He's looking more and more like a reversed retro Clairol commercial. "The closer you get, the better he looks" just ain't happenin' for me.

Is this hypothetical candidate for President going to have a virtual teleprompter available during debates with McCain? That's about the only uhhhhh, way..ummmm...the man seems to uhhhh have coherent thoughts.

SNL had a character John Lovitz played that used to do just that, mischaracterise or just flat out pull something right out of his ass and say like it was the honest to God truth.

His comeback line was "Yeah, thats it ... thats the ticket!"

The Obomasiah is the same way, only nobody in the slavish MSM calls him on any of them.

Wit so very much campaigning to do (plus the jet lag), it's clear that Obamamessiah isn't sleeping well nowadays.

He'll be much more sharp and alert come January.

Yeah, when he gets back to work in the Senate, Herman.

After his divorce.

("I was THIS CLOSE!" his soon-to-be ex-wife snarled, as the election returns came in and she slapped the prepared papers in his face. "I was going to show that fist slut Hillary just HOW to run a President, and YOU screwed it up! All YOU had to do was just SHUT your damn pie-hole and keep to the scripts, but NO! You had to try to speak off the cuff - and we couldn't hide what a blazing idiot you are!")

Uh, that should have been "first" (Blushes very red...)

Uh, that should have been "first" (Blushes very red...)

This site is very hard on keyboards. This is the third coffee-spewing incident of the day.

Looks like Obama's moved from "gaffes" to outright lies.

I'm looking forward to B.O.'s latest "clarification".

He'll be able to get plenty of sleep come November Herman. The campaign will be over and he can go back to voting present in the Senate.

Yep, both McSame and Obama speak with forked tounges. But all the flip flops McSame has made, why blame Obama for the same? Get over having ODS, just like you claimed everyone had BDS, or CDS, etc.

Wake up, our country has some serious problems, start making these two idiots state their plans to start fixing the problems instead of criticizing just one of them.

They are both lying elected idiots.

He'll be much more sharp and alert come January.

Yeah Herman, we'll cut him some slack just like you libs did for McCain's Sunni/Shiite mistake.

We know who is playing Alex Trebek here.

OK, Barack, it's Arab tribal leaders for $200 or name your Senate committee assignments for $1,000. No help from the audience please.

I'd like to come up with something to explain this...like he meant 'my' as in the Senate (vs. House) or 'my' as in the US since he's not in the US right now...but the chest slap - "MY committee"...sorry, I've got nothing. Maybe he was thrown off by that fact that the banking committee did something while the committee he heads hasn't done anything so he's, like, invading it or something and taking it over. "Alright, Reid, banking's mine now, I AM the New Age Messiah!"

The more I see of the Senator, the more obvious it becomes that he is barely average in intelligence at best. I couldn't understand how the first Black to be head of the Harvard Law Review couldn't find a single judge to intern with after graduation. Clearly, it's because he is an idiot who must have been passed through his classes just for showing up. Like a star QB, his professors must not have wanted to deal with the ramifications of flunking the Harvard Law Review head. Easier to pass him on to graduation and just avoid doing any references for him.

Obamahammed is just tired after tagging other countries with his O-stika....

I am wondering why there's lots of room for Novak's traffic incident yet none in the press for what is bald-faced Obama lie.

This is not a misstatement. This is an outright lie, and it opens the door into the heart of the man, who is audacious, arrogant and dishonest.

This is the kind of nonsense that played so well at Trinity church and in the wards of Chicago. They did not care for the truth.

Bt this is a serious business, and this country does not deserve someone so dishonest at the helm.

Cassy

You really are showing your age and complete lack of experience as a political hack. Atleast Obama goes not put his foot in his mouth everytime he opens his mouth, unlike Bush who can barely put a sentence together, unless it has been written for him, for ad libber, he is not.

I think you have some gall to have a go at Obama on this particular issue. Stop being so precocious !
depp=true
notiz=How nice a sockpuppet, so brave!

LenS - wasn't he also the first editor of the Review not to publish a single piece of his own - even though the editor is guaranteed a couple of slots?

Obama is an idio-savant without the savant.

When did we decide that we could apply affirmative action to the presidency?

Sorry, "idio" is supposed to be "idiot". Don't want to pull an Obama here.

President Obama would have us chasing shadows in Afghanistan while Iraq burned.

In general, Democrats are in favor of any war except the one currently being fought. If we had concentrated everything on Afghanistan and let Iraq alone, there would be no end to the whining and crying we'd be hearing from liberals about how evil Bush is for bogging us down in a barren mountainous wasteland while Saddam has free reign right next door in Iraq. Etc.

Sorry, I will repost the following here as it is relevant. It is from the "A Man for All Seasons" thread:

61 comments and the real issue has not been addressed by anyone (even Oyster, who makes great comments).

The real issue people, is that Obama does not care about the surge. HE DOES NOT CARE. He only wants to try to use the issue to help him win the election -- so he will say what he thinks will help him to that end. If he can distinguish himself from the Mac by saying he disagrees with the surge because he could have made the price of gas less than Al Gore's dick size in inches, then he will say that to score political points. The REAL ISSUE is that on EVERY issue that Hussein takes a stance on, it is to try to help him win the election -- that is why he is for everything. He'll continue to do this while it works -- so we need to just point out what he's doing and take appropriate action, not waste our time discussing why or how he's doing it.

Democrats always value the dollar over human life and freedom for others. Just this week we find they value the dollar so much the Hussein 'campaign' staff is stealing dollars from the taxpayers by avoiding the taxes on gas at the Denver shindig. The only other reason they could have to gas up at a city facility, other than stealing from the taxpayers, would be they are so above the average American they can't be seen in a dirty old self service gas station. They are the elitest, you know.

McCain's statement is entirely correct. Obama would lose a war to win an election.

"That money could have been applied to having a serious methadone program so that we were reducing our demand on heroin produced from poppies, which is helping to fund the insurgents in Afghanistan."

Listkeeper,

If the Taliban and Al Qaeda were successful militarily against the U.S., I don't think Obama would consider that as "losing" the war.

What the....how the...Is he seri...I can't belie....He wants to be Pres...

Oh never mind.

I'm dumbfounded.

The flaw in Obama's answer (ok one of the flaws) is that you can make the same argument about nearly anything. Just think of all the great things we could do with the money going to (fill in the blank). If the goal is to win in Iraq then the surge has moved us closer to that goal.

Obama can say that the goal was not correct, but that was never his call. As President he needs to figure out what the next step is given where we are, not were he thinks we should have been. It's troubling that Obama is unable to recognize success when it's apparent to almost everyone else. If Obama can't learn from both mistakes and successes, then he's unqualified to be President (or even a Senator).

2 points:

First, Obama said the money should have been spent on Afganistan. This is either ignorant or disingenuous as Afganistan was not a big problem when the surge plan was first implemented in early '07. It was only the success of the surge that caused the terrorists to pull out of Iraq and turn their focus to Afganistan.

Second, did anyone notice how Obama never even considered as an excuse that the money should not have been spent at all. He gave a whole list of other things he would have spent the billions on, but his little Marxist mind could not even conceive of the possiblity that the government not spend our money at all. (Now don't get me wrong here, I think the surge was well worth the cost.)

I get tired of the OBL shit, which is why most people who harp about Afghanistan want to go there in the first place. To get the "one responsible" for 9/11. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind. We got him. Too bad the left is scurrying to defend him in a criminal court. The main financier was Ali Abdul Aziz Ali. Also captured.

