Hope is not a strategy. Stoking the base's fear of swarthy people on the other side of the planet, now that's a strategy. Go with it, you'll totally win.

Maybe if one or two of you nitwits took a little time and read his positions and listened to his speeches and watched the debates you'd learn a thing or two.

But no - the wingnut strategy is to sneer that he's an empty suit. That'll get you far. I hope that mantra keeps on spewing forth. That way the 30%ers that you folks are will feel happy inside while the rest of the country moves forward and away from the debacle(s) created by the dimwit in the White House.

(When the usual pack of howing wingnuts demand that I provide the facts my answer is do your own research - for once - rather than just spewing your idiotic talking points).

John "No Hope" McCain

hmmm, might need a little tweaking.

How does this sound?

"Hopeless McCain '08"

Stoking enthusiasm is up to McCain. He can start by picking a true conservative veep. If he picks the Huckster, he's dead. Next, he can promise to keep terrorists out of our courts. Then he can renounce the global warming religion. Those would be a start. I wait with bated breath.

Hope is not a strategy, but pointing out the vapidity - or the destructive tendencies - of the opposition is not going to invigorate conservatives. We know that already.

Obama's supporters are enthusiastic because they like him. McCain's "supporters" feel more like they've been conscripted.

We're at the point when even the slender hope of some small, vague change is better than the horrifying specter of another four years of Republicans in the White House.

Well put, Jeff. Obama is likeable, young, and has loin appeal, whereas McCain is old and angry. Obama should run ads that show McCain's jowly face for ten seconds, with the word Seriously? at the bottom of the screen.

This is going to be a cakewalk on superficialities alone, which is a good thing because the media doesn't really lend itself very well to serious policy discussion.

"Obama has moved supporters to tears. John McCain has too, but for different reasons. Hillary moved herself to tears - just when it was needed most."

That's beautiful. You have a real talent.

To the extent Ombama has any substance, it's exactly the same big government message that prior Democratic candidates have spewed for 30 years. If he really thinks that HOPE lies in bigger government, socialized medicine, repealing NAFTA and erecting new trade barriers, more regulation, etc. ad nauseum, then he's even emptier and more clueless than your post suggests. While I'm not big on McCain, BHO would be a true disaster on the foreign policy scene, where his policies are stupid and helpful to our enemies, not just empty and clueless. His campaign can truthfully be referred to as "The Audacity of Hype" or possibly "The Audacity of Taupe."

"Obama is likeable, young, and has loin appeal,"

You're right about that, Matthew. However, this would be a much better ad photo, and you can keep the caption "Seriously?" at the bottom for good measure. It's not surprising to me at all that you would cater to superficiality, since you're not an American and actually voting in this election.

I have to say I get a kick out of those from the right who want things to stay the same. A broke government borrowing from China to stay afloat, an unsuccessful disastrous Middle East policy, an unfair tax system, tens of millions not able to afford health insurance, a crumbling infrastructure, no solution to our energy issues, crooked politicians too numerous to count, two political parties almost incapable of cooperating with one another, an unsolved border issue, unsafe ports, a military stretched to the limits, and I'm not even going to raise the Iraq issue.
A, for the most part, non-existent, coherent foreign policy, the disdain of most of our allies, a looming China ready to be THE influence in Asia, a president who pretty much only knows where Texas, Connecticut and D.C. are, an executive branch that ignores laws that don't fit its purpose and takes unprecedented power unto itself and stonewalls and lies regularly to Congress and the American people.

And what you folks is more of the same? I don't and I surely don't think the vast majority of Americans do. The government has been entrusted to the conservative republicans in total for 7 of the past 8 years and you think you can make things better? Or you want to keep them the same?

And your answer is that one of the democratic nominees is an "empty suit" and you hate Hillary Clinton on a visceral level and you have a good man in McCain that most of you vilify. Good luck to all of you and your collective "vision" for America. Get ready for, yes, change.

oops....should have been "...want is more of the same...."

