Re: "her declaration that her constituents “love their country in good times and bad, and they’re always proud of America.”

You missed the most obvious riposte of all. Palin's husband belongs to the Alaska Independence Party, which seeks to either SECEDE from the U.S., or else gain commonwealth status instead of statehood. Palin's campaign denies that she ever belonged -- but she attended the party's state convention with her husband circa 1994.

How's that for loving your country?!!
 

Yeah, I agree - but as for the inconsistency of picking on Michelle while bristling at attacks on her pregnant daughter, there are a number of important distinctions one can make that may dissolve the inconsistency:

1) Michelle's part of the campaign, a surrogate for the candidate; Bristol isn't. In fact, Michelle's remarks were made during a campaign speech. You can't very well campaign for someone and claim that anything you say should be off-limits to attack because you happen to be a member of the candidate's family.

2) Michelle's an adult; Bristol's a kid.

3) Campaign speech and behavior in one's private life are two very different things.
 

What are the ground rules here? It’s ok to attack your family but not mine?

Easy. If they make themselves a public figure by participating in the campaign, they are fair game. If not, lay off.

Michelle Obama voluntarily participates in the husband's campaign and is fair game. If Palin's hubby starts campaigning, which he apparently started today, then he is also fair game. However, Palin's 17 year old daughter and 6 month old son by no stretch of the imagination are part of the campaign and slime attacks on them to harm Palin are pretty much beyond the pale.

I’m also bemused by the boast that one should be “always proud of America.” The suggestion might be that America never does anything to be ashamed of.

Modern US conservatives generally believe in American exceptionalism - that the freedom we enjoy in the United States is uniquely valuable and that our efforts to spread that freedom to the rest of the world is to be commended.

Post Vietnam liberals generally deride the idea of American exceptionalism and engage in moral equivalence to make arguments that America is just as bad as its enemies and in many ways inferior to more "enlightened" places like the EU.

Palin's comment is a pean to American exceptionalism, a roundhouse punch at moral equivalence and thus red meat for conservatives.
 

Post Vietnam liberals generally deride the idea of American exceptionalism and engage in moral equivalence to make arguments that America is just as bad as its enemies and in many ways inferior to more "enlightened" places like the EU.

You might want to revisit this rationale since you always say that America should be allowed to be just as bad as its enemies, that what the enemy does justifies exceptions to the Geneva Convention. Exceptionalism indeed.

So, if as you promote, America should be allowed to be as bad as its enemies, what does this mean for "moral equivalence?" What you're trying to describe is ethical comparison, or value judgment, which is how anybody figures out whether they're doing a good job or not. "My country right or wrong" is sociopathic.
 

However, Palin's 17 year old daughter and 6 month old son by no stretch of the imagination are part of the campaign and slime attacks on them to harm Palin are pretty much beyond the pale.

Right...well, until they're invited to the RNC convention to parade in front of the cameras.

Modern US conservatives generally believe in American exceptionalism - that the freedom we enjoy in the United States is uniquely valuable and that our efforts to spread that freedom to the rest of the world is to be commended.

Yes, and to you this means we should gloss over any and all wrong-doing so long as such wrong-doing serves our national interests (which conveniently, are wrapped up in the language of liberty, democracy, etc.) Anyway, if conservatives thought our nation was so great, they'd quit trying to change it.

Post Vietnam liberals generally deride the idea of American exceptionalism and engage in moral equivalence to make arguments that America is just as bad as its enemies and in many ways inferior to more "enlightened" places like the EU.

No, we argue that policies enacted by people of your ilk bring shame and disrepute on our nation. There's nothing wrong with America as a whole, just a certain subset who manage to get their hands on the reigns. I certainly do love my country, but I certainly do not love you even if you like to wrap yourself up in my country's flag.
 

Eric:

NOTHING that America has done in the current war is remotely similar to the practices of the Taliban, Baathists and al Qaeda. Thus, your implication that America has engaged in the same acts as our enemies is a useful example the moral equivalence that Palin took a swing at to the delight of the DNC delegates and very likely many of the 37 million who viewed her speech.
 

xanthippas said...

BD: However, Palin's 17 year old daughter and 6 month old son by no stretch of the imagination are part of the campaign and slime attacks on them to harm Palin are pretty much beyond the pale.

Right...well, until they're invited to the RNC convention to parade in front of the cameras.

So were Obama's adorable little girls. Should we declare open season on them?
 

Prof. Koppelman:

I’m also bemused by the boast that one should be “always proud of America.”

I commented on that a few posts back.

Cheers,
 

Tray:

2) Michelle's an adult; Bristol's a kid.

Chelsea Clinton was a "kid" when this happened. Bristol's pretty much a young adult. And Chelsea Clinton hadn't even done anything newsworthy worth commenting about. So STFU, m'kay?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Easy. If they make themselves a public figure by participating in the campaign, they are fair game. If not, lay off.

Shorter "Bart": This is more conventionally abbreviated: "IOKIYAR".

See my post above.

And stop whining, "Bart".

Cheers,
 

NOTHING that America has done in the current war is remotely similar to the practices of the Taliban, Baathists and al Qaeda.

The Supreme Court didn't start the Holocaust, either. Does that mean the American public should be proud of Kelo vs. City of New London?

George W. Bush didn't carry out massacres in Darfur. Should we be proud of Abu Ghraib because it pales in comparison?