As far as the "mistake" (which most Democrats claim is the Iraq conflict PERIOD, surge or no surge), please read this AP report:

More than 550 metric tons of yellow cake. Bush lied? Well, obviously that is bullshit. Even without the finding and removal of this material, using military force to find out just what in the fuck Saddam was up to was justified. By multiple UN resolutions. The simple fact that he had missiles that flew a little too far was enough, goddammit. Let alone this obscure AP report.

And staying there makes even more sense now. What the fuck is wrong with staying there? Or fuck it, make a big show of "leaving" but leave a 21st century Trojan horse behind. Something 20 stories deep that houses the best of the best and everything necessary to launch and sustain a counter attack for at least two weeks. Or something that will simply obliterate Iran, Syria and all those vicariously at war with the United States of America via this "insurgency" or "civil war" being waged by "freedom fighters" in Iraq.

Barack Hussein Obama is the south facing end of a northbound horse. Period. End of discussion. He is a callow, sophomoric moron with delusions of competence that must be discouraged in perpetuity! In other words, his candidacy needs to be repudiated by the electorate in terms so resounding that his credibility never, ever recovers!

He gave a whole list of other things he would have spent the billions on, but his little Marxist mind could not even conceive of the possiblity that the government not spend our money at all.

Yeah, but to be fair, neither Bush nor McCain are a whole lot better on this.

Indeed, the very idea that government should actually spend less seems to have disappeared from public debate.

ed davis, the whole yellowcake thing has been explained. Crank up your search engine.

Hi oyster,

Forgive my ignorance, but where can I find it explained? I looked again but all I have seen on it is that AP report.

From my perspective it's existence in Iraq was a violation of multiple UN resolutions. Therefore, beyond any and all other findings that justify the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein, this one takes the cake.

Obama reminds me of: (Pick your favorite or add another)

"He had delusions of adequacy." Walter Kerr

"A modest little person, with much to be modest about." Winston Churchill

"He is a self-made man and worships his creator." John Bright

"He is simply a shiver looking for a spine to run up." Paul Keating

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination." Andrew Lang

He also said that instead of the surge we should have put pressure on the Iraqi government to find a political solution..does he think that we weren't trying this?..doesn't he realize there could be no political solution without securing the country of terrorists first?..he also gave credit for the improvments in Iraq to the Anbar awakening which is true. But doesn't he realize that there could not have been a successful awakening movement without the surge?

Is he a simpleton?..I'm not sure..but I know one thing for sure..his supporters are.

RE: # 14

I agree with your point about Bush (and the same applies to far too many Republicans), but I don't see McCain as having a record of being a big spender and in fact I believe one of the things he's campaigning on is reigning in government spending.

He may not keep the promise, but at least he's making it. And at least I can hope he will-- with Obama there is no hope.

Maliki was asked what has calmed the violence in Iraq and responded as follows (from Der Spiegal):

"There are many factors, but I see them in the following order. First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq. This has enabled us, above all, to pull the plug on al-Qaida. Second, there is the progress being made by our security forces. Third, there is the deep sense of abhorrence with which the population has reacted to the atrocities of al-Qaida and the militias. Finally, of course, there is the economic recovery."

No mention any surge.

Obama is now saying that a nuclear Iran is a 'grave threat'.

First he says that it isn't a threat and now he says it is. Since Iran was known to be working on nuclear weapons ever since he was elected U.S. Senator, his change of heart must be because of the audience he is speaking to, rather than any new information.

C'mon Barry, is Iran a threat or not?

No mention any surge.

I love when liberals quote Maliki in recent days --as Max Boot put it in today's WAPO--"after years of deriding Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a hopeless bungler and conniving Shiite sectarian, are now treating as sacrosanct his suggestion that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010."

Convenience + opportunity = Flailing leftist political spin.

And let's not forget that Maliki is a politician running for office in IRAQ and will thus play up Iraqi contributions to security improvemnts before giving America and the surge
any credit. There is no denying that it is the surge that led to where we are today. A surge opposed by Obama

Without addressing the obvious anti-American bias of Der Speigel, Adrian, I notice that Maliki's alleged point #1 was the political rapprochement in Iraq.

Now pretty must every leftist has been declaring the surge a failure because it did not allow for the political progress necessary for a stable Iraq. Your Obamessiah was saying this very thing just the other day. So, is Obama a liar or is he just ignorant of world affairs in general ansd Iraq in particular?

I know you won't answer but thanks for finally proving once and for all the complete disingenuousness of that common leftist talking point.

@ #20

No mention of any American presence (or any other nation for that matter) at all. Now why do you think that is, genius?

I know it's off-topic, but does anyone know when Obama passed the bar? Wiki says he allowed his law license became inactive in 2002, so one would assume he did pass the bar.

Got to admit I'm loving this. Haven't heard a peep lately out of those who just enjoyed deriding the phrases "stay the course" and Stand down when they stand up", referred to with such sneering condescension.
When all's said and done, we'll have a presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future, I'm sure.
To stop and take stock of the progress made to date is to be amazed--and all brought to you through the effort and sacrifice of the world's finest military.

These young men and women serving today are truly OUR Finest Generation.

Just when you think you have heard it all.

Obama is an intellectual lightweight, a poor leader who surpasses that characteristic only in the measure of how much he will disappoint his followers.

Can you imagine Mondale or Dukakis saying these things? Even Carter?

The level of ignorance and arrogance is off the charts. I can't see Dodd, Biden or Hillary attempting this level of conceit.

#20

First, there is the political rapprochement we have managed to achieve in central Iraq.

What is the Arabic word for rapprochement?

Seriously, what is the translation?

I ask because we have this:

Last Monday, Der Spiegel editor Mathias Müller von Blumencron joined Bernhard Zand, the magazine's Arabic-speaking middle east correspondent, in Baghdad. They'd scored a rare interview with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which they planned on conducting together.

from,

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/hanging_by_the_telephone.php

And then we have this from der Spiegel (same source):

"His original words were unprintable. It would have been embarrassing to him. So we edited it," says Müller von Blumencron. "There are very few people you can do a Q&A with without editing for grammar. And you always have to make it shorter."

And all of this so conveniently "edited" and then "edited again" with the timing of the Obamamessiah's trip. Especially that critical timeline that dovetailed so neatly with the cult leader's message.

And they said Reagan was choreographed.

The WaPo editorial that Paul linked asks, "Will Iraq be written off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough?"

Considering his track record in Chicago, particularly the Englewood and Grove Parc neighborhoods, I would say "yes." Obama has no problem abandoning people when they are no longer a political asset.

In answer to ed davis:

A Brief History of Tuwaitha

I'm not sure which AP article you read, but this article contains a short explanation of the history of the yellowcake:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

has barama ever uttered the words "winning the war in iraq", or "winning in iraq"? has he ever talked about winning? i've heard him say "ending the war", "bringing the troops home". i don't recall hearing him talk about winning. has anyone heard him talk about winning in any context other than his own election prospects?

You mentioned Obama would rather spend money in various other venues, besides Iraq. My mind always wonders, what money? Isn't this borrowed money were talking about here? Our country is going into debt, but hardly ever do I hear reports on that matter. If my husband and I ran our budget the way our country does.... We'd be burnt toast, worthless.

Not only is the Ford Probe a bad car name, it was a lousy car too. I had to drop in a whole new engine after 50K miles.

Good name: Plymouth Voyager
Bad name: Dodge Caravan - is it a car or a van?

"Crossfire" is a horrible name for a car, because who wants to be caught in a crossfire? Isn't that the worst place to be?

I like the car though.

The Gore- Inconvenient to drive and no power.

The Obuick- Looks good, feels good, but no steering.

The Pelosi-Fast off the line then stalls.

The Reidster- Crank model. Difficult to operate.