I love all the liberals who are coming out and saying this worship of Obama is embarrassing for the democrats. Crying at rallies? Oh please, I knew democrats were a little touchy feely but this is humiliating for them.

P.S. I saw something on TV the other day where they asked democrats what Obama has accomplished or some of his beliefs and crickets sounded (okay not really) but no one knew. All they knew was he speaks really well.

Well, by all means, let's vote for someone who speaks well.

Bwahahahahahah.....you can't make this stuff up -- only democrats, folks, only democrats... lol.

You're right JFO. I pine for the days when we were selling military secrets to the Chinese, burning unwelcome religious sects to death in their domiciles, forcing little boy refugees back to Cuba at gun point in the dead of night, and shuddering to think what use the president could make of hundreds of illegally obtained FBI files [a.k.a. abuse of executuve power]. Those were the days. The coming "change" is sure to be magnificent.

"because the media doesn't really lend itself very well to serious policy discussion."

That's because the people like your self, who are ideologically communist, but refuse to recognize that fact loose big time in serious policy discussion. The media always want the neo-communist (or Democrat, if you prefer) to win so they simple keep things on the superficial level so the useful idiots will vote for their candidates.

"one or two of you...took a little time and read his positions"

I did. And I remembered reading the same thing before. Now where was that...

Oh yeah, here it is.

"When the usual pack of howing wingnuts demand that I provide the facts my answer is do your own research - for once - rather than just spewing your idiotic talking points"

In other words, JFO can't prove anything but the really, really, believes all the shit he's been fed so that should be enough.

Your Cold War dichotomies reflect your deep grasp of 21st century geopolitical realities, P. Bunyan. At least your views won't be represented following the general election.

There's a red under the bed! Get 'em, Tail-Gunner Joe!

"hope is not a strategy"

Neither is "failed strategy". In a run-off between the two, "hope" wins.

>"Obama is likeable, young, and has loin appeal,"
It's not surprising to me at all that you would cater to superficiality

As opposed to voting for someone because he's a guy you could have a beer with.

Got it.

They're not under the bed mantis, they're running for president. And you useful idiots are supporting them.

They're everywhere! Ahhhhh!

You know Matthew, the reason you Candians are able to maintain your socialist ways is because you sponge off the prosperity of the United States.

If the Democrats gain enough power that prosperity will end and you'll be feeling a lot sooner and harder than we will.

You know, I've demonstrated time and again on this blog with facts, evidence, & personal testimony the commonality between communists and modern American Democrats, and not once have any of you leftists presented one substantial shred of evidence to refute anything I've posted.

All you have is chilish invectives. You will only convince other useful idiots with your childish invectives and the other useful idiots don't need convincing.

In fact you're inability present a mature counter argument pretty much proves I'm right.

"As opposed to voting for someone because he's a guy you could have a beer with."

No one here said Huckabee's beer-buddy appeal nor his likability made him a serious candidate.

You know, I've demonstrated time and again on this blog with facts, evidence, & personal testimony the commonality between communists and modern American Democrats, and not once have any of you leftists presented one substantial shred of evidence to refute anything I've posted.

All you have is chilish invectives. You will only convince other useful idiots with your childish invectives and the other useful idiots don't need convincing.

However, after a decade or two more of disinformation about the Soviets and Cold War American Politics, they will have a solid generational block who think "Communisms Great!" and that it didn't fail under its own weight.

Isn't there a Godwin corollary that substitutes "communist" for "Nazi"?

Perhaps I just think your idiotic conflation of left-centrist social democratic values and practices with Communism is too fucking stupid to pay attention to, you unthinking putz. If I'm a Communist then you're a fascist.

As far as Canada "sponging" off of the United States, it seems as though China will be more than happy to buy our natural resources (especially oil) once your dollar tanks even harder. I've moved my investments out of the U.S., and consequently I made good returns on my mutual funds last month whereas my colleagues who kept their monies in your country all experienced net losses.