You just don't get it: liberals believe in that exceptionalism, too (perhaps even more than your typical "conservative," I'd wager) but they demand that America actually live up to that promise, rather than relying on brand name "America" to pretend they have.

More and more GOP rhetoric sounds like the parents of an unruly child in a parent-teacher meeting. "Oh no he doesn't, he would never, he isn't that way at home and he isn't that way here..."
 

Bart:
Thus, your implication that America has engaged in the same acts as our enemies is a useful example the moral equivalence that Palin took a swing at

What you are overlooking is that you justified harsh interrogations in terms of how bad the behavior of the terrorists were/are. That is moral equivalence in action: we're not as bad as them, so it's OK. I didn't say or imply "same acts" at all.
 

Modern US conservatives generally believe in American exceptionalism...

"... as well as creationism and other preposterous fables."

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeTorquemada:

Thus, your implication that America has engaged in the same acts as our enemies ...

Ummm, you mispelled "undenied fact". The torture is hardly a secret any more; in fact, the maladministration has bragged about it. And we have pictures of people beaten to death in U.S. custody by U.S. personnel, even.

... is a useful example the moral equivalence that Palin took a swing at...

<*Whooosh*> 20,000 feet over his head. The "moral equivalence" is he claim of such as "Bart" that Terra-ists, because they don't obey the law themselves, deserve to be subjected to pain as long as it doesn't become as much as that associated with organ failure or death (and, well, if a few of the folks actually are beaten to death, that's just the way the cookie crumbles). That's the rationale that "Bart"'s been flogging here (so to speak) for years. If Palin was railing about "moral equivalence", then surely that rationale is Exhibit #1. We are not such "moral equivalists"; it is we who suggest that torture is wrong regardless of what others have done.

Cheers,
 

Bart wrote:-

"Modern US conservatives generally believe in American exceptionalism - that the freedom we enjoy in the United States is uniquely valuable and that our efforts to spread that freedom to the rest of the world is to be commended."

Godfrey Hodgson was for many years as a foreign correspondent in Washington. He was at different times the Washington correspondent of The Observer, the editor of Insight on the Sunday Times, the presenter of the London Programme and of Channel Four News, the foreign editor of The Independent and for the past eight years the director of the Reuters Foundation Programme for Journalists at Oxford University.

In his book, "The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America" Publ: Houghton Mifflin Company 1996, Hodgson Hodgson says:

"Perhaps the absolutely fundamental neoconservative idea was the need to reassert American nationalism or patriotism or "Americanism" or "American exceptionalism": the idea that American society, however flawed, is not only essentially good but somehow morally superior to other societies.

This belief has been deeply ingrained in the United States since the Revolution. It was strong in the American colonies before the Revolution. It has origins in the Puritanism of the English Revolution in the seventeenth century, and it has religious overtones, in the idea that it is the destiny of the United States to "redeem" a sinful `- world, as well as nationalist ones.

Indeed, it has sometimes been called a "secular religion." It is found in every corner of the country geographically a and in Americans of every ethnic origin and social class, even among many black Americans."

I would observe that the Neoconservative conviction that American society is "innately morally superior" is one of the marks of the fascist and imperialist nature of Neoconservative thought.

A somewhat similar view of the superiority of British societal and moral values marked the high point of British Imperialism and perhaps it is more than a coincidence that some Neoconservatives talk in terms of taking up "the White Man's Burden" in the Third World.

I recall Will Hutton saying this in a PBS debate with Kagan in 2003:-

""American Neoconservatism is a very idiosyncratic creed. Its pitiless view of human nature, its refusal to countenance a social contract, its belief in the raw exercise of power -- "full spectrum dominance" -- its attachment to Christian fundamentalism, its attitudes towards abortion and capital punishment, and its deification of liberty of the individual are a mishmash of ideas that have no parallel anywhere.

It is an outlier within the Western conservative tradition, and it has taken very special circumstances for it not to be more seriously challenged intellectually, culturally, and politically within America.

Without the collapse of American liberalism, the openness of American democracy to the influence of corporate money, and the continuing resentments of the distinct civilisation below the Mason-Dixon line, this Neoconservatism would never have come to have the influence it has."

The Neoconservatives and their fellow "loathsome spotted reptile" travellers have been able to exploit some critical vulnerabilities in the US Constitution.

Firstly, there absnce of any requirement in the US Constitution for the Executive to have and retain the confidence of the Congress.

Then the fact that there is no requirement for individual members of the executive to have and retain the confidence of the elected legislature.

The Senate (but not the House of Representatives) must approve the presidential nominations to key positions, but once approval is given, there is no power to rescind the approval - only the drastic remedy of impeachment.

A further weakness is the unrepresentative character of the US Senate. The Senate has more power than the upper houses of most European legislatures, yet it is markedly unrepresentative of the American people as a whole. Given the population differences between the states, there is gross over-representation of the rural and under populated states and gross under-representation of the largely urban states, with consequent racial and other distortions. Just look at the delegates to the GOP Convention.

Control of the Senate in turn means control of the Judicial nomination process, and there the influential Federalist Society is active in ensuring that only "originalist" candidates get through the nomination process. This is resulting in a perversion of the judicial branch of the US constitutional settlement.

Another problem is the gerrymandering of Congressional Districts. Congressional District boundaries are determined by the State legislatures and this is now usually done on an entirely partisan basis with the party in power in the state legislature seeking to preserve as many safe seats in Congress as possible for its party.

