Obama '08?

See Nimh's post, he said it quite well.

Cycloptichorn

Okay, cyclops, I will address nimh's post.


A large part of the problem in evaluating this is the evolution of the meaning of liberal and conservative, through time and place. Yesterday's liberal might not be liberal now. To simplify the argument, I would tend to argue the point using primarily the meaning of the words as viewed now in America. Also in general, many might view "conservative" as resisting change, while "liberal" pulls for change. Here again, this does not work, as I can cite many examples, one good one being school vouchers where conservatives are in favor of change of the schools, while liberals are not.


Was Abe Lincoln a liberal? Certainly not according to today's definition, no way. Not in my opinion, after reading a book of his quotes and letters. Also, do not forget Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act of 1957.


In regard to women's right to vote, susan anthony came out of a religious, conservative background, and yes, perhaps was part of a liberal movement within that background, but to complicate your argument, it was these same liberals that condemned abortion as infanticide, which would be considered a right wing whacko conservative by today's liberals. I do not believe you can label those people as "liberal" by today's definition, no way at all.

In regard to divorce, it is almost as old as the institution of marriage, and your assertion is oversimplified and complicated by the changing definitions of conservative and liberal. Also throw in the reality that divorce might become too easily obtained, and the argument is complicated in terms of what policy is best for society.


As I have already pointed out, is it the liberals or the conservatives preaching tolerance of terrorists and muslim governments that now deny the rights of women and abuse women? I understand your argument, but you run into problems when you believe the conservative viewpoint resists good change as well as bad change. That is not unversally any more true than liberals always being in favor of change, as we know they are not when it comes to some of their pet issues.


Here again, your generalizations are not accurate. Speaking as what I believe true conservatism to be, I am not for or against anything based on whether it changes anything. I believe the conservative stance, at least as I would define my conservatism, is based on right and wrong, and enduring principles of individual freedom and responsibility. Inasmuch as our country embodied those principles more or less from the start, then usually a conservative is against changing those principles, but sometimes change is for the better, and the true conservative would favor such changes.

Here's some good sense from Clarence Page on the "magic negro"/Limbaugh dustup...

Remember when media pundits were asking whether Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was "black enough" to attract black voters? That was the old media narrative. The new one goes sort of like this: "Maybe he's too black."

Take, for example, his conservative adversaries, such as talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, who seems to take gleeful delight in reminding everyone of how black Obama is -- and even more delight when the rest of us notice.

Back in mid-March, for example, el Rushbo began to air a satirical song titled, "Barack the Magic Negro."

He didn't make up the term. He hijacked it fair and square.

Columnist David Ehrenstein employed the term -- which dates to the film industry days before "Negroes" became "black" -- in a Los Angeles Times essay to describe Obama's soaring appeal to white voters.

Ehrenstein compared Obama's rapid rise in the public imagination to some of the roles that actors like Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman or Will Smith have played: the black hero who arises magically to "assuage white guilt."

Ehrenstein, who is black, described "white guilt" as "the minimal discomfort" that the white film characters feel about the role of slavery and racial segregation in American history.

Limbaugh, in the fashion of our times, chastised liberal "racism" for bringing up race in this fashion, then proceeded to air a song about it. Repeatedly. Sung to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon" by voice impersonator Paul Shanklin, imitating Rev. Al Sharpton, the song goes in part like this:

"Barack the Magic Negro / lives in D.C./ The L.A. Times, they called him that/ 'Cause he's not authentic like me ..."

If Limbaugh was looking for something to prove that he's worth caring about, he struck pay dirt.

Predictably, the ever-alert watchdogs at the liberal Media Matters for America Web site immediately posted an indignant news alert and audio clip about the song. That's the same group that posted radio host Don Imus' "nappy-headed hos" sound bite about the Rutgers women's basketball team that led to the loss of his national radio show within a week.

It probably says something about how isolated Limbaugh may be from the rest of us that the song didn't generate much mainstream media controversy until last week. That was when Obama became the first presidential candidate to qualify for Secret Service protection besides Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who as a former first lady never stopped having it.

It was the earliest assignment of Secret Service protection since another black candidate, Rev. Jesse Jackson, ran for president in 1984 and '88. If anyone still needs evidence as to whether the Illinois Democrat is "black enough," the bigot vote appears to have made up its mind.

