Gay Patriot Header Image

Obama’s Idealistic Supporters & His Administration’s Reality

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:07 am - March 28, 2009.
Filed under: Obamania

In commenting on an editorial in the Economist wondering where President Obama went wrong, the ever insightful Jennifer Rubin summarizes how this supposedly post-partisan leader has governed.

His mode of governance — denigrate the opposition, engage in ad hominem attacks, refuse to compromise on substantive policy, disguise radical policy intentions with a haze of meaningless rhetoric — bespeaks someone supremely confident in his ideological views and undaunted by fears (which are slowly creeping up on his Red state colleagues) of having overshot his mandate.

Her words call to mind a thought I had had earlier in the week as I pondered all those idealistic young people once so enthusiastic about Obama’s campaign, really believing that this charismatic man was, as he billed himself, a new kind of politician able to transcend partisan differences.

As they wake up to the reality of his “mode of governance,” how will they react?

The man who promised to transcend partisan differences exaggerates them.  The candidate who decried ever increasing federal deficits offers a budget which increases them even more.

Will his deceptions make them more cynical toward politics in general?  Will they treat him as does a woman who finds a man’s romantic blandishments were just his strategy to get her into bed?  Or will they chalk up their faith in him to their own youthful idealism?

How will they reconcile the idealism of his campaign with the reality of his Administration?

Share

69 Comments

  1. In the liberal Boston Globe, the headline of the lead story observed that Obama’s “grass-roots strategy leaves few debts to interest groups”: labor unions, women, minorities, or other “traditional Democratic constituencies.” That is only partially right, because massive funding by concentrated sectors of capital is ignored. But leaving that detail aside, the report is correct in saying that Obama’s hands are not tied, because his only debt is to “a grass-roots army of millions” – who took instructions, but contributed essentially nothing to formulating his program.

    At the other end of the doctrinal spectrum, a headline in the Wall Street Journal reads “Grass-Roots Army Is Still at the Ready” – namely, ready to follow instructions to “push his agenda,” whatever it may be.

    Obama’s organizers regard the network they constructed “as a mass movement with unprecedented potential to influence voters,” the Los Angeles Times reported. The movement, organized around the “Obama brand” can pressure Congress to “hew to the Obama agenda.” But they are not to develop ideas and programs and call on their representatives to implement them. These would be among the “old ways of doing politics” from which the new “idealists” are “breaking free.”

    It is instructive to compare this picture to the workings of a functioning democracy such as Bolivia. The popular movements of the third world do not conform to the favored Western doctrine that the “function” of the “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” – the population — is to be “spectators of action” but not “participants” (Walter Lippmann, articulating a standard progressive view).

    Perhaps there might even be some substance to fashionable slogans about “clash of civilizations.”

    In earlier periods of American history, the public refused to keep to its assigned “function.” Popular activism has repeatedly been the force that led to substantial gains for freedom and justice. The authentic hope of the Obama campaign is that the “grass roots army” organized to take instructions from the leader might “break free” and return to “old ways of doing politics,” by direct participation in action.

    -From Chomsky

    Comment by Scottland — March 28, 2009 @ 8:15 am - March 28, 2009

  2. judging by his 64% approval rating, i think he’s doing just fine.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:26 am - March 28, 2009

  3. So Bob must fully believe President Bush was doing a great job At this time period.

    Whoo hoo! figured out hyperlinkage!

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 8:42 am - March 28, 2009

  4. TL, congrats!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 28, 2009 @ 8:43 am - March 28, 2009

  5. They won’t. To defend themselves and their own ego’s and shallow sense of self-worth, they will blame Bush and come up with excuses. I’ve seen Democrat control of Michigan destroy this state- and yet people vote even more for Democrats.

    Comment by A Conservative Teacher — March 28, 2009 @ 8:43 am - March 28, 2009

  6. And then I hit enter too soon.

    I think we’ll see a three way split on this question.

    1) People getting more jaded and cynical.