This means that there are now very few "marginal" seats in elections to the House. Contrast the position in the UK where boundaries are determined by a non-partisan Commission.

Finally, It must worry right thinking people to see the sheer amount of money which is being spent to advance the Neoconservative agenda with the public, particularly when so much of it is being spent covertly in the sense that it is financing the media appearances of pundits who are presented to the US public as coming from a "non partisan research institutes", when in fact they coming from pressure groups funded by corporations who wish to preserve their undue power and influence.

The last thing one may expect Neoconservatives to admit to is the proposition that their philosophy is essentially fascist. "Fascism" is still a dirty word because it brings to mind the likes of Herr Hitler, Signor Mussolini, Generalissimo Franco and Dr Salazar (among others).

So, the doctrines of Neoconservatism come wrapped in the American flag. There are appeals to patriotism, to the American way of life and much asserting that US values are innately superior to those of lesser breeds without the fold (such as the Belgians, the French etc).

The essence of fascism is not men strutting around in black or brown shirts. It is the transformation of the primary purpose of the state from the promotion and protection of individual liberties to the promotion and protection of the "corporate interest".

The state becomes the protector and promoter of the corporate interest and the arbiter between competing interests and the liberty of the individual is subordinated to the corporate interest as perceived by the state.

While in the USA, Neoconservatives have achieved power by the infiltration and subordination to their ideals of the Republican Party, notably under the late Ronald Reagan and under the George W. Bush Administrations, in the United Kingdom, Neoconservative thinking has been adopted by the "New" Labour faction of the formerly democratic socialist Labour Party now in power. Not least by George W. Bush's faithful lackey, former British Prime Minister, "Phoney Tony" Blair.

In both the USA and the UK, the same policies have achieved the same results: notably a decline in civil liberties, a widening disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" in society, an increasing authoritarianism on the part of the executive, a resort to the politics of fear, and to the use of spin and deception to hang onto power.

Bart's politics are at least as fascist of those of the late Generalissimo Franco. I just pray he [Bart] gets his come-uppance in November.
 

Chelsea Clinton was a "kid" when this happened. Bristol's pretty much a young adult. And Chelsea Clinton hadn't even done anything newsworthy worth commenting about. So STFU, m'kay?

So McCain made a disgusting joke once. This doesn't justify your sinking to his level.
 

"Moral equivalence" is the sewer of argumentation. It implies that any criticism of US policies, or even analogizing to bad actors to show why we shouldn't be doing something, is the same thing as claiming that we are exactly the same as them.

I don't do the moral equivalence thing. We tortured detainees. Torture is illegal and for very good reasons. That doesn't mean we are as bad as China or Al Qaeda or Saddam's Iraq, all of whom also tortured. But it also doesn't mean that the fact that we aren't as bad as those actors proves that we are acting morally, or legally, or in accordance with our professed values.

It's pretty easy to understand, and it is the right wing who would like to render any human rights-based criticism of American actions (at least when a Republican in charge) as unpatriotic equivalencing.
 

eric said...

BD: Thus, your implication that America has engaged in the same acts as our enemies is a useful example the moral equivalence that Palin took a swing at

What you are overlooking is that you justified harsh interrogations in terms of how bad the behavior of the terrorists were/are.

Argue with the drafters of the GCs. They are the ones who conditioned POW privileges to the behavior of the enemy.

That is moral equivalence in action: we're not as bad as them, so it's OK. I didn't say or imply "same acts" at all.

What? Moral equivalence is morally equating the acts of the United States and its enemies, not conditioning privileges of the law of war on the enemy reciprocally following the law of war.
 

Moral equivalence is morally equating the acts of the United States and its enemies, not conditioning privileges of the law of war on the enemy reciprocally following the law of war.

No, "moral equivalence" is the comparison itself, regardless of whether the difference is "0." Many of us have watched over the months as you have used just this criteria to justify certain acts.
 

Mourad:

American Exceptionalism It is most definitely not a conservative (original or neo) creed and is only tangentially related to American nationalism.

American Exceptionalism began with our victory in the Revolution and is a revolutionary creed that America should be dedicated to the expansion of human liberty here and abroad and this country was particularly suited for this task because freedom is part of our culture

History has proven this creed is indeed nearly exclusively American. America has systematically expanded the personal and economic liberty of its own citizenry and fought the Civil War, the World Wars, the Cold War, and the recent Iraq and Afghan wars to free others.

In contrast, Revolutionary France tried to adopt this creed but quickly devolved into the Napoleanic dictatorship.

Britain defended its own freedom, but their foreign policy is real politik to protect its own power rather than to spread human freedom.

American Exceptionalism is indeed historically exceptional.

I expect a series of critiques of this creed from the libs here which merely demonstrates my original point about the Palin comment.
 

Argue with the drafters of the GCs. They are the ones who conditioned POW privileges to the behavior of the enemy.

No, they didn't. Please stop this fraudulent claim, which has been refuted here so many times that I lost count over a year ago.
 

America has systematically expanded the personal and economic liberty of its own citizenry and fought the Civil War, the World Wars, the Cold War, and the recent Iraq and Afghan wars to free others.

Lovely, if it were true.

The stated reason for the Afghanistan war was to punish those harboring Al-Qaeda.