We're a country of 30 million, so obviously our fate is intertwined with other nations'. We are, however, more than happy to hitch our wagon to a better horse, and we are gradually making the transition. Maybe we should use some of our massive budget surplus to build a wall along the border to keep illegal immigrants from the United States from taking our service-sector jobs...

In fact you're inability present a mature counter argument pretty much proves I'm right.

The fact that you think my making fun of you proves anything is why you aren't worth arguing with. I'm not unable to argue against the argument that all Democrats are communists, I simply will not waste my time on something so stupid.

What's the difference between a socialist and a communist, Matthew?

Again with the straw man mantis? I never said all democrats are communists. Most of you are just useful idiots who fail to recognize what is happening.

Actually there were two strawmen in that single comment mantis. I also did not say your making fun of me proved anything- I said you inability to provide a counter argument did.

For fuck's sake, do your own goddamn homework you moron. Here's a head start for you:

-Are all people who believe that infrastructure (i.e. roads) ought to be maintained with public funds COMMUNISTS, or is this merely one socialist precept that EVERY SANE PERSON in the Western world agrees with?

Also, when doing your homework, try and take note of the emphasis on the individual's welfare in socialism vs. the emphasis on the good of the state (or the equivalence of the welfare of the state with the welfare of the aggregate individuals) in Communism.

O.k. that's a good start Matthew. People who believe that a few very limited things are best handled by the government are not communists.

Now what about people who believe the government should be responsible for controlling ever facet of our lives? Or those who look to the goverment to solve every problem?

Imagine my surprise, when I found out...

"try and take note of the emphasis on the individual's welfare in socialism vs. the emphasis on the good of the state (or the equivalence of the welfare of the state with the welfare of the aggregate individuals) in Communism."

Bill's wife: "we're going to take things away from for the common good."

The communists goal is to improve the individuals welfare. It just happens to fail every time because socialism taken to the extreme is in direct opposition to human nature.

And mantis continues to contribute nothing of substance. Thanks!

By the way, that was an excellent article again Lorie. Sorry to take this thread so far off topic.

I should just give up. You can lead a useful idiot to the facts, but you can't make 'im think.

Nothing you puked out above resembles a fact. What is it with you and failing to use words properly?

What is "human nature"? How is facilitating the development of those weaker than ourselves through self-sacrifice contrary to it?

Because I have beliefs that are decidedly socialistic in nature, am I then committed to agreeing with that tiny, insignificant minority who "takes socialism to its extreme"? You seem to think that the answer is yes, simply because my beliefs are to the left of yours. You demonstrate time and time again that you are impervious to nuance. Fuck, it's not even nuance that separates people like me from Chairman Mao--it's a conceptual chasm. I refuse to believe that you're too stupid to understand that, so clearly it must be the case that you're just an asshole.

mantis is guilty only of taking you as seriously as you deserve. I'm an idiot for trying to engage your limited faculty of reason to dissuade you of your Cold War dichotomies, which you will apparently take to your grave with you. Were Obama to take 55% of the popular vote in November, would that thereby show 55% of Americans to be "Communists"? (Hint: no.)

Now I'm sure you know how to read, as McDonald's menus don't have pictures of every single thing for you to point at, so why don't you bust out the library card and familiarize yourself with what you feel like spouting off about on the internet before you go and make yourself look really stupid again? (Not holding my breath.)

"What is "human nature"?

It is human nature to want to be rewarded for your efforts and not put effort into things for which you will not be rewarded. If you can get things without expending any effort, you will not expend the effort. The basic socialist philosophy of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" or more commonly "tax the rich, feed the poor" is in direct opposition to this nature of humans.

How is facilitating the development of those weaker than ourselves through self-sacrifice contrary to it?"

If you want to "facilitate the development of those weaker" you'd better start supporting the Republicans because that is at the core of everything they do with regard to the needy. If you want to make their poverty slightly more comfortable and tolerable while making sure they remain trapped in that poverty cycle than go with the socialists/democrats as that's at the core of everything they do.