    2) Blind Obamabots (or should that be Obamacons, with their leader Obamatron) who will follow their charasmatic leader into the abyss. Either because of charisma, or, more depressingly, because rule of law will mean nothing vs their agenda.

    3) Violent leftests who will react poorly to their leader’s feet of clay.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 28, 2009 @ 8:45 am - March 28, 2009

  7. As they [Obama's young supporters] wake up to the reality of his “mode of governance,” how will they react?

    I think the first question is: When will they notice or care?

    Here’s my answer. Many figured, “he’s a new kind of politician” simply because Obama is half-African (which is racist on their part, but that’s a story for another time). Their thinking went no deeper than that. So we shouldn’t expect them to be too swift, right now. Obama’s policies will make it harder for them to get jobs; but that’s no big deal, because many of them secretly *want* to live with Mom their whole lives, then inherit the house.

    But reality must intrude eventually. Maybe it will be when price inflation kicks up and destroys the purchasing power of their school grants and “party” budget. Maybe it will be when Mom loses her job, so the family loses the house. Maybe it will be when a nuclear or bio bomb goes off in an American city. Maybe it will be when Obama brings back the draft (which he promised to do in 2008, for a “civilian service” korps). And then, to answer your question GPW, they’ll turn on Obama. They’ll just go “Obama, what a loser. Sketch.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 28, 2009 @ 9:02 am - March 28, 2009

  8. As they wake up to the reality of his “mode of governance,” how will they react?

    Ain’t gonna happen. No matter how badly he batters them, they will still love him. They will turn their parents in. They will form youth groups. They will use his spooky poster as a screensaver. They will swoon on command. And, finally, they will drink the Kool-aid.

    In sum, they have totally submitted to the idea of the ideal of the idealism of the man. Call them moonies or Hitler youth or rats following the Pied Piper, they are totally devoted. They won’t “wake up.” They will have to be deprogramed.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 28, 2009 @ 9:25 am - March 28, 2009

  9. Anecdotally, folks here are turning to “the press is just being too hard on him” meme. Truly!

    Have you ever heard such a steaming pile of yellow manure?

    Comment by MFS — March 28, 2009 @ 9:39 am - March 28, 2009

  10. [...] GayPatriotWest wonders how the reality of what Obama really is will due to all the young cluebats who bought into hopeNchange. [...]

    Pingback by Cluebat Wacks The Economist » Pirate’s Cove — March 28, 2009 @ 10:08 am - March 28, 2009

  11. “As they wake up to the reality of his “mode of governance,” how will they react?”

    DENIAL

    So far, the lefties I know are just singing his praises louder, as if it drowns out the reality of his gross incompetence. Seriously, the only minds I’m seeing changed are the Indies and moderates who got a bit drunk off the kool-aid and really believed things would be different- and probably a bit of white guilt thrown in for good measure.

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — March 28, 2009 @ 10:35 am - March 28, 2009

  12. The practical question concerns how many we will be able to peel away in 2012. I’m convinced that the emotions of the election are wearing off and that Obama’s overexposure coupled with deliberate vagueness are wearing thin. And we’re only about 70 days in.

    One thing that is discouraging to a constitutional guy like me is that the executive branch has enriched itself with power that has tipped the checks and balances in its favor. This has been accomplished via the creation of whole federal departments whose heads are appointed by the President — making decisions that used to be made by congress, representatives directly in touch with the people. Thus, the presidency has been insulated from voters (layers of bureaucracy, appointments every 4 years instead of elections every 2 years) as have the issues. The U.S. has in effect become less of a direct democracy than it was and plays right into the hands of the messianic left whose symbolism over substance allows a president to divest his responsibility to his appointments while allowing congress to divest theirs and, literally indirectly, the voters to divest theirs. I’m certain future tyrants are taking notes.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 28, 2009 @ 11:24 am - March 28, 2009

  13. Many of those young voters won’t be out to vote again for quite a long time. And hopefully, when they do, they will be more mature and not be swayed by promises of a messiah.