The stated reason for the Iraq war was to stop Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction against us.

The stated reason of the Civil War was to preserve the Union (or don't you recall your Lincoln).

Now these wars may have had the later claim to free certain peoples, but their stated reasons were different at the time.

Then, again, America has engaged in many wars for the stated reason of freeing people, but which turned out very differently.

Speak to most of Central and South America, and our wars to free the people and secure corporate monopolies.

Speak to the Phillipines, and our brutal suppression of the independence movement there after the Spanish-American War.

American Exceptionalism is, in truth, a pair of rose-colored glasses writ large enough for an entire country. Only a fraud or ingenue would claim otherwise, and you claim too much experience for the latter.
 

Tray the flat-head:

So McCain made a disgusting joke once. This doesn't justify your sinking to his level.

I didn't. This fact seems to have eluded you.

But while we're talking about attacks on the chill'uns, could I point out that McCain is the actual preznitential candidate around here, and we're just bloggers. So isn't what he said just a tad more relevant?!?!?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeFabricator:

Argue with the drafters of the GCs. They are the ones who conditioned POW privileges to the behavior of the enemy.

False. It is the Dubya maladminisration that manufactured out of thin air a new category of "illegal enemy combatants" (something that is not present in the text of any of the Geneva Conventions).

And torture is categorically prohibited. Period.

Cheers,
 

tray:
So McCain made a disgusting joke once. This doesn't justify your sinking to his level.

What's with all the moral equivalence?
 

Claiming that one is exceptional, or above the law, is the worst kind of moral relativism. The idea of American exceptionalism is one kind of rather extreme moral relativism. Moral standards that we apply to others don't apply to us. It's OK for my country to do something, because morality is flexible and relative is roughly the way the doctrine works.

There is lots of fancy justification about why moral relativism is correct, and the U.S. can't be judged by universal standards. It's good work for academics , of course, who presumably can make a lot of useless work for themselves by coming up with ideas like "american exceptionalism".

We know what to think about this academic hogwash.

It's worth remembering that a lot of Americans don't believe in these pathetic ideas concocted by scholars with nothing better to do, and are fully ready and able to judge their country in the same way as they would any other, because they aren't into this relativistic garbage and believe in one set of standards for all.
 

But while we're talking about attacks on the chill'uns, could I point out that McCain is the actual preznitential candidate around here, and we're just bloggers. So isn't what he said just a tad more relevant?!?!?

a) They let you have a blog?!?!?!

b) We're not talking about bloggers. The idea's simply that neither the Obama camp nor its surrogates ought to pick on Palin's daughter. Bloggers can say whatever. I suspect you agree. Andrew says there's an inconsistency between that and picking on Michelle. I say that Michelle's part of the campaign and is at least responsible for comments she makes in that function. You say, "well, McCain said something nasty about Chelsea once." And I say, that's true, but that doesn't render Bristol fair game - though you're free to say whatever you like on your crappy blog.
 

Tray:

a) They let you have a blog?!?!?!

Yes. It's (for the time being) still a relatively free country (not to mention I'm posting from Canada this week). You can have a blog too. In fact, I encourage it.

... The idea's simply that neither the Obama camp nor its surrogates ought to pick on Palin's daughter....

And as Prof. Koppelman said, Obama has said "don't do it".

... You say, "well, McCain said something nasty about Chelsea once." And I say, that's true, but that doesn't render Bristol fair game - though you're free to say whatever you like on your crappy blog.

True, but I haven't been picking on Brigit either.

But your high dudgeon might be a little more believable if you were to hold McCain to the same standard you allege the Obama campaign of violating (although it should be said that it's a considerably lower standard to forbid picking on young teens that haven't done anything at all to encourage the wrath of the RW foamer battalions other than be the daughter of the Clintons, a circumstance not of her choosing).

When I hear something like that, I'll know you're serious about your "morals" here, rather than just some partisan Republican flack.

Say, JOOC, do they assign you to specific blogs to ensure full coverage, or do you just get to pick one to infest?

Cheers,
 

Ummm "Brigit" should be "Bristol". Sorry.
 

AP is reporting that, once PBS was included, there were actually 40 million viewers who tuned in to see Sarah Palin accept the nomination on Wednesday night, a couple million more than tuned into see Mr. Obama last week
 

I think we need to distinguish being proud of America with being proud of every individual thing America does. Obviously, Palin's not proud of, e.g., the D.C. swamp she thinks needs draining.
 

Bart dePalma obviously has the time and energy to express his opinions (or rather opinion) on his own blog, rather than hijacking every single post on this professional constitutional law blog. If I were Jack Balkin, I'd have thrown him off long ago as a troll. Comment threads might become duller, but surely more productive, conversations.
 

Re: the children, who's attacking Bristol Palin? They asked the McCain campaign to name one member of the Obama campaign who had said anything about any of the children, and they couldn't come up with a single instance of this. Yes, the National Enquirer is going into this, but does anyone think this is for any sort of partisan reasons?
 

As for the big audience for Sarah Palin's speech - did Bart notice that it brought in $10 million in contributions to the Obama campaign in a single day? I don't think all of those viewers were Palin fans ;-).
 

So Palin has "always been proud of America." Since this was aimed at Obama's wife, I guess we should ask Palin's secessionist husband if he has "always been proud of America."
Seems fair.
 

david seibert said...