"Because I have beliefs that are decidedly socialistic in nature, am I then committed to agreeing with that tiny, insignificant minority who "takes socialism to its extreme"?

That "tiny, insignificant minority" you speak of makes up about 18% of the American electorate right now and includes Barack and Bill's wife. You sure seem to hope one of those two comes to power.

Let's try this: Can you give me an example of how you or Barack, or Bill's wife would solve a problem without expanding the governments power and taking away individuals rights?

"it's not even nuance that separates people like me from Chairman Mao--it's a conceptual chasm."

The only thing that separates modern American Democrat politicians for old school communists is that the old-schoolers used brutal tactics, and military and police actions to force people into socialism. The modern American Democrats (or neo-comms, as I prefer to call them) use propaganda (a.k.a. the network news, the New York Times, NPR, ect., and most of the "entertainment" industry), the judicial system, and indoctrination (k - college "public" education) to fool people into accepting the very same socialist policies.

"Were Obama to take 55% of the popular vote in November, would that thereby show 55% of Americans to be "Communists"?"

How many times do I have to burn this strawman before you leftists quit trying to reconstruct it? No, 55% would not be communists. Most of them would be useful idiots who ignorantly voted for the neo-communist candidate.

The rest of your post was just childish invective which I'll ignore. Now, why don't you try to answer one of my questions instead of dancing around or ignoring them.

JFO can rest assured. I first checked Obama's voting record in Illinois and the senate. Nothing sponsored. NO voting or voting present. Hmm. Checked his positions, hm, change. Wow! I even agree with Hillary on Obama: "I offer solutions, he offers promises"

Only the blind and truly dumb falls for the empty suit. JFO, I am not shocked. ww

It is human nature to want to be rewarded for your efforts and not put effort into things for which you will not be rewarded. If you can get things without expending any effort, you will not expend the effort. The basic socialist philosophy of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" or more commonly "tax the rich, feed the poor" is in direct opposition to this nature of humans.

So you don't think that helping those less well off than yourself has intrinsic rewards--you understand the concept of "reward" in a purely materialistic sense! That explains a little bit. As for 18% of the country being Communists, care to produce some evidence? Or do you just divide the number of red cars in your neighborhood by the number of total cars?

I don't think Obama will drastically expand the government, certainly not to the extent that George Bush Jr. did.

Consider this: if a majority of people are "useful idiots" in the Communist vanguard, maybe you're just completely crazy. When you're the guy with the sandwich board with biblical passages written all over it telling anyone who will listen what is wrong with the world, it's hard to take you seriously.

I hope Obama shuts up for a change. That would be a welcome new direction.

President Barak can hope all he wants but his policies have to get through Congress. And Congress is controlled by 42,750 registered lobbyists. And the Executive branch consists of 850,000 unelected bureaucrats of which the new president can replace about 100. Doesn't much matter who wins, not much will change. So much for hope.

Consider this: if a majority of people are "useful idiots" in the Communist vanguard, maybe you're just completely crazy. When you're the guy with the sandwich board with biblical passages written all over it telling anyone who will listen what is wrong with the world, it's hard to take you seriously.

Matthew,
I've been reading your virulent comments for days now.
Your hatred for my country, my president,
and the citizens of this country who post at
Wizbang, oozes from your posts.

So I'm going to give you the incentive to be
civil and to show some compassion and patience
when exchanging posts with others.

Your quote above pissed me off.
The next time you do so, you're going to
find it difficult posting.

Let me fix that for you, Matthew:

Consider this: If a twenty-something Canadian male is bored enough with his "day job" (?), maybe he's just completely self-enamored with his own lazy, unsupported incognito generalizations. When you're the kid with the peanut butter and jelly sandwich lunch routine and a stereo-typed view of another country, it's really hard to get even your co-workers to listen to your ruthless drivel because they actually have good friends that reside in the U.S and are sick of it, like yesterday. So, he might as well go to a discussion blog and spout to anyone who will listen what he thinks is wrong with the world, especially at a blog of the country he has utter disdain for.