The McCain-Great power, poor steering. Goes left or right unexpectantly. ww

Following the guidance of the Obamessiah, I'll introduce some Spanish into the discussion. I present you with the poor choice of introducing the Chevy Nova into Latin America, where the name is heard as "No Va," meaning, "it doesn't go."

We had one but I always thought Camaro was a dumb name

I always liked the name Monte Carlo. A lot of the SUVs have great names. The Explorer, Blazer and Range Rover come to mind. The Hummer on the other hand, is terrible.

I think the dumbest minivan name, and possibly for any model car, is the WindStar. A minivan conjuring up images of a solar wind? Right.

I present you with the poor choice of introducing the Chevy Nova into Latin America, where the name is heard as "No Va," meaning, "it doesn't go."

Urban legend.

As far as good new (OK, newer) names go, how about the Avalanche?

Plymouth Prowler

Horrible names: Ford Festiva, Ford Aspire, Dodge Neon (Neon? Why not call it the 'Radon')

Best name: Ferrari Enzo

Heh, the Enzo is the best car, too.

I used to have a Ford Cyclone. I thought it was a cool name. Even though the car was crap.

Really stupid car names:

Armada -- It's due to be sunk
Avalanche -- deadly

The number-names shouldn't bother an automotive afficianado, if they understand what the numbers mean (e.g. BMW 328 vs. 330, etc.)

Coolest car/name combo? I'd say Aston Martin's V12 Vantage. Bad.Assed.

For a new full-scale SUV -
The Ford Compensator!

BEST

DeTamaso Pantera (my dad owned a '74...he suped up the engine to get to 425HP ...bad ass car)

Ferrari Enzo (pure Italiano...)

Plymouth Barracuda (just screams 'get the f*** out of my way'...)

Corvette Stingray (they even kind of look like stingrays, pre-1966 models)

AC Shelby Cobra (Who knew you could name a car "Shelby" and still have it be among the bad ass car names on the planet....)

WORST

LeCar (Le Piece of Crap)

Plymouth Breeze (in a word, gay)

Toyota Tacoma (named after a city where the dominant smell comes from pulp mills....yeah!)

Ford Festiva (illegal alien in the trunk is a package option...)

Toyota Prius (same # of letters as in the word 'pussy'...)

Either Raptor or Velociraptor

And, this year's Indy 500 pace car, the Chevy Velociraptor!

My two favorites:

Ford Gelding
Nissan Spleen

I always thought 'Delorean' was a cool-sounding name.

What's even funnier is how we've re-named cars:

Explorer = Exploder

I'm sure there are many more.

As far as good new (OK, newer) names go, how about the Avalanche?

Conjures up images of the car rolling over and over and over and over....

Not good. ;-)

Assassin Intimidator Vindicator

Don't know about the first two, but I think the Vindicator was the name of one of our military aircraft.

For great car names;

Buick Roadmaster
Ford Falcon
Dodge Charger
Triumph Spitfire
Pontiac GTO
Mercury Cougar

If I owned a car company, I'd be tempted to name one of our new products the 'Crusader.'

yeah, I know I'd lose the Muslim consumer niche market, and I probably couldn't sell it in Canada without being charged with a hate crime by their kangaroo-court Human Rights Commission, but it would be fun to see CAIR's head rotating around and around while vomiting pea soup, plus guys like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant would each buy 3 or 4 of them, so I might come out ahead.

One of the worst names you missed was the AMC Pacer.

In the best:
Plymouth Roadrunner

Worst:
Le Barron

Most people don't know about it, but the sons of Edsel Ford objected to the Edsel being named after their father, and there was a name that new car contest in 1957 to choose a name. But some of the names entered in the contest were so bad such as the "Utopian Turtletop", that the car was finally named after Edsel Ford afterall, but became a quick marketing failure. The failure of this contest was just the first sad chapter in the failure of the Edsel car line by Ford.

The Edsel Comet was the only success of this car line, but was rebadged as a Mercury product when the Edsel ceased production in November of 1959. Only a few thousand of the rarer 1960 Edsel models were produced. And every Comet was sold as a Mercury product. There was apparently a decent market for a higher end compact car like the Comet, unlike the bigger Edsels which didn't really fit into a market between the Ford and Mercury line in price.

I'm personally a big fan of Kaiser, Studebaker and AMC cars. But AMC was hung up on naming cars after insects for a short time with the Hornet, and a prototype called the Wasp. But the Gremlin name finally emerged for their smallest car. Interestingly, the Hornet name was first used by Hudson in the 1950's, again on the 1970-1977 Hornet. And Dodge had plans to use in once more for a New Dodge Hornet subcompact to be built in China by Chery Motors.

AMC was so cash strapped that the 1970 Hornet was designed for just $40 million dollars and the 1970 1/2 Gremlin for just $6 million dollars more by chopping a foot and a half out of the Hornet body. But also the Javelin and AMX were the same deal, the Javelin was a longer version of the two-seater AMX model.

AMC managed to market some car based off the 1970 Hornet until 1987, the longest run ever for a car body design in American history. Even the VW Beetle modenized bodies every few years while looking similar to older models in it's long run. And Checker Motors only lasted from around 1958 to 1974. AMC had no money, so they simply marketed the same old car year after year with some cosmetic or drivetrain improvements.

The Pacer was perhaps the main reason AMC financially failed. The 1975 models sold really well for just one year, then sharply dropped off in sales and hurt the sales of the other car lines like the Hornet and Gremlin. The Pacer was supposed to have a shorter length engine designed by GM, possiby a Wankel design, but GM never built the engine, so the overly long AMC inline six was used. The engine was so long that it went into the passenger cab, and most Pacers never had their back spark plug ever removed because it was too difficult to reach. This car was short in length, but just as wide as a full size Chevrolet. And the door on the passenger side was longer than the driver side door. The car used so much glass, that it was extremely heavy and really needed a V8 to power it, which was added to the 1978 to 1980 models. With all the glass, the car became very hot during the Summer and needed air conditioning. Interestingly, Pacer was also one of the names of an Edsel car line as well. But the AMC Pacer may not have been the worst car name ever, but was a terrible design that ruined AMC financially, using up $100 million in tight company cash and only selling well for a very short period.

The prototype for the last Studebaker, called "Black Bess" had interchangeable fenders made from the same stamps as the front and back of the car to save money, and was a two door car on one side, and a four door model on the other side.

Ford did a really funuy thing in late 1969. When they brought out the Maverick, they dropped the smaller Ford Falcon body, and put the Ford Falcon name on a few cheap versions of their Ford Torino. These are very rare, and very cheap cars as well. Ford also built some poorly conceived of four door model cars of cars never designed to be four door car like the awful looking four door Ford Thunderbird and the horrible four door Ford Maverick. These two cars looked excellent as two door models, but the four door designs were simply awful looking.

Oh, you mention old cars, and I could go on and on. But, I can't really think of as many poor names for automobiles as I can poor designs or poor business decisions that made some cars into four alarm marketing failures.

Psst! Mr. Hooson. Here's a hot tip:

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Oregonmuse, my argument is that there are few really bad car names, but many serious design or marketing shortcomings instead and I cited exactly why in several specific cases.

I was always amused by Toyota's use of "Cressida." Those familiar with Shakespeare would tell you that Cressida was not exactly a paragon of virtue.

Cool new car names: Tesla and Cayman.

Though, to be fair, their association to kick-ass cars may have more to do with my estimation of the names than the names themselves.

Now I think on it, if I had a car company, I'd name them after dogs:

Black Lab
Bulldog
Boxer
Terrier
Doberman
Beagle

I'd have to be selective. Not much market for the Poodle ...