As for the big audience for Sarah Palin's speech - did Bart notice that it brought in $10 million in contributions to the Obama campaign in a single day? I don't think all of those viewers were Palin fans ;-).

I did indeed. I believe that Palin scared and woke up the Obama supporters, reminding them that Obama does not have this race in the bag. On the other hand, Palin inspired a similar spike in donations to McCain after her pick was announced.

Palin dominated the Air America shows I heard driving to and from court and inspired a half dozen threads here. As you can imagine, Palin likewise has dominated the conservative talk radio and the conservative blogosphere.

It appears we have a race on our hands.
 

mr. depalma

i fail to see the correlation between the amount of viewers of a speech meaning that the speaker is more apt to collect votes. i for one watched both the palin and mccain speeches this week. i watched the palin speech to see if i could learn anything about her, and to judge for myself whether or not she was qualified for national office. for what it is worth, i thought she did a credible job in her speech, although it clearly was at least partially written and rehearsed for her. she accomplished what she wanted in rousing the base, but not much more. if being poised in front of a microphone while delivering a speech from a teleprompter qualifies one to be vice-president, she did well. i also give her credit for her public service in alaska. i could care less about the family issues. the mere fact that i watched does not mean i am voting for her. it means i was educating myself.

similarly, i watched mccain's speech for the same basic reasons. i wanted to see if he was going to go on the attack. i was very happy that he did not, for the most part. i would note that my son was watching, and comparing what mccain claimed obama was going to do with such items as energy, education and taxes, with what was on the obama website as their positions on these issues. on each of these issues, as with others, mccain's claims of what obama's positions were turned out to be wrong. while the speech was a good one, it did nothing to change my mind.

the moral of the story is that many people who watch political speeches do not watch to validate their own positions. they watch for clues as to whether or not the other side can convince them that they are wrong, or simply to further educate themselves. simple statistics thrown randomly, such as whether or not palin drew more viewers than obama are therefore completely irrelevant, and tend to fall squarely in the "who cares" category.
 

"A similar spike in donations" -- displaying Bart's fundamental innumeracy, as 1 is not similar to 10, except that both are numbers.

I wonder when people are going to wake up from the sleep they were put into by McCain's speech and realize he's the one running for president.
 

I agree with James W. (seven comments above this one) that Prof. Balkin should not allow Bart DePalma to post on this blog. I've expressed this before and received little support, but seeing James W.'s comment, I'll try again. I rarely look at the comments anymore because Bart DePalma's and the replies to him are a waste of time and prevent worthwhile conversations from occurring.
 

JamesW:

If I were Jack Balkin, I'd have thrown him off long ago as a troll. Comment threads might become duller, but surely more productive, conversations.

We seem to have had a recent (and simultaneous) infestation of a couple more trolls spouting GOP "talking points". This has happened on other liberal-leaning blogs as well. I've heard that the GOP has put in a plan to 'attack' blogs and other 'new media', giving points (and RNC tte bags?) to people for getting their pro-GOP "talking points" published in LTTEs and online comments. Coinkydence? Perhaps not....

"Bart", OTOH, is a terminal RW authoritarian, and has gotten kicked off Glenn Greenwald's blog for abuse many moons ago.

Cheers,
 

henry

for what it's worth, let's stick to the topic of the post. if you don't want to read mr. depalma's contributions, such as they are, the replies, just skip over them, as i often do.
 

As you can imagine, Palin likewise has dominated the conservative talk radio and the conservative blogosphere.

Leave it to a CRW foamer to get the CRW foamers energized. Good for them. As Dilan says, though, that may not be the best plan.....

Cheers,
 

Peter said "Claiming that one is exceptional, or above the law, is the worst kind of moral relativism. The idea of American exceptionalism is one kind of rather extreme moral relativism. Moral standards that we apply to others don't apply to us. It's OK for my country to do something, because morality is flexible and relative is roughly the way the doctrine works."

I don't think that's what most people mean by exceptionalism; I think we mean that America is an exceptional country, a more wonderful place than others. To us an exceptional country should be held to exceptional standards, just as most Jews expect more of Israel. Others may mistreat their people, but we claim the protection of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Others may launch wars to expand their wealth or their power, but we consider our leaders traitors when they do so.
 

Another day, another double standard. Actually another dozen. This has been a half-week of remarks to the effect of "Can you imagine what Obama would catch if Biden said ...?" But it's a good catch. Make that a baker's dozen.

The Republicans do this because they are antidemocratic, increasingly so. They make their own rules, and these rules are denied the other side. Even their middle-sized rules are made to be broken because there is really only one rule: they have to rule. And if they tried to win elections playing by anything remotely resembling the rules they hold the other side to, they would lose every time. Their party motto is "I can beat you with one hand tied behind your back."

Robert Parry has an article up on truthout.org recounting how they consistently break faith with the public in fundamental ways, treasonous ways, in matters of war and peace. They do this time and again. Even he had too much to do here. He left out Plamegate. A relative recently told me of a time when a friend got Jim Baker drunk and got him to open up about how stupid the Democrats were in 2000 and how he set out manipulate the Supreme Court (which was too big a pat on his own back, it made me think of a john boasting about how he got an overpaid prostitute to fall in love with him). There are no limits. So how bad is a double standard?