    I am praying that Gillibrand’s seat goes to Tedisco, it is a very tight race at the moment. With his 65% percent approval, you’d think the One would lend a hand to that race. But no, it really isn’t about the country or even the party – it’s all about him.

    Comment by Leah — March 28, 2009 @ 11:38 am - March 28, 2009

  14. I agree — there will be no recognition. Just incoherent anger and a quickened descent into the feral politics of blame and hate. Oh, some isolated cases of bright kids waking up to the truth of their false idol, but that’s it. The Left doesn’t own or genetically pass on the internal wiring for humble self-reflection and the possibility of error. They’re absolutists. They MUST be right. SOMEONE ELSE MUST be trying either to betray or destroy their dreams.

    Comment by rrpjr — March 28, 2009 @ 11:48 am - March 28, 2009

  15. Ignatius said, “The practical question concerns how many we will be able to peel away in 2012. I’m convinced that the emotions of the election are wearing off and that Obama’s overexposure coupled with deliberate vagueness are wearing thin. And we’re only about 70 days in.”

    For me, that’s the scary part. We’re only 70 odd days in with literally daily scandals and unbelievably ballsy usurping of power. By the time 2012 rolls around, I fear the great unwashed will be so desensitized and beaten down in spirit that they just won’t care who wins- it will seem futile. Wit h the massive entitlement expansion buying evermore democrat loyalty, it may already be futile.

    Thomas Jefferson said, “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” Maybe he was a prophet for Obama is surely a tool.

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — March 28, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - March 28, 2009

  16. Many will change their minds and mature. In 1992, at the age of 27, I enthusiastically voted for Clinton. I was quite liberal at the time (hell, I called myself a leftist). After the autocratic Hillarycare fiasco (and who can remember what else), I actually rejoiced at the “Republican Revolution” of 1994. From then on, I continued to find leftism/liberalism to be more and more of a civilization-destroying outrage.

    I voted for Clinton because I wanted a fresh change from the “evil” of the Reagan/Bush years. I ended up repudiating Clinton and everything he stood for, as well as embracing the “evil” of at least the Reagan years (But not Bush. Bush 41 is probably the man most responsible for destroying the momentum of the conservative movement).

    Comment by Matteo — March 28, 2009 @ 1:46 pm - March 28, 2009

  17. Dear Teleprompter stuffs his “town hall” meeting with planted supporters.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - March 28, 2009

  18. Where is everyone coming up with this 65% approval rating? Unless I can’t believe my eyes, yesterday Rasmussen had him at 56%, and Zogby had him barely at 50%. Not even close to 65% and dropping more rapidly than any other president at this point in an administration. Snark attack: this is not an administration, this is a circus.

    Comment by John in Dublin Ca — March 28, 2009 @ 4:42 pm - March 28, 2009

  19. There has to be a face-saving out in order for many of these voters, and the question is simply how to give it to them.

    My guess would be, “Obama lied to us,” because that would have the net effect of throwing The One under the bus to protect the Obama Party who supported him and the Obama Media who propagandized for him. From my perspective, what we want is, “Obama told the truth; the media and the Obama Party lied to us about it”. Nothing The One has done since taking power is a surprise to anyone who looked at him through Koolaid-free eyes during the campaign, but we’ll be kind and let these disgruntled former cult members pretend that someone else forced them to drink it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - March 28, 2009

  20. the cbs poll had obama’s approval rating at 64%. i believe cnn or one of the other biggies had him at 63.

    “Yet President Obama’s overall job performance rating appears unaffected by the AIG fallout. Sixty-four percent approve of the president’s performance, roughly the same as last week.”

    source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/23/opinion/polls/main4886328.shtml

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - March 28, 2009

  21. also, i find it amusing how you guys act as though all obama voters are 18-year-old, naive, idealistic little bunnies, considering that people with postgraduate degrees voted for obama by a nearly 20% margin over mccain. similarly, obama won people making over 200k by a 5% margin.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - March 28, 2009

  22. Maybe we get the idea of that Obama culties are dumb and juvenile because of the infantile comments we read from members of the Obama cult on this and other blogs.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 6:18 pm - March 28, 2009

  23. i assure you, v the k, i’m smarter than you.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - March 28, 2009

  24. Then, there’s the complete hypocrisy of the Obama-lovin’ left:

    http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2009/03/red_eye_skewers.php

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - March 28, 2009

  25. i assure you, v the k, i’m smarter than you.