Good name:

Titan (and although the name nissan still sucks, it's better than Datsun.)
Mustang
Cougar
Super Bee
Maserati

I presonally like the number names - especially when they mean something. (bmw, infiniti, lexus)

Bad names:
Anything Subura - legeacy, outback, impreza, baja, brat, justy, tribeca...

Lotus is pretty wimpy with names too - I mean Elise or Esprit? That's supposed to evoke powerful feelings???

Paul, it doesn't matter what your argument is, the fact is, it could have easily been stated in a fraction of the 808 words it took for you to make it.

For whatever meaning this has for you, I read very few of your posts. When you first showed up on this blog, I did, but then I quickly realized that whatever point you were making wasn't worth wading through all the verbal diarrhea to get to it. So most of your stuff I skip.

And before I get accused of being a short-attention-span moron, note that there are commenters and bloggers I read regularly who usually make extended arguments, and who I consider well worth reading. You, however, are not one of them. Their prose is lively and interesting. Yours is just the opposite. After e or for sentence, my eyes start glazing over and I start thinking about how much longer this is going to last.

Sorry for the harsh assessment. But consider this some consumer feedback. You can do with it what you wish.

Maybe you should get your own blog. You seem to have a lot to say and maybe what you need is just an appropriate forum.

I had a Buick Wildcat, and saw a Concept for a new Wildcat back several years ago, the Concept fit the image the name inspires

CANYONERO!!!!!

I love how I got a negative vote on my post. Somebody must really, really like me to vote a negative on a thread about car names! LOL...You loser....

Peter, prob the same joker who gave a '1' rating for the article. I mean, that kind of person would be offended by a glass of milk.

How about the "Surge" for the next version of the Hummer.

Rename the Prius the "Pious" ala South Park.

"The Testosterone" for any new muscle car.

I gave an additional ding to peter's article just to show I care.

It's OK, Peter. I gave you a positive vote on all your comments--even though you disagreed with me on the name Avalanche. You evil bastard. Nobody voted for me. Sniff...

;-)

Sorry Tom, but 'Avalanche' is a pile falling down.

Honestly, for the sports car market, I don't think you can go wrong if you name it KickAss. Unless it doesn't.

DJ--yeah, I can see that now. You've all enlightened me on Avalanche. :-)

Aww, no repsect for Kia names? Not even "The Sportage"?

Is it a hairstyle? Is it luggage? No, it's a tiiiiiiny SUV!!

My faviorte is the Ford Aspire.... as in Aspire-to-be-a-car.

(And I've owned both of these. Please pray for me.)

There, there now, Tom B, you can buck up now. I just gave you a positive vote for your WindStar comment. Wipe those tears away, and put on a happy face!

--Evil Bastard. (No relation to Fat Bastard, sorry.)

Full disclosure, I already riffed on the name I came up with for the next class of SUVs...the Rhinoceropolis. Sounds pretty cool, eh? Especially with the chrome horn hood ornament?

Anyway, Forbes has some funny names, lots of foreign ones:

'Dodge Diplomat'
'Pontiac Parisienne' (I hear Kerry has one)
'DeSoto Firedome'
'Checker Superba'
'Oldsmobile Futuramic'

And then they ramble into the overlords of weirdness...the Japanese:
'Honda Life Dunk' (I'd drive a car with that name...it looks like a tall Fit)
'Daihatsu Naked' (that one not so much...SUV-ish)
'Honda That's' (Ok, you'd be so busy anwering questions about your car name you'd never get anything done)
'Isuzu Mysterious Utility'
'Mazda Bongo' (looks like one of those old VW vans)
'Mitsubishi Pistachio'
'Suzuki Cappucino'
'Toyota Deliboy' (uhhhhh....huh?)

Finally...I don't even know what part of this is a manufacturer...

'Volugrafu Bimbo' (just say no)

Paul Hooson is the kind of guy you ask him what time it is and he tells you how to build a watch. :) Loved my Ford Falcon. First car ya know. ww

Japanese car executive: "We need a name for this car and we need it by tomorrow".

Marketing guy: "Datsun?"

Well accourding to my Dad the first car I had was a Ford Jalopy. After that I got a Chevy Rattletrap followed by a Dodge Junker.

I disagree on the Fiero, maybe because it really was a hot little car. I like the Firebird, but then of all the cars I've ever owned, including my Vette, the '69 Firebird 400 was my favorite, my second fav was my Pontiac Sunbird convertible. I also like the Mitsubishi "Endeavor."

The Ford Probe sounds like it belongs in an OB/GYN office.

Henry Ford liked the name Model A so much that he used it in 1903 and then again in 1928. I think it's a Canadian name, A.

re: #49

Thank you, ww, for summarizing all my verbiage in one short sentence. I wish I'd said it that way!

The Ford Exploder belongs on the WORST list not the BEST

I disagree with the OP on the Nissan Maxima. Maxima is a math term, meaning the plural of a maximum. It goes along with the term minima, again the plural of a minumim.

I've always wondered about the old Toyota Tercel. WTH is a Tercel, and why would I want to drive one?!?

Put my vote in for Barracuda and its derivative, the Hemi 'Cuda. And most of the companies using numbers instead of names (except for Porsche) usually equate them somehow to the size of the engine in liters:
Nissan 350Z: 3.5L.
BMW 528i: 5-series, 2.8L inline-6.
Benz 300DL: 3.0L Diesel (also inline-6, as it happens).

I'd guess something similar for the Infinities: Q45 was probably a 4.5L V8, for instance.

Ford Tempo/Mecury Topaz: FoMoCo should have done like Chrysler did with the Neon and named both cars the POS.

Peter F.:

Thanks, man! It's good to know even an Evil Bastard can put a smile on my face! ;-)

As far as lousiest names go, I always thought the name GEO was pretty crappy.

Rodney:

I think the name Explorer is a great name...the quality of the vehicle is a completely different story for sure, though.

One more thing: the Pontiac Aztek is top of my list of the most hideous cars in the world, surpassing anything American from 1959, anything Citroen, and even the Edsel.

Tom's right, 'Explorer' is a good name for an SUV, conveys the sense of off-road and all that. Now whether it lives up to that name ...

Porsche Carrera sounds like the poetry in motion that it is. Another good one was the Pontiac Firebird.

Doesn't 'Viagra' sound like it should be the name of an automobile?

Also, 'Pasta'.

"New for 2009: The Chevy Pasta!"

{insert your own joke}

Needless to say, I've never owned a car, since I am in love with the environment. I did, however, like the name "Road Runner" (Plymouth) very much.

I always liked the name of my Dad's 1955 Oldsmobile "Rocket 88" with it's two-tone white/violet paint job and his Ford "Galaxie 500" Police Interceptors of various years.

I was also quite partial to my 1962 Chevy II Nova, 1967 Pontiac Firebird with the Sprint OHC 6 package and my 1974 Mercury Capri V6, "The Sexy European", also known locally as the "The Yellow Peril". That was when it was still cool to drive European cars fast!

Unfortunately, now I'm all "growed" up and drive a Chrysler Town & Country mini-van, so I can transport the whole family.

I think as we move farther away from the days when the "Greatest Generation" ran the show we are going to see weaker and wimpier names for our automobiles. The great names were given to cars by guys who flew Mutangs, Thunderbolts, Cobras, Vindicators, and Wildcats into battle. I bet they were taking a little bit of the glamour associated with their warbirds and transferring that to their marketing efforts. Afterall they were targeting other members of the WWII generation.

Now we are buying foreign cars with focus group approved names.

Having come of age during the muscle car era, I've always liked the older cars--modern vehicles have degraded into transportation modules, with all the appeal of a rotted tree stump. Say what you will, the old cars had definite personality and an honest charm.