There's no contradiction between being a Christian rightist and thinking America can do no wrong. In their mind, the US has always been God's New Israel (to lift a book title). They cite to Romans, as Bush did after 9/11. Palin's Alaska rhetoric shows the mindset plainly, but she's just an example, William Boykin with s skirt and a Fargoesque twang. Her preacher told his flock that Jesus is in war mode, and he repeated this phrase so that the words would come to a stop between their ears despite their velocity and the lack of any matter for it to catch onto.

You don't reason with such people. You humiliate and expose them. In part this is by noticing how they break our rules, the rules of fair play. But another part of it is to expose is their rules and the kind of entitlement they imply. Or so it seems to me.
 

c2h50h said...

"A similar spike in donations" -- displaying Bart's fundamental innumeracy, as 1 is not similar to 10, except that both are numbers.

Actually, I believe that the McCain figure last weekend was something like $12 million according to his disclosures for August.

I wonder when people are going to wake up from the sleep they were put into by McCain's speech and realize he's the one running for president.

This morning on NPR, some Obama operative indicated that they are going to switch focus from Palin back to McCain, which is what I suggested they do a couple days ago. It is unseemly and draws rather unfavorable comparisons for Obama as a presidential candidate to start fencing with Palin as a VP candidate. They need to put the word out to ignore Palin.
 

Keith Roberts:

Others may launch wars to expand their wealth or their power, but we consider our leaders traitors when they do so.

Let me know when the impeachment hearings begin. I'll bring the popcorn ... but to prevent staleness, I won't start popping it or opening the champagne until I see some actual progress on that front....

Cheers,
 

Actually, I believe that the McCain figure last weekend was something like $12 million according to his disclosures for August.

Last weekend doesn't count here. Obama has made $10 million since Palin's speech. McCain, $1 million.

Source
 

PMS:

I know we are experiencing some minor inflation, but I did not know that $12 million became worthless in the past week.

The time differential between the McCain donations last weekend and the Obama donations after Palin spoke is easy to explain.

The GOP base knew about Palin from the outset and immediately got out their credit cards.

Initially, the Dems actually believed their smears that Palin was a cross between an air head beauty pageant contestant and a Jerry Springer guest until she figuratively smacked Obama in the mouth in her barn burner speech on Wednesday. They woke up real quick after that and got out their credit cards again.

I am pretty sure that the television companies will take the resulting millions spent on commercials whenever the money was raised. Can't you hardly wait for the non stop attacks ads?
 

BDP:

My bad. I assumed you were comparing amounts over an equal time frame. To do otherwise is a bit silly, you know.

For example: McCain only raised $1 million in the last two days, but Obama raised $50 million in July!
 

PMS_Chicago,

Assuming that "spike" means "an abrupt sharp increase" is where you went wrong.

Bart meant "an unbranched antler of a young moose."

Just as, when Governor Palin said she was "always proud of America" she meant "supercilous, or disdainful" of everybody but the right-wing fundamentalists, because, for her, those are the only real Americans.
 

PMS:

I think you misunderstand how the GOP is fundraising this cycle.

Unlike the Obama campaign which went against its pledge, the McCain campaign is operating under the public financing rules and has just pocketed a government check for over $80 million.

The RNC is doing nearly all of the fundraising now and has $125 million in the bank. They think they can raise another $100 million over the next couple months.

As to Palin, the McCain campaign pocketed over $10 million during its final days of fundraising in August before the public financing limits kicked in.

In the last two days since the Palin speech, the RNC (not the McCain campaign) collected another $17 million. Thus, the $100 million target for the next two months may be easily surpassed.

No one is doubting Mr. Obama's fundraising prowess. The GOP is going to need to study his internet system hard and long after this one is over. However, the GOP is also going into this fall flush with cash rather than the at the disadvantage envisioned in the Summer.

There will be plenty of money on both sides to pollute our airwaves with commercials, especially if you are in a swing state like my Colorado. I plan to limit my TV viewing to football and news.
 

Oh, BTW, despite competing with football, last night, McCain more than matched the number of viewers for the Obama acceptance speech last Thursday. In case you are counting. McCain/Palin pulled around a combined 80 million viewers while Obama/Biden pulled in around 64 million.
 

mr. depalma

i would refer you to my prior note above as to irrelevance of how many people watched the mccain speech as opposed to the obama speech, as it does not measure who those watching are voting for. i note again that i watched the speech for the content. so i count among the viewers, yet i have no present intention of voting for mccain.

i would also note that the mccain speech did not compete with the football game. the game and speech were timed so as not to conflict with each other. i, along with what i assumed to be many others, watched my beloved giants win an otherwise terrible game, and then watched the mccain speech in its entirety.
 

phg:

You watched the McCain speech out of the same curiosity rather than support that motivated me to watch the Obama speech. I think folks like us probably made up a relatively small minority of both mens' viewership.

I was frankly amazed that McCain matched Obama and Palin's viewership. Obama is a far more entertaining speaker and Palin had the curiosity factor going for her. I am unsure whether this was a holdover from "Palinmainia" or whether McCain may have more support than either one of us imagine.

I am now curious whether the McCain speech moved the polls at all. The DNC bump came after the two Clinton speeches. The Obama speech either flopped or was stepped on by the Palin announcement because Obama's polling went down the next three days. Similarly, the Palin speech like the Clinton speeches moved the polls substantially in favor of her party's candidate. It remains to see whether the McCain speech will add, subtract or have no affect.
 