    I’ve seen no evidence of that. To name just a couple of things, I know how to punctuate sentences, and I know the definition of the verb “indoctrinate.” So, at a minimum, I have that on you. Of course, your inability to capitalize may be a side-effect of where you got your education; maybe the stall graffiti in Jersey turnpike rest areas is all in little letters.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 6:31 pm - March 28, 2009

  26. my punctuation is just fine, thanks. i’m a published author. what have you done w/ your life?

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 6:55 pm - March 28, 2009

  27. #23: The most compelling evidence of bone-crushing, unmitigated stupidity is arrogant, baseless proclamations of one’s own staggeringly superior intellect. Oh yeah, and there’s also this:

    Sean A: The undeniable, well-established position of the mainstream gay community is that NO moral standards apply to your relationships.

    bob: what evidence do you have of this?

    That’s downright conclusive evidence of profound idiocy right there. And if you get a response to an argument that has something to do with sex, New Jersey and rest stops? That’s when you really know you’re dealing with a slack-jawed moron.

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - March 28, 2009

  28. #26: We know. Penthouse Forum, right?

    “have you ever been to mardi gras? last time i was there, i saw about 50 pairs of bare breasts, a dozen or so flashed cocks, and, when venturing into an alley, stumbled upon a drunken 20-something bending a girl over a table and doing her doggy style”

    Riveting stuff.

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - March 28, 2009

  29. #26: bob, why would you expect anyone on this blog to think you have accomplished anything in your life when all you can seem to talk about is how oppressed and persecuted you are?

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - March 28, 2009

  30. And the funny part is, you can see all of that in less than a hundred feet of the SF Pride Parade.

    So why isn’t boob out there protesting it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - March 28, 2009

  31. what have you done w/ your life?

    I can’t speak for V, much as I’d like to, but the general answer would be: things that, given your worldview and general amorality, you would never understand as having value.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - March 28, 2009

  32. sean — i didn’t say i was participating in the mardi gras madness; i said i was there. can you understand the difference? the point is that gays and straights both engage in public acts of indecency, and using a gay street fair as reason to deny equal rights is ABSURD.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 7:23 pm - March 28, 2009

  33. and if you think stating that i want to be treated equally equates to doing nothing but talking about how oppressed and persecuted i am, then you are a fool.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 7:24 pm - March 28, 2009

  34. and frankly, sean, i could give a rat’s ass what anyone on this blog thinks of me. i’m not here to boost my self esteem. i’m not here for some sort of approval. i’m here because i think the dialogue on these issues is important, and honestly, i enjoy annihilating the idiots that post here.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 7:26 pm - March 28, 2009

  35. Sean A: The undeniable, well-established position of the mainstream gay community is that NO moral standards apply to your relationships.

    bob: what evidence do you have of this?

    what you fail to realize, sean, is that my belief is that the government is not the entity that should be setting morality standards. is that kind of like the religious police in iran? talk about fascism.

    when we’re discussing consensual adult behavior in private, i think each individual has to decide his own morals.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - March 28, 2009