The newer cars are undeniably an engineering improvement, but they attained that at the cost of simple appeal. New versions are nearly indistinguishable from one another, and they're ALL boring as hell.

Did anyone ever own the "Nogo" by Yugo?

You know how to double the value of your Yugo?

Put five gallons of gas in the tank.

New as in this decade (century)? How about the Nissan Titan?

Nissan's first full-size pickup, and they made absolutely sure they were top in every category that first year... except that the brakes wore out too quickly for some reason, and Ford beat them in towing by underreporting the F-150's towing capacity.

Saturday night live did a concept car called the "Adobe"

Odd car names? How about a car called "The Car"? Renault's 'Le Car' wasn't sold in the US long, it was quirky - but the dang thing was pretty reliable despite all the abuse I put it through, AND I could fit my 6'2" frame into it comfortably, which was more than I could do with any comparably priced domestic model in 1980...

VegaBond:

Was the Adobe Toonces the Driving Cat's favorite car? ;-)

Jim:

Definitely agree with you on the Porsche Carrera and the Pontiac Firebird. Great car names.

Everytime I see Prius I think they just couldn't remember how to spell Priapus. I would have been so fitting as his sacrificial animal was the ass.

Tom, I'm still not taken with the Explorer name, quality and punning aside.

Rodney:

To each his own man. What's you're fav?

How did you miss the American Motors delegation? Gremlin. Pacer.

As far as the good names go, I think there is a bit of tail wagging the dog. As we look at it not, Corvette sounds good because it has become associated with a killer automobile.

I'd have to nominate the Mercury Mariner as one of the worst names. Unless, of course, it's amphibious.

I remember a comedian (Jay Hickman, maybe) who said "Camaro" is an old Indian word meaning, "Fill this f**ker up again."

"Mustang" was certainly one of the most influential car names, lending its image to an entire car niche...the ponycar.

I thought "Phoenix" was a good name that never found a good car.

A tercel is a hawk, the sort used in falconry.

With the exception of the long-defunct QX4, the digits in an Infiniti model designation refer to the engine displacement: my I30 has a 3.0-liter engine.

For a brief period, NOVA was a catchall acronym for GM compacts: Chevy Nova, Olds Omega, Pontiac Ventura, Buick Apollo.

If you find the report in the Palm Beach newspapers, it points out that his three children attend Charles W. Smith Jewish Day School, a 1500 student, all white private school that costs upwards of $22K per child.

I love how liberal Democrats keep supporting Affirmative Action, Busing, and social engineering in the public schools while there own children attend elite, all white private schools.

Any congressmen who does not maintain a house in his old district is probably in a very safe district and wanting to live in DC all of the time shows where his ambitions lie.

Barry Krischer is the State Attorney in Palm Beach County, and he has done almost nothing when it comes to local corruption. Two former County Commissioners and two former West Palm Beach Councilmen pleaded guilty to corruption charges in the last two years, but in each case the charges were brought by a federal prosecutor.

He doesn t go after his liberal buddies, like Wexler; he files false charges against Rush Limbaugh for a non-crime and the lapdog media runs with the story. I guess it depends on which side of the bread the butter is on.

HOW DARE CERTAIN SINISTER REPUBLICANS GO AFTER THIS FINE CONGRESSMAN, WEXLER! Is it because they realize that he is one of the few Dems (including, of course, Dennis) who are doing their utmost best to rid the world of the Bushevik Horror????

Check this out:

www.wexlerwantshearings.com

--> "Join congressman Wexler's call for Bush and Cheney impeachment hearings."

This happens at many levels of government and in many cities and states. We had the same issue here with a City Council member who, by every measure, didn't live in the district he ran for. Although he won the election in 2007, the seat was taken from him finally by a court decision. Not before he cast the deciding votes on a couple of very controversial issues though.

------------------------------

Herman, wow! You get funnier every day.

What exactly is the law/rule in Florida as far as being a resident of a district and eligible to run as congress member.

Although I am willing to bet if we started looking closely at congress members-democratic or republican, we would find many of them with all but sham addresses in their home districts with their main residency being somewhere in the beltway.

Oh, so the very proud liberal (he has a new book out admitting just that) doesn't want to pay taxes in Maryland, but rather in Florida where there is no state income tax. But I thought taxes were good, Mr. Proud Liberal?!

Don't you love it when they're busted? Lol.

A year ago during an interview, McCain said he would most certainly leave Iraq if asked to by the Iraq government. Well McCain just flip flopped on that one.

Hmm... is Dave going for the "missed the point" contest, or going for the "quick, change the subject!" prize?

J.

I am pointing out that McCain has flip flopped on his core issue. If I had the time I could point out just as many flip flops by McCain.

Jay,

When you resort to personal attacks you defeat the integrity of your own argument. At least thats what DJ says. But don't worry, DJ doesn't follow his own advice either.

Dave,

When did the Iraqi GOVERNMENT ask the United States to leave Iraq?

As I recall, all we have had so far is a vague/changing request (both as to content and timetable) from the Maliki - who is up for reelection himself soon.

If you have a source that indicates that the Iraqi government has made a formal, official request to have the US troops out, by all means post it for all of us to read.

Good grief, Dave, if you consider my prior comment a "personal attack," you are one amazingly thin-skinned little bugger.

I don't recall mentioning McCain in my piece, and I specifically said Obama wasn't flip-flopping...

J.

Jay,

I did not say I was offended by it, but am merely pointing it out. You resorted to another personal attack by saying I have one amazingly thin-skinned little bugger.

Ummmm, Dave ....

When you "merely pointed it out", you engaged in a personal attack on Jay.

Now since he has demonstrated that he is anything but thin-skinned over time, I doubt he was offended by your comments either.

But should we discount your argument because you engaged in a personal attack?

Or, should we stop playing silly word games and just discuss the topic?

Can you explain how Obama can simultaneously hold conflicting opinions but be right on all of them?

Jay,

That was an enlightening piece and it explains why Obama votes present. He simply can't take a stand because he's for all sides of a question. He votes present simply to let the folks back home know he's on the job. While that strategy works for a Senator it would be a disaster to have a President who can't make tough decisions. How can Obama lead when he can't decide which way to go?

Dave is a perfect example of how the lefties MISS THE POINT OF ALMOST EVERY POST. It has to be either a comprehension problem or an overly excited defense mechanism. I go for the latter. Obama is way passed an average flip flopper. He simply has no core beliefs at all. ww

"We are the change we've been waiting for." BHO embraces all sides of every question. Like Bush, he's a uniter, not a divider. Isn't that, as he says, what "we've been waiting for." NOT! If you're having any doubts about who this guy is, go back to Jibjab.com and watch him on the flying, multicolored unicorn spouting off about change.

Bob,

If you're having any doubts about who this guy is, go back to Jibjab.com and watch him on the flying, multicolored unicorn spouting off about change.

Thats a cartoon, cartoons aren't real. That does not prove a thing.

Bob,

I could equally say McCain is a war monger. If you have any doubts watch the jibjab cartoon.

Obama - the "Chuck Norris" of Politicians.

He doesn't embrace a position, positions simply flop on their backs for him because they know resistance is futile!

Change looked at Obama and simply gave up. It knew when it was outmatched.

When you "merely pointed it out", you engaged in a personal attack on Jay.

But I do so without resorting to name calling.

And just what name did I call you, Dave?

Never mind. I don't want to aid and abet your valiant efforts to change the subject from the one at hand to "anything but."

Just TRY to address the point, Dave, and we'll have a modicum of respect for you: how the HELL does Obama manage to stand so firmly on both sides of so many issues? When push comes to shove, which side will he come down on? And how the hell can we tell BEFORE we cast our votes come November?