Citing the large number of wackos in the world, a lot of people on the Web and on talk radio, particularly listeners to Sharpton's radio show, think Limbaugh should meet the same fate as Imus. I don't.

I may not be in sync with Limbaugh's politics, but the two cases are quite different. As satire, Limbaugh's song passes three critical tests that Imus' offhand comment flunked: (1) it's funny, (2) it took at least half of a brain to think up and (3) it contains a nugget of truth.

The song in question actually mocks Sharpton more than Obama. The flamboyant New York preacher and talk-radio host comes off as a resentful old-school polarizer who doesn't like to be upstaged by an upstart. Obama is portrayed as a rising star who would refuse to let the few things that divide us Americans along lines of race and class get in the way of the many things that we have in common.

Funny thing: As a guy who builds audiences by inflaming political differences, Limbaugh has more in common with Sharpton than with Obama. Birds of a feather mock together.

Imus' targets, by contrast, weren't rich, famous, powerful or political. He's entitled to free-speech rights, but the 1st Amendment only protects you from government interference, not from losing sponsors or embarrassing your employer.

Limbaugh's target is a wildly popular presidential candidate, which is precisely the sort of political expression that the 1st Amendment was written to protect. I may not agree with Limbaugh's politics, but he has a right to express them.

Besides, if the potentates of political correctness come after conservative commentators like Limbaugh today, they'll come after liberal commentators tomorrow.

If voters think Obama can close that divide, they really do believe in magic.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0705080663may09,1,6941010.column?coll=chi-news-col

What snood said: some good sense.

What about Obama's math?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270852,00.html

P.S. All Limbaugh does is expose and make light of what the race hustlers are up to. Not complicated.

If you had read what you quoted, you wouldn't have got any idea about his mathematic knowledge but why/how he made that mistake.

So: what's about your reading skill?

Huh?

I don't know about you in Germany, but anybody that monitors the news daily here in the U.S. would know that the entire town did not even approach 10,000, let alone that many killed. I understand mistakes, but that one was a little puzzling. If it was Bush, the media would be making fun of him incessantly, as some ignorant hick from Texas that knows nothing about anywhere else, much less Kansas.

I am not condemning Obama over that one statement, but I find it a bit interesting that he did not know more about the words he was saying. I thought it was worth noticing, thats all.

Okie was born in a log cabin he built with his own two hands.

I've highlighted your error, Okie; You can't just make words mean whatever you want them to mean.

Conservatism has not always stood for equal rights for all, and still doesn't.

Cycloptichorn

Worth noticing. Okay.

I won't bother to embarass you by pointing out what liberalism stands for, cyclops.

Cyclo wrote: I've highlighted your error, Okie; You can't just make words mean whatever you want them to mean.

Conservatism has not always stood for equal rights for all, and still doesn't.


okie is an expert at self-defined words; that's an uncanny skill he holds.

Try to translate the Latin word 'liber' to English.

And then 'conservare'.


Afterwards, you may read a bit about the history of conservatism and liberalism.

Meanwhile, the Obama gaffe wasn't a major gaffe but it was a gaffe. Coupled with the VT gaffe (slightly different, it wasn't merely garbling figures but a bad decision to include it in the speech), I'm a bit concerned. Hopefully they'll be aberrations rather than a building trend.

Meanwhile, I think the fact that the Republican field looks so pitiful is helping Hillary. People figure that she'll be able to romp. I think that's dangerous. I just can't imagine the Republicans continuing to look this pitiful until November 2008. Someone will emerge, and I'm worried that Hillary will have already solidified her position by the time that happens. I think Obama has the better chance in general elections, and that the general election will be closer than people seem to think it will be right now.

When you look at the World Federation of Liberalism website (that's where all the world's liberal parties are members) you'll find that liberals promote "liberalism, individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, equality of opportunity, social justice, free trade and a market economy".

What makes you think I would be embarassed?

Cycloptichorn

okie still doesn't understand that he embarrassed himself beyond redemption.

Amazing what can be done with twelve fingers.

Blatham


I note that Dyslexia is also an expert re in vitro log cabin building.

BBB

Thanks, Snood. ( I just got out of the garden and came back to the computer to see your post.) I like Clarence Page's logic on that. Somehow I have the feeling that Barack Obama didn't pay too much attention to the parody, if he heard it.