There, that's better.

They want four more years of Hell.

Matthew, let me set you straight on something. I'm the director of a small non-profit agency. I'm in my mid 40's I make less than 30K a year. I could make a whole lot more--I have had better jobs and could easily get one again. For that matter my board of directors would pay me more, but I rather that money go to expand our agencies abilities. And I really love what I'm doing. I live cheap. I don't live an extravagant life like a Democrat lawyer, journalist, entertainer, or educator, but I could. I choose not to because of the "intrinsic rewards" of my job.

And I know "those weaker than ourselves" on a level you could not begin to comprehend. I am in their neighborhoods (a.k.a. "the Great Society") and in their homes daily. I can give first hand testimony to the fact that while the Republicans don't always do the best for the poor, they are orders of magnitude better then anything the Democrats. It would take a while to go into it in this but let me try to explain it to you like this.

There's an old saying: "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life."

At the core of pretty much everything the socialist Democrats attempt to do to "help" the poor is giving them fish. The Republicans want to teach them to fish.

That's way oversimplified, but if you actually had an open mind and want to learn something about a part of the rest of reality to which you obviously not been exposed, please, please read this. When I read that book I thought, "My God! This is my life! I could have written this book."

And Matthew, and the rest of you leftists and "independents" who may have been offended, I'm sorry you were offended when I pulled out the "C" word. Not sorry I said it, it's just plain sorry that it offends you. (The Democrats like Durban always leave that last part off, but it's implied). I know how much all of you hate the truth of that word. Most, like Mantis and JFO, respond with infantile taunts as the Party recommends, but I have to commend you on at least trying for a bit, your arguments weren't strong but you tried, before you resorted to the same thing:

"maybe you're just completely crazy. When you're the guy with the sandwich board with biblical passages written all over it telling anyone who will listen what is wrong with the world, it's hard to take you seriously."

But I know how you all hate that "C" word. So I'll try and use those secret code words like "liberal" and "progressive". (Well prolly not.)

And the 18% is not a fact, just my guesstimate, but I base it on real numbers. In the 2004 election 48.3% of the voters marked Kerry on their ballots. Exit polls showed that only 38% of those votes were actually for Kerry- 72% were against President Bush.

48.3 x 0.38 = 18 (point something)

Lastly, we'll see what the "majority" is in November--right now even in the most biased push polls no one gets more than 47% and I believe BO and Bill's wife are maxed out. But I could be wrong- we'll see. In any case your favorite "progressive", "liberal" candidate will not get 55% (well barring some extraordinary event).

Bunyan, I find it offensive that you spout your bullshit under the name of an American hero, albeit a fictitous one. Change your post name to something more appropriate like, "feces eater" or "I hate America."

Um, that's called "projection" Ryan.

But thanks for helping to prove I'm right by also failing to proved any form of rebuttal and instead supplying more childish invective as the Party commands you.

By the way, I'm a not unlike Paul Bunyan.

Paul would have hated communism as much as I do. He would have been appalled, as I am, to see the pure socialists (or "liberals, or "progressives" if you must) take over a major political party, 100% of the broad cast networks, most major newspapers, most of the entertainment industry, the educational system, and most of the judicial system in this country.

Paul didn't sit on his porch all day and just wait around for his monthly gummint check. He didn't threaten to make sure no lumber mill in the country would get a single tree unless they agreed to pay substantially more than the fair market value for those trees and have to pay a set price regardless of the quality of that tree. He did not go around making obscene profits from the misfortunes of others. He did not make piles of money because his was pleasant on the eye and could repeat things others tell him to say and be able to fake emotions on cue. Yes, he did tell some tall tales--he did not however, use them to manipulate the masses by taking control of the media and the educational and entertainment systems.

Nope, Paul believed in an honest days pay for an honest days work so he was a lot more like me than you Democrats.

Plus, I've logged a whole lotta trees over the years and I'm usually wearing flannel.