I'm not really expecting an answer, Dave, but I'm going to make this good faith effort to find out.

J.

So, you chose the "silly word games" over discussing the topic. I guess that you can't explain how Obama can hold opinions that conflict with one another and call them all "correct" either.

;-)

My previous comment was addressed to Dave.

Oh, Jay - the Obama=Chuck Norris jokes are SO apparent!

I expect people's opinions or stances to evolve in accordance with how any given issue may evolve. What I can't condone is when it's prefaced with, "I never said that." I've heard Obama say this too many times.

In fact, all too often - Yes he did. It's on video.

And when a question is asked, I want the question answered succinctly. I don't want some oratory on societal woes and flowery speech about changing. I don't want to have to read anything into what one might have to say. That's just one's way of being everything for everyone. How many times do you hear people explaining to you what Obama meant when he said this or that? And even then it will vary according to interpretation.

"And just what name did I call you, Dave?"

You called him "Dave". How DARE you?

Concerning your comment on the surge (and not arguing for it or against it):

There are a lot of things in this world that have worked, but shouldn't have been done in the first place. There is no great contradiction in recognizing that. If you can't think of a dozen examples in your own life where that is true, you haven't lived on this earth very long (or ever been a parent).

You know, one of the "derogatory"* terms I've heard many evil Marxists use to describe President Bush is "the Decider" so I think it's entirely appropriate that they chose as their candidate someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that he lacks the ability to make a decision or take a side on an issue.

(*I put derogatory in quotes because it's obviously not derogatory and actually a characteristic that is required in a President--one of the many such characteristics Obama lacks. But many on the left use it in a way that gives the appearance of them thinking it is in fact derogatory.)

There are a lot of things in this world that have worked, but shouldn't have been done in the first place.

But of course neither you nor anyone else can know the outcome of something not done, and without that information no one can honestly say something shouldn't have been done in the first place. Remember "Don't cry over spilt milk." - James Howell (1549-1666)

Why should the surge not have been done in the first place Rance?

Did you want the terrorists to win?

"But of course neither you nor anyone else can know the outcome of something not done, and without that information no one can honestly say something shouldn't have been done in the first place."

Yes, you can say something shouldn't have been done in the first place. First I, remind you of my qualifier, that I am not talking for or against the surge, just the argument that you can both against something while conceding that it worked.

It comes under the heading of "you got away with it this time" or "you are tempting fate".

Take a look at the annual winners of the Darwin Awards. Many of those winners engaged in reckless behavior for years, and got away with it one way or another. Until the last time.

As far as not knowing the outcome of something not done, there is often a way to achieve the same result using safer methods.

Rance, I'll believe you when you say that you're not arguing for or against the surge, but anyone who read the summary of what the surge was designed to achieve and the different and complex strategies employed, depending on who we were dealing with and where in Iraq, you wouldn't use it as a basis for your argument about whether or not something should have been done in the first place.

A lot of people will finally admit that the Surge worked. Even Obama. But they still don't know why. They still think it was just a matter of more troops. Obama's original talk about more troops not achieving anything tells me that even he didn't understand the plan.

The surge hasn't thus far succeeded because of luck or any twist of fate or in-spite-of anything. It was a carefully planned network of strategies which proved that we have gained a much better understanding of a very complex society of people. The timing was right too. Whether or not much before that could have been avoided is another argument altogether.

So yes, it should have been done.

Yes, you can say something shouldn't have been done in the first place.

That statement is illogical. Particularly in the context of the surge in Iraq. There's no way of knowing what the outcome would have been without the surge. All h**l could have broke lose in Iraq and you can't honestly say it would not have. Nor can you know the outcome of any other plan that was not tried. Sorry, but that's just the way reality works unless you're claiming to have some kind of supernatural insight into alternate futures. Is that what you are claiming?

Arguing that something perhaps should not have been done, in any instance or context, even if it worked, is implying it was a shot in the dark. The Surge was no shot in the dark. That's why there is no comparison in your argument.

You called him "Dave". How DARE you?

Topic?

If there's one party that can screw up an election for the Presidence .. It's the Democratic party. We wanted Bush out of there 4 years back with Kerry. What did we do .. gave it to him. We wanted the Democratic Congress to stop the money on the war. What did we do .. gave it to him. Even though we had majority in Congress. So, now all you freak'en brilliant'ites out there saying Obama is crap and you'll vote for Ralph or whom ever if he's the nominee. Well we'll just be giving up a dream again. Look, for people who do not know this due to watching to much TV, the things any individual states when running for President should be taken with a grain of salt. The thing to remember is that Congress basically decides and has an 85% final say. Look it up. Can we just stop for a moment and remember that it was a Republican in the White House for 8 years of hell. If you PUMA dorks vote for anyone else but Obama .. well you should just vote McCain because that will be the end result. Also, the term "flip flop" .. listen I'd rather have a person reverse them selves due to enlightenment than be a dummy and stick with an earlier decision just to make silly TV hounds of the media feel better at night because their "great leader" stuck with what he said he would do. Let's see whom does dis remind me of .. hummmm .. no don't tell me ... ummmmm George Bush ring a bell. Come on get to being a Democrat, take you Hillary posters down and get with the idea of real change. From reading your comments .. you are the enemy of your own party.

Gary, Obama hasn't just taken two wildly conflicting stances (or "reversed" himself) on a number of issues, he has repeatedly denied it. You might be comfortable with that. And I wish you luck with it. But if I have to read another badly penned, rambling missive from you I think I'd rather stab my eyes out with an ice pick.

Again, reminding you that I was not reacting to the surge just the logic of the statement.

Consider this: You come home from work one day to find that your kid has piled up a bunch of cardboard boxes into a makeshift ladder to go up on the roof to retrieve a wiffle ball out of the gutter. He tells you "no big deal, I got down without falling". Do you say, "Yeah, it worked, this time, but you never should have done that", or do say "Hey, whatever works", because there is no way of telling what would have happened if he hadn't gone up there in the first place.

So Rance, to you the professional opinion and experiencxe of the military is equivalent to a kid piling up cardboard boxes?

You are either a moron or a liar. That is to say, a modern democrat in practice.

Give it up Rance. Your example is in no way comprable and your point is not valid. No way. No how. Not even close.

And Gary I'm sorry that your life has been Hell for the last eight years. Mine's been pretty good. Of course when the leftists took congress and gas prices practically doubled as a direct result of their policies, things got a little tougher but I made some changes and I'm dealing with it.

Still I can give you one clue. The source of your problems or whatever it is that is making your life "hell" is not George Bush or the Republicans (unless of course, you are a terrorist, then it would likely be Bush's fault). It could be a lot of things actually, but I bet if you want to see the source of your problems and also the best solution to them, you need look no further than into the nearest mirror.

Remember everyone - this article on "consistency" is coming from the same guy who supported Mitt Freaking Romney in the primary. Don't expect any principles to be followed by Mr. Tea.

If there is an (R) involved, expect him to get weak kneed and willfully blind. A good example of hackery, Jay.

So Rance, you are saying that the surge having worked was a random occurance, like surving a skydive without injury when a 'chute fails to deploy.
That is in your opinion, the Obama position?

jp2, I'm happy to see your comment is on topic without including a disparaging the author and concluded with your defense of the charges against Obama.

Oh wait....you were demonstrating your own "consistency".

If you're going to assail my credibility, jp2, at least get it right. (I apologize, I know that's a challenge for you, but it seems at least kinda important.) I endorsed and voted for Fred Thompson in the primary, and I have links to show it -- I even posted a photo of my ballot with Fred's name marked.