  36. I will go back and say all it takes in the next election is 5 million and one people to change their mind and the conservative wins. The leftist I don’t believe will turn on Obama but they are notorious for finding reasons to not go to the polls. So the 2012 Congressional elections are going to be trouble for him and the liberals. There’s not doubt in my mind that there are 5 million who are surprised at the speed of his headlong lurch to socialsim. They thought he was going to be some new and clean polititian. His nominees and bungles have totally let the air out of that balloon. The polls….I choose to believe the 50% and 56% approval ratings for Obamateleprompter. Bob chooses to believe the 62% and 64% polls. Either way the President isn’t rated at 76% like he was 90 days ago. If the 50% polls are true….look for his own Dems to be getting wary of all the Obama exposure. The Democrats poll hourly, the truth is last week they started to peel away, even the socialist communist Maxine Waters started to be critical of her Fuheur. In the upcoming elections, many Democrats have to defend seats in red states. Even though they are faux conservatives, Obamateleprompter is making it hard for them to get re elected.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 28, 2009 @ 7:37 pm - March 28, 2009

  37. the point is that gays and straights both engage in public acts of indecency

    But, unlike gays, the vast and overwhelming majority of straight people actually oppose and are willing to speak out against, arrest, and punish those who commit public acts of indecency.

    Meanwhile, boob and his fellow gay leftists are over here screaming that to apply the same to gays would be “homophobic”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - March 28, 2009

  38. what you fail to realize, sean, is that my belief is that the government is not the entity that should be setting morality standards.

    Then you should be speaking out against laws that ban child molestation, public indecency, incest, rape, theft, and other things that establish “morality standards”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - March 28, 2009

  39. i was talking about morality that involves an individual’s choice that does not adversely affect society at large. you left out the very next sentence, which was:

    “when we’re discussing consensual adult behavior in private, i think each individual has to decide his own morals.”

    of course, the gov’t should establish laws that protect us from things like theft or sexual abuse, child abuse, etc. i’m talking about adult consensual behavior (like being slutty, or not being monogamous, for example). i’m not condoning these things, but i don’t think the gov’t should be regulating them either.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 8:05 pm - March 28, 2009

  40. what have you done w/ your life?

    Among other things, I have adopted two “unadoptable” kids who… despite backgrounds of abuse, neglect, and homelessness have learned to properly punctuate their sentences and express themselves intelligently.

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 8:11 pm - March 28, 2009

  41. #39: V the K, you’re a monster. How do you live with yourself?

    BTW, have your children managed to learn the nebulous concept that there are people in the world with skin that is colored differently than their own? And that they shouldn’t hate those other people because of it? Or have they not gotten to that semester in school yet?

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 8:31 pm - March 28, 2009

  42. #34: “and frankly, sean, i could give a rat’s ass what anyone on this blog thinks of me. i’m not here to boost my self esteem.”

    Yeah, except when you’re proclaiming yourself to be smarter than the “idiots” on this blog, kissing your own ass for being a “published author,” or demanding that V the K defend what he’s done with his life.

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - March 28, 2009

  43. #35: “what you fail to realize, sean, is that my belief is that the government is not the entity that should be setting morality standards.”

    What you fail to realize, bob, is that I agree. I’m talking about Proposition 8 and decisions made at the ballot box that might have been different if the gay establishment wasn’t on the record being so dismissive of the very aspects of marriage that made it a good idea for the state to sanction it in the first place. Heterosexual couples cheat on each other all the time, but mainstream society still condemns it as immoral. This lends a bit more stability to the institution. But you’re demanding marriage rights now, contending it is GOOD for our society, and that it poses no threat to cheapening heterosexual marriage. But when the issue of monogamy comes up? The answer is along the lines of, we’re not promising anything because that is a personal choice and how dare you judge us for inviting third parties into our relationship you “homophobe.”

    The mainstream gay establishment can’t even bring itself to resoundingly and unequivocally condemn “bug chasing,” but you expect average, non-hateful Californians to go into the ballot box and overwhelmingly support the gays and everything they could possibly want because they should just trust you that it will be great for society? Dream on, loser.

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 9:05 pm - March 28, 2009

  44. “when we’re discussing consensual adult behavior in private, i think each individual has to decide his own morals.”