I was frankly amazed that McCain matched Obama and Palin's viewership.

I'm not amased. I'm heartened. I heard that it was a sh*tty speech with a sh*ttier delivery.

Cheers,
 

Re Bart's statement:

"American Exceptionalism began with our victory in the Revolution"

Wrong, by at least 40 years. Jonathan Edwards, puritan pastor and theologian, preached that the Massachusetts colony was God's "city set on a hill," to provide inspiration to the entire world. He first raised this point around 1735 or so.

This was the start of American exceptionalism; that the new world was essentially the new Israel.

Ross
 

Jonathan Edwards, puritan pastor and theologian, preached that the Massachusetts colony was God's "city set on a hill," to provide inspiration to the entire world. He first raised this point around 1735 or so.

This was the start of American exceptionalism; that the new world was essentially the new Israel.

This didn't begin with Jonathan Edwards. It goes back at least to John Winthrop.
 

I think Koppleman is interpreting Palin's statement incorrectly.

It does not mean that a person is always proud of everything that their country does, but is instead proud of the country in general. So you might be upset (or ashamed) at something it has done, but looking at the larger picture of what it has done and stands for, you are nevertheless proud of it.

As an analogy, if you have kids, you are probably proud of them generally (and have always been proud of them generally), but maybe not of the specific fact that they got a D in Algebra or that they got ejected from their soccer game for punching another player. You are proud of them in general because the good outweighs the bad. (If they were a serial killer, you probably (hopefully!) would not be proud of them because the bad would outweigh the good.)

Same with the USA -- circa 1945, you may not be proud of our Japanese internment camps (hopefully not!), but you may nonetheless be proud of the way that we conducted ourselves in the war, siding with the Allies, fighting nazism, etc.

As for Michelle Obama, her statement (since retracted?) was that her husband's success was the first time she had ever been proud of her country. So apples to apples, this means that taking the good with the bad, she thought that the bad in the USA outweighed the good for her entire life, until Barack succeeded in the primaries. That is a strange sentiment. I don't think most Americans (of any ideological persuasion) would identify or agree with that statement.
 

Zachary,

Since you misquoted Michele Obama, leaving out the "really" that, depending on the inflection, completely changes the meaning of the phrase, your strained interpretation falls flat on its face.

Of course, we could just take Michele Obama's explanation of what she meant, but I understand why you couldn't do that.

What Governor Palin's speechwriter meant, however, is hardly in question: a cheap and easy dig at Obama through his wife (guilt through association is a major method of the right wing) and stoke the "base".
 

Zachary:

It does not mean that a person is always proud of everything that their country does, but is instead proud of the country in general. So you might be upset (or ashamed) at something it has done, but looking at the larger picture of what it has done and stands for, you are nevertheless proud of it.

You may wish to speak to one of your fellow commenters:

Modern US conservatives generally believe in American exceptionalism - that the freedom we enjoy in the United States is uniquely valuable and that our efforts to spread that freedom to the rest of the world is to be commended.

Who does not appear to be ashamed of anything we have done.

To paraphrase yourself (If they were a serial [invader], you probably (hopefully!) would not be proud of them because the bad would outweigh the good.)
 

Since you misquoted Michele Obama, leaving out the "really" that, depending on the inflection, completely changes the meaning of the phrase, your strained interpretation falls flat on its face.

I don't think adding "really" helps her case all that much. So she was just sort of proud of her country for most of her adult life (this is the best construction from her POV), but now she is really proud of it? The item that made her proud of her country was something that helped her husband directly. E.g.,: "I was only sort of proud of my country until I won the lottery. Now, I am really proud of it." If I said that, what would that say about me? That I am only proud of my country when it does things that directly benefit me or my family? In any event, the more natural reading of her statement is the one I discussed earlier.

Of course, we could just take Michele Obama's explanation of what she meant, but I understand why you couldn't do that.

I couldn't do that because it is not plausible. Of course she is going to try and spin it to sound better (or not as bad) once her statement gets publicized. What would you expect her to do? This is a political campaign, and when someone gets caught in a gaffe, they spin.
 

Zachary:

I don't think adding "really" helps her case all that much.

I don't think deleting it helps your case all that much. In fact, it's untruthful -- which is to say, dishonest. Worse than that, this dishonesty has already been pointed out numerous times so that preservering with the dishonesty can only be attributed to malevolence -- and not just carelessness or mistake.

Yes, she was really proud when the country, eleven score years after it declared black slaves three-fifths of a free man (but a short two score years from when G.C. Wallace ran for preznit as an overt and explicit racist), finally got around to acknowledging a person for the "content of their character and not the colour of their skin" and nominated a man of colour for the highest position in the land. That, to a woman of colour, would certainly be a high point in the nation's history ... albeit there's still a long way to go.

Cheers,
 

Zachary,

So you think getting approval from millions of people in a bid for the presidency is the same as winning the lottery?

And you think you should be able to just leave out words when quoting someone?

Well, I don't think either of those beliefs is shared by a majority of people.
 

Well, you can engage in ad hominem like Arne (basically his M.O. on this blog), or you can cling to the deleted word theory, but I don't think it helps your argument much.

I didn't mean to misquote her. I just don't think the missing word helps her defense all that much.

As for winning the lottery, you can substitute any good thing that could happen to you or your family in that space. The point is the same. I do not for a moment think that her sudden pride (or sudden burst of pride) is tied to any national racial reconciliation. That reconciliation was there whether or not her husband was nominated.