Romney was my second choice, and I'm batting around an article saying that I think that he'd be a good choice for veep, but you simply saying things like "Mitt Freaking Romney" as if that says all that need be said shows you for the feeble-minded, babbling idiot you are.

J.

who supported Mitt Freaking Romney in the primary.

Uh.. except I believe he support Fred Freaking Thompson, but what that's got to do With Barak Freaking Obama I dunno.

lol, Mike.

Obama supporters still don't get it. Insulting remarks, constant accusations of racism, and statements like 'just get over it', simply antagonize those of us who voted for Clinton. It's the same tactics you over zealous Obama supporters used from day one. I also think Obama was selected, rather than elected, and the bias media has acted shamefully. I also don't think Obama is qualified to be President, and like millions of other Clinton supporters, I will not vote for Obama.

Actually, in the mold of Barack Freaking Obama, I supported Mitt Romney 100%. And Fred Thompson 100%. And Rudy Giuliani 100%. And Barack Obama 100%, as well as Hillary Clinton.

I think I figured out why jp2 keeps bringing up my attitude towards Mitt Romney. It's a variant of the Chewbacca Defense. It's so irrelevant and pointless that it distracts everyone from the main point of the article -- which jp2 is desperate to keep anyone from focusing on and addressing.

J.

SCSIwuzzy, DJ Drummond, et al

Again, I have said that I was not refering to the surge. REPEAT -- NOT REFERING TO THE SURGE.

I was simply pointing out that it is not totally inconsistent, wishy-washy, or flip-floppy to a)Agree that an action had a favorable outcome while b) thinking that it shouldn't have been done in the first place.

Divorce yourself from talking about the surge.
My point was not about the surge. My point was about the consistency of thought processes.

Heh, heh. If your argument in favor of John McCain is that Obama is a politician, then good luck with that.

DJ, is it possible for you to comment without being a complete ass?

obamUHHHHHH is a damned idiot. This guy clearly doesn't know what he;s talking about 90% of the time. it's amazing to listen to the left talk about how bush sounds like an idiot, yet they put up a genuine moron in the last 3 elections. (Gore, Kerry, Obama)

Take his teleprompter away and he's nothing but "Uhhhhhh, Uhhhhhh, Uhhhhhhh".

Rance, your idiotic comparison falls so far short that I feel embarassed to have to point this out to you. Using your unfortunate cardboard ladder analogy, how about instead of you just coming home to see this done, your son shows you the plans for this ladder and what he intends to do with it.

Still going to say whatever works? Or are you as a knowledgable parent going to squash the idea, get a real ladder out yourself and retrieve the whiffle ball?

And Rance, to play out your analogies you have to be suggesting the surge was an the riskiest idea and least vetted idea to reach the point we are at now with Iraq to then say I'm glad where we are, but I still wound't have done it in the first place. Otherwise the person trying to claim such a thing (Obama) is just being disingenuous.

Rance #22: "Concerning your comment on the surge"

Rance #45: "I was not refering to the surge. REPEAT -- NOT REFERING TO THE SURGE"

Wow. Are you really Barack posting under a pseudonym? (At least wer're back on topic.)

Remember everyone - this article on "consistency" is coming from the same guy who supported Mitt Freaking Romney in the primary. Don't expect any principles to be followed by Mr. Tea.

Oh hell. There goes another keyboard. I have got to quit drinking coffee when I visit this site. Dammit!

jp2's not having a very good week.

Wow. Are you really Barack posting under a pseudonym?

Rats! I had just cleaned up my keyboard when...

Obama's mind doesn't change; his reality does.

Since no one here seems to be able to separate the concept of an argument and the framework on which that argument is mounted, I'll quietly go back to my other day job.

You are seriously denying that you endorsed Mitt Romney in the primary? Lies.

Just TRY to address the point, Dave, and we'll have a modicum of respect for you: how the HELL does Obama manage to stand so firmly on both sides of so many issues? When push comes to shove, which side will he come down on? And how the hell can we tell BEFORE we cast our votes come November?

Damn! You have to admire the forthright way in which Obama's defenders have directly addressed the issue.

Dave, in particular, has been quite eloquent.

J(ohnny)P(ochran)2 really, really needs to work on his reading comprehension. I said Romney was my 2nd choice, and here's proof:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/01/03/j-t-for-f-t.php

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/01/08/fowl-with-a-franchise.php

Of course, what all this has to do with Obama and his astonishing knack for taking all sides of an issue, I'm still confused, but I'm sure it makes some sort of sense to someone...

Oh, screw it. I'm feeling dictatorial. jp2, if you can't stick to the topic, I'll be disemvowelling your comments. You keep doing it, and I'll ban your ass. Mitt Romney is NOT the topic at hand, and you WILL NOT make him the subject of this thread.

Olaf The Troll God's Hammer has been taken down from the wall, and it thirsts for BLOOD FOR ODIN.

J.

I understand your argument perfectly Rance, and it is not valid for the point you were trying to make.

Yes, someone can do something that was not wise but still have a successful outcome. I think we all agree on that. But you made your point "concerning [Jay's] comment on the surge" and in that case it is clearly not a valid point.

Consider this: You come home from work one day to find that your kid has piled up a bunch of cardboard boxes into a makeshift ladder to go up on the roof to retrieve a wiffle ball out of the gutter. He tells you "no big deal, I got down without falling". Do you say, "Yeah, it worked, this time, but you never should have done that", or do say "Hey, whatever works", because there is no way of telling what would have happened if he hadn't gone up there in the first place.

34. Posted by Rance | July 23, 2008 11:11 AM

Well, let's see.

1. You ask him, "Can you see any ways that could have been dangerous?" (If yes, move to (3). If no, move to (2).
   
2. If no, illustrate by crushing a box, with your foot or what-have-you, or show him the instability by pushing it over, for him to get a visual picture.
   
3. Praise the ingenuity, then discuss how to not avoid the risks he identified or you illustrated in future situations, in this case by using a ladder.

Remarkably, this is what the US Armed Forces did when they designed the surge. They looked at the past five years and the intelligence they'd gained about the Iraqi and insurgent culture, then applied it to their new situation and were, *gasp*, effective.

Seems to me scolding the child will only teach him to snuff his creativity and cause him to put more weight on "what works," which in that case would be a ladder (a fine choice, of course), or in the US's case may have been "trying to win the current war with the last war's strategy." We all know how well that works.

:-P

Rance, the framework on which you mounted your argument was Jay's remarks about Obama's positions on the Surge. Your opening comment:

"Concerning your comment on the surge..."

Yes, you said that you, yourself, did not hold an opinion on the surge. But in the beginning it was clear that you were attempting to reconcile Obama's ability to hold these two opinions on the surge:

1) yes, it worked and
b) it should never have been attempted

Consider this: You come home from work one day to find that your kid has piled up a bunch of cardboard boxes into a makeshift ladder to go up on the roof to retrieve a wiffle ball out of the gutter. He tells you "no big deal, I got down without falling". Do you say, "Yeah, it worked, this time, but you never should have done that", or do say "Hey, whatever works", because there is no way of telling what would have happened if he hadn't gone up there in the first place.

You're confusing classifying something as foolish with knowing the outcome of some action not taken. You can certainly say some action seems foolish, but might turn out good. My point is that no one can know if some action shouldn't have been taken because you can't know the outcome of not taking that action. As long as we're making up scenarios, consider this not so uncommon one.

You come home and find your kid as slit her wrists, she gets whisked away to the emergency room, patched-up, and entered into a program to address the root issues. Slitting her wrists certainly seems like an action you can say shouldn't have been done, but the resulting help she gets may have prevented a successful suicide in the future.