    Ah, but you see, boob, that whole “consensual” and “adult” thing is another limitations that the government places on private conduct, aka a morality standard. You were up there screaming that the government should not legislate anything of the sort, and that to do so is “fascist”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 28, 2009 @ 9:06 pm - March 28, 2009

  45. when you start making sense, NDT, i’ll respond to you.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - March 28, 2009

  46. i won’t hold my breath.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 28, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - March 28, 2009

  47. #43: Way to “annihilate” the “idiots on this blog,” bob. Just tell the other person that you won’t respond because they don’t make sense. Masterful.

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - March 28, 2009

  48. I just finished watching the History Channel´s presentation, Hitler, The Rise Of Evil. As Hitler´s charisma increased his following, Fritz Gerlich tells his wife, ¨We´re running to the monster instead of runnning away from the monster.¨ My mind said, this not unlike what has happened in the last campaign. Dan concludes his post with the question, ¨How will they reconcile the idealism of his campaign with the reality of his Administration.¨ I can picture Obama mouthing the words Hitler told Rohm, ¨Promises!¨ I don´t give a damn about promises.¨

    Comment by Roberto — March 28, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - March 28, 2009

  49. BTW, have your children managed to learn the nebulous concept that there are people in the world with skin that is colored differently than their own? And that they shouldn’t hate those other people because of it? Or have they not gotten to that semester in school yet?

    Gee, Sean, the idea of teaching my own children values is so bright and scary. I would prefer to just let a bunch of childless bureaucrats and activists determine what they should be indoctrinated with via our government school system. (Which does such a bang up job teaching math, science, and English, why not trust them with teaching them important social values.)

    I’m more intrigued by bob’s Game of Unverifiable Internet Credentials. Should I claim to be an astronaut, a Nobel Prize winning Physicist, or an Olympic gold medal snowboarder? Should I go for all three? Can I claim I invented wool?

    Comment by V the K — March 28, 2009 @ 10:15 pm - March 28, 2009

  50. #47: “I would prefer to just let a bunch of childless bureaucrats and activists determine what they should be indoctrinated with via our government school system.”

    Well, obviously that would be best, V the K. But then again, you’re a good dad so of course you’re going to trust the experts to handle this one. Even with the best intentions, you’d probably just fu*k it up.

    As for your “accomplishments”:

    Astronaut? No, it involves a uniform that suggests a military background. This would make it too easy for bob to dismiss you as a war-mongering fascist baby-killer.

    Olympic snowboarder? No, liberals like bob have absolutely no use for athletes unless they are very outspoken about 9/11 being an inside job, or unless your sport involves the completion of both a “short program” and a “long program.”

    Nobel Prize winning Physicist? Yes! That’s the ticket. If you have a Nobel Prize, liberals will agree with anything you say, even if you propose exterminating the Jews in Israel. Also, bob will probably just pretend that he knows what a physicist is/does–just go along with it (even if he says something like, “yes, I’ve always found physicism fascinating!”). If he senses that you doubt his knowledge and sophistication, he’ll just freak out and accuse you of turning tricks at rest stops along the New Jersey turnpike and the whole thing will be blown.

    As for inventing wool, I say no since he might see through it (he may have learned where wool comes from by watching videos on the PETA website). Tell him that you designed and manufacture those “Free Tibet” stickers. This will give you instant credibility with someone like bob because you know how much they loooooove those good intentions. All you have to say is, “bob, I don’t where Tibet is, or why those poor people just aren’t free, but dam*it, as long as this stuff is going on down…over there, I’m going to keep selling these stickers. And you know what? Maybe someday Tibet WILL be free.” bob will be instantaneously dwarfed by what you’ve accomplished in your life, especially what you’ve done about the Tibet sticker freedom thing.

    And suddenly, that home-published appetizer cookbook he “published” won’t necessarily be able to make him feel like the smartest guy in any room anymore. At a minimum, maybe he’ll stop announcing how smart he is to the rest of us (which as you know, will feel like three weeks on a blissful country estate).

    Comment by Sean A — March 28, 2009 @ 11:07 pm - March 28, 2009

  51. Boys! Boys! Some asshat tells you how smart he is anonymously in a forum… how can you do anything but laugh?

    What a hoot!

