capable of corrupting the minds of American adults.

Finn assumes I am calling for, or would call for, some mandated solution for the problem I perceive. I don't. I would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine immediately upon ascention to the throne which has mysteriously gotten under someone else's bum, but that doesn't solve my peeve - uncareful partisan yelling replacing careful and more objective discourse.

Do you really mean to suggest that there is not a balancing weight of Leftistist bile to Coulter's? Oh how sweet that a Leftist, inadvertantly, admits that the combined efforts of Leftist pundits (i.e. Franken, Garafalo, Clift, Dionne, Rich, Alterman, Ivans, Goodman, Krugman and Dowd...to name a few.) is overwhelmed by Ann Coulter!

There's nothing for it but to continue pointing in the direction I point, suggesting that attention to detail and accuracy can be very important indeed.

You two,

An unfortunate and consistent rhetorical (at the least) flaw. "You two...." "You three..."

and others, suggest a categorical difference between 'entertainment' and 'news'. Sure, once you use those terms, the difference is already constructed. But let's look at a couple of things.

First, who gains from this shift away from 'talking heads' and towards 'yelling blondes with cleavage'?

First of all, there is little distinction between "talking heads" and "yelling (Coulter, however, never yells) blondes with cleavage (Coulter, however, has minimal cleavage. To the extent she invokes lust it is through the simple minded American love for blonde hair, and her short skirts ---rarely accentuated to their full effect).

The distinction is between journalistic reporters of facts (and there are so few of them) and pundits providing their opinions. You seem to want to hold Coulter to the standards (such as they are) of the former, when she has never claimed to be anything but the latter.

The corporations that compete for ad dollars. That the polity gains is unlikely. Consumer demand fulfilled isn't necessarily a good thing, as we might conclude considering the free-market demand for nuclear or biological weapons technologies.

Huh?

Please do not become such a Leftist cliche! You don't like Coulter...therefore it is essential that you draw in Corporate America and ad dollars..

Somewhere in this obtuse conflagration is the suggestion that democracy is not good for the nation: Consumers like Coulter, consumers buy products that seem to be assocaited with Coulter (this, of course, ignores the reality that Coulter doesn't shill for any product), consumers somehow resonnate with Coulter's arguments...But this is bad! Consumers and citizens cannot be trusted to form their own opinions. They need blatham and Franken, and Krugman to tell them how to think.

Or let's look at engineering and careful attention to detail and accuracy. Does one want Ann Coulter checking off on the blueprints? Why not? Does one want Rupert Murdoch in charge overall? Well, for Rupert, his interests would lead him to build poorly, film the collapses, and pull in the ad dollars from all those deliciously excited viewers.

Good grief! Has anyone suggested that Coulter should approve the blueprints? Gratuitiously introduce Murdoch to support the notion that we are shackled by ideology. Neither Coulter nor Murdoch have anywhere near the power and influence which you decry. Hysteria from an otherwise rational poster remains hysteria.

Less flippantly, consider the courts. Would the judge, or that court's community, prefer some strict and careful attention to detail and factual representation? Why? Why not set up the court out in the sun with big bleachers around and return to those heady days of justice as 'entertainment'? You'd get bigger crowds.

Beyond the pale.

Or government. We demand - at least we bloody well ought to demand - that government speaks to us not in the Coulter mode but in the Gergen mode. We want them to tell us the truth, to be transparent, to be nuanced and careful. Or is it ok, for the broad polity I mean, for government to simply keep us preoccupied and 'entertained' with exciting wars and fictional accounts?

So now you would extend the criticism of Coulter to the criticism of the government. Sadly, I always expected this sort of ridiculous linkage whenever I saw your burn hot on Coulter.

Memo to baltham: Coulter is not, in anyway, a representative of the American Government. Only an ideological ass would hold otherwise. It is hard to accept that you might be such an ass..