« Christian entertainers take a stand | Main | Another Democrat surrender bill defeated »

The 'Lee Ward' Demographic Factor in the 2008 Presidential Election

Regular readers to the Wizbang Mall of Blogoria are no doubt well aware that we have a wide range of opinion and perspectives here. This serves a number of purposes, and today it illustrates an important effect in national politics. You see, some time ago I stated, unequivocally, that the Republican candidate will win the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election, a prediction which has been considered by some, jeered at by others, but which remains solid, indeed it is moving forward on the strength of current events. I could go into a detailed explanation of the historical and motive forces and elements, but it seems more effective to just point out the basic effects of Demographics in elections.

Many analysts discuss Demographics with regard to Race, Gender, and Income, but I think that sometimes misses more basic effects. That is, I consider the Presidential elections differently from other types, because the public does so. History is full of instances where the public wants the Congress controlled by one party, but the White House by the other major party. I also happen to think that the Presidential elections since 1945 are the most salient examples of media and campaign planning.

I'd have to say that, in addition to the nominal demographic categories, I look for informal demographics, things like party identification and strength-of-support for candidates. That is, I like to try to find what makes one candidate stand out and claim the nomination, or the election. And I find that three factors play into this with regularity; likability, competence, and what I would have to call 'bad guy hate'.

-- continued --

First is Likability. It has long been claimed that people vote for someone they like, and that seems to be very true for Presidents. In 1948, Harry Truman seemed a lot more likable than Tom Dewey; Eisenhower trounced Stevenson twice under the simple but effective 'I Like Ike' slogan. Nixon had a strong lead in the polls until the public got to know JFK on television; even brick-faces like LBJ and Nixon groomed their public image to soften their appearance. Carter seemed much more likable to Ford, even though Jerry Ford was a nice enough guy, but Reagan was way more likable than Carter, and even more so than Mondale. Bill Clinton was and is very personable, and George W. Bush proved much more likable than Al Gore. So in general, being a likable guy is an important factor. Keep that in mind, we'll come back to it.

Next up is Competence. Mike Dukakis, truth be told, was probably more likable than George H.W. Bush, but he lost big in 1988. John Kerry seemed likable at times in 2004, yet he never really closed the deal with voters. Nixon and LBJ both tried to be likable, but hey, no one ever really considered them to be best-buddy material, so how did they win? Basically, they blew out their opponents on competency. Johnson was no laugh riot, but he seemed well in control in 1964, as compared to the more emotional Goldwater. In 1972, Nixon blew out McGovern with 60% of the Popular Vote and 96.6% of the Electoral Vote, in part because McGovern seemed unstable and out of control. In 1980, most voters thought Carter did not know what he was doing, which contributed to his loss, and the same thing happened to G.H.W. Bush in 1992. Before that, in 1988, Dukakis failed to convey that he knew how to lead the nation. So the image of Competence is a second critical factor to winning.

So, what does that have to do with Lee Ward? Bear with me, please, I am getting there. In general, and admittedly this is a very broad generalization but it works, there are four categories of political identification; there are the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Moderates, and the Nomads. And the ratio of these groups is a 1-2-3-4 ratio, with the question being which is which. Basically, the self-described 'Moderates' make up about 40% of the voter pool, the Nomads make up about 10%, and the Liberals and Conservatives make up the 20 and 30 percent groups. During the 1960s and 1970s the Liberals outnumbered the Conservatives by that same 3:2 ratio, but it has flipped since then, so that now the Liberals make up about 20% of the voter pool, and the Conservatives make up about 30%. Before anyone gets too angry or excited about that, let's note that I am talking about national identity, which is useless in any election except the Presidential race, and let's also note that just 20 or 30 percent of the Popular Vote is not going to win. The message is, whether you are Liberal or Conservative or Moderate, that you need someone else outside your "base" to buy in if you want to win. The significance of having your 20 or 30 or 40 percent, is also made by noting how concentrated that base is; what I mean, is that the winning candidate is almost never a real Centrist, so while the biggest group calls itself 'Moderate', they tend to prefer someone with a distinct political identity. Also, Liberals tend to be concentrated in urban areas much more than Conservatives are, so their 20 percent is situated in key areas and is usually well-disciplined to vote for the Democrats; not since 1980 have Democrats deserted their candidate to any great degree. Republicans enjoy the general support of Conservatives, but neither the full nor unconditional support from them; Conservatives are prone to stay home if they are displeased by the GOP. As for those Moderates I mentioned, they are very soft voters, and their desire to vote is often driven by whether they believe their vote will make a difference. And then there are those 'Nomads'; as the name suggests, these voters do not really have a specific political alignment, but vote almost exclusively on the candidate's personal qualities. In general, a Democrat or Republican running with his/her party's nomination can expect to claim somewhere around 20% of the national Popular Vote from their party's ideological support, and another 20% or so from voters who lean in favor of the candidate. The difference in most elections comes down to swaying the voters who must be motivated to vote, and to vote for you. And that, at long last, brings us to the Lee Wards of the political ecosphere.