    Comment by MFS — March 28, 2009 @ 11:24 pm - March 28, 2009

  52. #47 V the K is certainly within bounds claiming to have invented wool. In fact, here is the actual trial sample V the K created. (The black haired guy’s name is bob.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tCbMFp7eUo

    Comment by heliotrope — March 29, 2009 @ 12:20 am - March 29, 2009

  53. i assure you, v the k, i’m smarter than you.

    my punctuation is just fine, thanks. i’m a published author. what have you done w/ your life?

    i enjoy annihilating the idiots that post here.

    Your secrets are safe with you.

    considering that people with postgraduate degrees voted for obama by a nearly 20% margin over mccain.

    Since when did a postgraduate degree confer a damn lick of sense on anybody?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 29, 2009 @ 4:13 am - March 29, 2009

  54. bob, of all the major polls, CBS skews most to the left, favoring Democrats. If its poll has Obama at 64%, then his real approval is below 60, well below, right where Rasmussen has him. And that pollster most accurately forecast the results of the 2008 election. And the 2004 contest.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 29, 2009 @ 5:02 am - March 29, 2009

  55. ” might have been different if the gay establishment wasn’t on the record being so dismissive of the very aspects of marriage that made it a good idea for the state to sanction it in the first place…”

    i’m sorry, could you provide some evidence for this? of course not, because you’re talking out of your ass.

    “Heterosexual couples cheat on each other all the time, but mainstream society still condemns it as immoral.”

    hmm, so because they talk out of one side of their mouths and then go do otherwise, they’re somehow more worthy of rights? mainstream society still condemns gay infidelity too. every gay person i know would feel pretty damn bad if he cheated on his parter or was cheated on. and i’m sorry, but the term “open relationship” was not invented by gays. in fact, even facebook, hardly a gay social networking site, has “in an open relationship” as a relationship status option.

    while i do think allowing gays to marry will be better for society on the whole, i don’t think making this argument is necessary to deserve to be treated equally under the law. however, i disagree with your contention that leaders of gay organizations haven’t been talking about this kind of stuff. i’m a cable news junkie, and i’ve seen countless leaders of gay organizations talk about how gay marriage would be good for (or at least would not damage) heterosexual marriages, how gay couples have the same loving bond, etc. some dude wearing ass chaps doesn’t change any of this.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 29, 2009 @ 8:32 am - March 29, 2009

  56. #20: “the cbs poll had obama’s approval rating at 64%.”

    That would be the CBS poll that sampled 35% more Dems than Repubs? They didn’t even poll “Likely Voters” or even “Registered Voters” but “random adults”. Read the internals on the last page and tell me if you think this poll was slanted or skewed in any way: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Mar09b-AIG.pdf

    Stick with Rassmussen–that one tends to be much more accurate.

    Comment by AF_Vet — March 29, 2009 @ 9:23 am - March 29, 2009

  57. Hmm, does writing on a blog count as published?

    Or how about being one of the 32 contenders in a writing contest (I can even claim to be peer reviewed. harshly peer reviewed)

    Or how about self publishing?

    Or Tuckerization? I have an entire Bloodname to claim.

    Being ‘published’ doesn’t mean much anymore.

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 29, 2009 @ 10:06 am - March 29, 2009

  58. Oh, I think bob represents a fourth group I missed.

    Denial, because it would lead to self questioning. “But but, I’m educated, and clean! And Articulate! And Published! I can’t be wrong about him.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — March 29, 2009 @ 10:08 am - March 29, 2009

  59. 21: What’s that say about the education they received? Probably in professions which require no work and more suckling from the hard working.

    P.S. My rabbit is very insulted by your description of Obama voters.

    Comment by Vanessa — March 29, 2009 @ 10:29 am - March 29, 2009

  60. i’m smarter than you

    If you have to say it, then it isn’t so.