It's the outcome of an action that determines if it should or shouldn't have been done, not the apparent wisdom of the action. Seeing the future outcomes of actions not yet taken is the stuff of science fiction.

"Flip flopping" has become a phrase that I would really like to remove from our political vernacular. It's something every politician, from Bush to McCain to Clinton to Obama to well...everyone, does. Some changes cost, most do not. (As for Barack, his FISA change cost my vote)

But it fits the media narrative of Democrats being weak, (which they are) so it gets a LOT of play. Despite McCain having insane black vs. white flip flops - recent ones too, like tax cuts and Guantanamo - it gets very little play. He will never be characterized as weak and waffling by the powers that be, even though he clearly is. And he certainly won't be criticized here for it.

And Jay, you're right : Mitt Romney is not the topic. Your hipocracy is. Readers should know where you are coming from.

By the way, here is your endorsement post. "Go Mitt!" (Funny how that didn't make your comment)

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/01/24/ok-lets-go-to-plan-b.php
depp=true
notiz=Sorry, jp2, but the topic is Obama's remarkable history of embracing opposite positions on issues. Matters as who I favored after I cast my primary vote for Fred Thompson don't fit in here.

61 comments and the real issue has not been addressed by anyone (even Oyster, who makes great comments).

The real issue people, is that Obama does not care about the surge. HE DOES NOT CARE. He only wants to try to use the issue to help him win the election -- so he will say what he thinks will help him to that end. If he can distinguish himself from the Mac by saying he disagrees with the surge because he could have made the price of gas less than Al Gore's dick size in inches, then he will say that to score political points. The REAL ISSUE is that on EVERY issue that Hussein takes a stance on, it is to try to help him win the election -- that is why he is for everything. He'll continue to do this while it works -- so we need to just point out what he's doing and take appropriate action, not waste our time discussing why or how he's doing it.

nehemiah,

That IS a "real issue", as you say, and may very well be the underlying basis to his varied positions, but it's not the subject. The subject is the symptoms, not the disease.

Regards,

jp2:

"Flip flopping" has become a phrase that I would really like to remove from our political vernacular.

I'm sure 'theives' would also like to remove 'theft' from our legal vernacular, but call it what you will... Obama is decidedly indecisive. Having a 'stance' on an issue requires 'standing still'.

max: "DJ, is it possible for you to comment without being a complete ass?"

Of course, I do it all the time. When speaking to you, however, since you do not speak my language it is necessary for me to speak yours.

"Obama is decidedly indecisive"

I wouldn't say decidedly, but on some things, yes. Most importantly FISA. Who isn't though? Water is wet.

FrankJ made a similar point.

FormerHostage, that was kind of funny, but I found a real gem in the comments:

A link to this:

Obama said he did not make a mistake with his earlier choice of words in describing his Iraq position -- even though he called a second news conference a few hours after his initial comments to clarify his stance.

He laid the blame with reporters.

"I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator," said Obama, who is still a senator from Illinois.

(I would have blockquoted the whole thing, but blockquotes here are really quirky. When you hit "enter" for new paragraphs it automatically ends the blockquote, even if your closing tag is further down)

JP2, Obama flip flopping is important because he vowed he would be THE different politician. He proved to be the usual run of the mill. Also, to actually right that we conservative will give McCain a break here is as close to stupid as you can come. There are very few McCain fans here. ww

Rance, your so called point is sophist crap.
Any successful action, if your "point" is applied, yields the same result.

There are very few McCain fans here.

Hey, wait a minute. I'm a fan of McCain's - aside from McCain-Feingold, his support of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, the Gang of 14, his support for continued taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, his view of the second amendment, and McCain-Kennedy. Other than that, I'm a huge fan.

Don't get me wrong though. Obama is infinitely worse. So, for the first time in my life, I will be voting against, rather than for, a candidate. I will be passionately working to defeat The Man for All Seasons.

And I believe that those drunk with the Obama koolaid are missing this important point. Their absolute giddyness over McCain's lack of appeal amongst conservatives have caused them to underestimate the groundswell backlash that will build against Obama after the DNC and as the election looms nearer. Obama will not get a bounce after his world tour or following the convention. He's locked in a statistical dead heat right now, and it won't get any better for him as increasing numbers on the right begin to stir.

If conservatism is dying, then why is Obama tacking right at 50 knots? Because he knows he has to. His biggest problem is that it's only the tipsy who believe him.

Clay, I agree. I have problems with some of McCain's stand on issues. Immigration is just one of many. What I was trying to convey was we do openly criticize him we do not give him a free pass. ww

I'd respond to your comments, but apparently we can't talk about McCain. (Or else you might face the consequences of a cowardly and dishonest editor)

jp2, I'd say Jay Tea has far more balls than you, but that's hardly a fair comparison for him since a French fruit fly has more balls, and intelligence, than you.

Obama is not looking good. I've been giving him a fair shake, and he's unwilling or unable to actually take a stand on any concrete platform. And yes, I've read his campaign website, both before and after the surge criticism went into the memory hole. Lots of pretty words, nothing of substance.

Obama has been arguing for a year that he wants to send additional troops to Afghanistan, McCain has always held the opposite positin. just recently he flip flopped and basically started saying what barack has all along on afghanistan

but here are a fewe others from mister flip flop.

1. McCain thought Bush's warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

2. McCain insisted that everyone, even "terrible killers," "the worst kind of scum of humanity," and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, "deserve to have some adjudication of their cases," even if that means "releasing some of them." McCain now believes the opposite.

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.

6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He's since come to the opposite conclusion.

7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it.

8. McCain supported moving "towards normalization of relations" with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

11. McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

Military Policy

14. McCain recently claimed that he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld's failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."

15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.

16. McCain said before the war in Iraq, "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily." Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was "probably going to be long and hard and tough."

17. McCain has repeatedly said it's a dangerous mistake to tell the "enemy" when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

18. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.

Domestic Policy

19. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

20. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.

this should end with john mcCain saying.

I'm john mcCain and i approve these flip flops.

Yet another moron who manages, with tremendous agility and deftness, to avoid the point:

The McCain list is a long list of "then/now" statements. Obama doesn't even bother with that; he holds contradictory positions AT THE SAME TIME. Moreover, he denies that there is any contradiction going on, saying that it's our fault; we "misinterpret" his statements or, if he's feeling particularly generous, might say that one or more of his statements were "inartful" and led us to our wrong conclusions.

Funny how none of these clarifications are ever accompanied with a simple, clear explanation of just what the guy's position actually is.

As far as I can tell, Barack Obama has exactly two core beliefs:

1) We should run away from Iraq as soon as possible, if not sooner;

2) He should be president.

Everything else is catered to best please his current audience.

J.

FlipFlopMcCain, many of your statements are mischaracterized or out right dishonest. For instance, legislation goes through all manner of amendments, arguments and debate before its final approval or disapproval. Any Rep or Senator may express disapproval of some piece of legislation until it has reached completion and then approve of it. Or vice versa.

For another instance, a Rep or Senator may change his mind on a position due to new revelations or new information. I have more respect for someone who will admit they've changed their minds and don't repeatedly lie saying, "I never said that." I can't tell you how many times I've heard Obama say that. It's astounding.

What scares me more is a candidate who, in spite of the undeniable success in the Surge will STILL say he's against it.

The point of the post was Obama's practice of holding two positions on the same subject at the same time - or the double talk in trying to reconcile his two positions and achieving nothing.

If I was so inclined I'd debate each of your individual claims, but since you're too lazy to do some simple searching before you spout off, why should I do your work for you? It's not as if your mind is open enough to be changed or to accept truth even if you're slapped in the face with it.