Moreover, the nomination fight was not about whether or not the Dems should nominate a black man to be president. It was essentially a fight between which personality you liked more, Hillary or Barack. (There was very little difference between them on issues and therefore little debate over them.) So your party likes your husband more than his opponent. Now that's a reason to really be proud of your country, for the first time!
 

Zachary,

Good on you, that you think misquoting does no harm. Amazing revelation about your cognitive abilities in being unable to distinguish running for president (and being successful in challenging a person who was the odds on favorite) from "any good thing that could happen to you or your family".

This is low-quality solipsism on your part, and I really think you should evaluate your argument honestly and just give it a rest.

As for your last paragraph, it's obvious that you have no idea why Barack Obama won the primary over Hillary Clinton, so you should really just remain silent, lest you be thought a fool.

Feel free to take the last word, I'm done here, and it's pretty obvious where your head is at.
 

Thanks, I will take the last word.

I think it says something (and nothing good) about this blog that so many posters keep resorting to ad hominem to try to make their points. Calling my argument "low-quality solipsism" does nothing to make your point more convincing, except perhaps to those who already agree with it. Between you and Arne and occasionally even Sandy, this blog is turning into a left-wing LGF in the tendency to simply dismiss opposing arguments and insult other commenters. But hey, if that's the blog they want, so be it. It will get lost in the noise just like all of the other flame-war blogs.

As for your second point, you offer no other reason why Obama won and there is really none to offer. Hillary and Obama both stood for the same positions with a few minor exceptions. The only significant difference was her emphasis on experience and his emphasis on change. That is marketing, not substance. Plus the likability factor and perhaps his speaking ability. Again, marketing. None of these factors assist Michelle in redeeming her statement.

Perhaps you should just admit that the statement was a huge gaffe on her part and let it go, rather than trying to tease out an acceptable meaning from the word "really".
 

Perhaps you should just admit that the statement was a huge gaffe on her part

Here's another possibility: Michelle Obama's statement was a "huge gaffe" in your eyes. In our eyes it wasn't any sort of gaffe.

Got any slaves in your lineage?
 

Zachary:

Well, you can engage in ad hominem like Arne (basically his M.O. on this blog),...

No.

My prior comment?: Not ad hominem

You want an example of ad hominem? Try this 'argument': "Well, you can engage in ad hominem like Arne (basically his M.O. on this blog)..."

I didn't mean to misquote her...

"I just did it, I dunno...."

... I just don't think the missing word helps her defense all that much.

Well, after it's been repeatedly pointed out that this is a misquote, what does deleting such a supposedly insignificant word accomplish?!?!?

Why, it twists her words, doesn't it? And thats why you and InsHannity and the KSFO foamers and everyone keeps saying the same thing even when it's pointed out to be dishonest....

Go back and try the same thing, but starting with the fuill and correct quote, m'kay?

Cheers,
 

Zachary:

The point is the same. I do not for a moment think that her sudden pride (or sudden burst of pride) is tied to any national racial reconciliation. That reconciliation was there whether or not her husband was nominated.

False. It may or may not have been there had her husband not been nominated, but it's certainly a good piece of evidence that it's there when her husband is nominated (at least for half the electorate). It certainly is a landmark in U.S. racial politics. To deny that is to deny the obvious. FWIW, while I was up in Canada last week, I was asked if the U.S. was ready to elect a black man as president. To be sure, I still don't know. Without a doubt it's clear that there are people within the U.S. that are not ready to do so.

Cheers,
 

Zachary:

I think it says something (and nothing good) about this blog that so many posters keep resorting to ad hominem to try to make their points. Calling my argument "low-quality solipsism" does nothing to make your point more convincing, except perhaps to those who already agree with it.

I've called your 'arguments' other things (for instance, here, where you attack others for arguments they did not make), also not complementary. That's just an observation, not argumentum ad hominem.

If I were to address your actual substantive arguments by saying they should be ignored (or are beside the point) because you are a 'bad man' (perhaps by dint of being a serial axe-murdering pederast), that would be ad hominem. Pointing out the flaws and dishonesty in your actual 'arguments' proffered is simply good rhetorical technique.

No charge.

Cheers,
 

Arne:

Almost all of your posts pick out something someone says (usually Bart) that is not central to the argument, take it out of context, and then either dismiss it, call the person to whom you are responding something insulting, or call the argument itself names. (The latter may not be ad hominem, but it is still quite juvenile.) You rarely if ever respond to an argument with a good faith reply. Your comments strike me as something I would see on Daily Kos or DU (or LGF or Instapundit), which is not a compliment.

In your last four posts, you have said nothing other than you think that the word "really" redeems Michelle Obama's statement. I don't. You can keep repeating that you do, or keep accusing me of intentionally omitting the word in my original post, or keep saying that my point is "false" (as though that is an argument in itself), but there is nothing in there that resembles intelligent discussion.

For my part, I think you decrease the signal-to-noise ratio on this blog considerably. Even when I agree with you, I find your posts tedious. But feel free to continue in this manner if that is how you get your kicks. I am just hoping -- as I said earlier -- that this blog does not become an army of people 'arguing' as you do, because then it will just get lost in the noise of the Web as another flame-war blog, which would be unfortunate. There are quite enough of those as it stands.

Cheers.