    See bob, this is where your sockpuppets should come in. Bring back “DavidKR”. Have “him” assure us all of how smart you are, despite the evidence of our own eyes.

    my punctuation is just fine, thanks.

    “No… It isn’t.” (Serial Mom grabs blunt instrument from Juror #12′s hands, hits her across the mouth with it.)

    i’m a published author.

    If you have to say it – and, won’t also say what it is – then it isn’t so.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 11:38 am - March 29, 2009

  61. “No… It isn’t.” (Serial Mom grabs blunt instrument from Juror #12’s hands, hits her across the mouth with it.)

    LOL.

    Since Amazon doesn’t list A Poorly Punctuated Book of Shopworn Leftist Cliches among its titles, I think we can consider the myth busted.

    Comment by V the K — March 29, 2009 @ 12:29 pm - March 29, 2009

  62. #58: “No… It isn’t.” (Serial Mom grabs blunt instrument from Juror #12’s hands, hits her across the mouth with it.)

    LOL here too.

    “No! Please! Fashion has changed!”

    “No. It hasn’t.”

    BAM!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD4wPLE_Nq4

    Comment by Sean A — March 29, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - March 29, 2009

  63. Well, the point is, we can’t know, one way or the other. And in a blog discussion, when someone retreats into unverifiable boasting (“I’m smarter! My dad’s an architect! I knew all the names of McCarthy’s aides when I was a fourth-grader!”, it means they’ve lost.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 12:58 pm - March 29, 2009

  64. Thanks for the clip, Sean A. :-) Correction to what I said: it was juror #8.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 29, 2009 @ 1:06 pm - March 29, 2009

  65. #´s 49 & 51, V the K´s comment is #48, not #47.

    Comment by Roberto — March 29, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - March 29, 2009

  66. i’m sorry, could you provide some evidence for this? of course not, because you’re talking out of your ass.

    Of course yes, boob.

    But emphasizing the moral or symbolic importance of the m-word could alienate some religious and unmarried families, both of which make up a large segment of potential voters. Discussing the latter group, Jean offered her own version of a response to the princess ad, to much laughter and applause:

    “Here’s the message I wanted to see. … ‘You’re right honey, you can marry a princess, and isn’t that wonderful? You can also marry someone of [a different] race. And you know what, you don’t have to get married; in fact I think you should consider whether you want to participate in that patriarchal institution.’”

    And who is this, boob? The Executive Committee of the No on 8 campaign — or the very people who were whining and screaming about the necessity of gay-sex marriage.

    So this is how gay-sex liberals like you work, boob; you claim you want marriage, but you won’t say that marriage has any values because you don’t want to alienate unmarried people. Meanwhile, you blab on in a public forum about how you think marriage is an evil oppressive “patriarchal” institution, and your fellow gay-sex liberals laugh and applaud you making this statement. You make it completely clear that you disdain marriage, that you don’t think marriage is worthwhile, that it’s an evil and oppressive “patriarchal” institution, and then you go out in the streets and scream and whine about how awful your life is without it and how society is hurting you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 29, 2009 @ 2:18 pm - March 29, 2009

  67. No one of any intelligence is going to buy that. Bipartisanship is a two-way street, and while Obama can point to countless efforts to work with Republicans, the GOP can point to none.

    Comment by Levi — March 30, 2009 @ 12:20 pm - March 30, 2009

  68. Obama can point to countless efforts to work with Republicans

    You mean, the efforts where he dismissed Republican proposals by saying, “I won?”

    You mean Nancy Pelosi changing the rules of the House so Republicans can’t offer amendments to legislation? And shutting Republicans out completely when writing legislation?

    Yeah, Democrats are real bipartisan. Just like the New York Times is objective journalism.

    You mean Harry Reid refusing to allow any Republican amendments to pending legislation? You mean like Harry Reid looking for ways to pass legislation without any debate?

    Comment by V the K — March 30, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - March 30, 2009

  69. Wait, is Levi saying that the GOP can’t point to any instances of working with the GOP?

    Comment by The Livewire — March 30, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - March 30, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.