An example of Lee Ward's style of rhetoric can be found in the comments section of an article posted by Larkin in Wizbang Blue. Larkin was responding to an article by me, where I observed the significance of California in the 2008 election, and why it may be a problem for the Democrats in 2008, as well as how much trouble it would cost the Left if the state started to look unsure for the Democrats. Lee Ward considered his argument carefully, and presented it with the following choice comments:

"What a dumbass"

"What an idiot"

"Good grief, what a drooling moron"

While these are doubtless devastating repartee in his normal environment, such comments by Lee fail to convey a sense of comprehension, much less an effective retort. And normally, the adults just ignore such banal noise, in the same way that parents pay no mind when Johnny amuses himself by pretending to emit flatulence in front of the guests. I should mention as well, that Lee is quite capable of more extended outbursts or emotion, but I see no reason to reprint profanity or vulgarity in my own article; the reader is doubtless already well aware of the character of comments and opinions presented in WizBlue; it is a somewhat cleaner reflection of the same malicious spirit so commonly found in the Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, and similar hate sites of the Left.

Now, when I write "hate sites", I mean precisely that. It is amusing on one level, but indicative of true psychosis in the Left on another level, to note that even though they know he will be returning to private life after the completion of his term, President Bush continues to be vilified and defamed by the Left; they fear and loathe him, always without cause or merit in their charges. It seems that the Left feels compelled to run against President Bush again and again, as if this time they will finally win. And the fact that he does not even need to respond to their vitriol, only inflames the Left further. It started as a joke, but there really does seem to be a mental disorder we might reasonably call B.D.S. And as annoying as that behavior is to reasonable people, it is also a potentially strong influence for voter motivation. For example, when Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota died in a plane crash in 2002, leading Democrats displayed behavior that was clearly, well, deranged.

The whole thing found its way to television and the web, and before long the public saw the Democrats as a bunch of crazy lunatics. While the personal efforts of President Bush to assist key Senators and Congressmen has been credited for his 2002 mid-term successes, it must not be forgotten that the Democrats did themselves real damage by their behavior at the Wellstone memorial service. This is not a new effect, by the way, and a clever politician can play things to his advantage. In 1992, hip-hop MC and deranged racist "Sister Souljah" discussed the riots in Los Angeles by suggesting, "If Black people kill Black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?".

Democratic Party nominee Bill Clinton denounced the suggestion, saying, "If you took the words 'white' and 'black' and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech."

The statement was very savvy, especially as it recognized a line of behavior that must not be crossed by a major political candidate. That is, Bill Clinton had no intention of letting his candidacy be damaged by hate-filled morons. Oddly enough, the modern Democrats do not seem to grasp this point.

Let's go back to that point about 'likability'. It seems fair to me, to say that people who don't know a candidate very well, judge him or her by the people who most clearly support that candidate. This, Ned Lamont was not seen by the good people of Connecticut as a sober, careful guardian of the public trust, but an angry, unbalanced fanatic, determined to carry out extreme agenda. No, Ned himself worked hard to avoid that image, but his supporters? They went off the deep end, pretty much all the time, and they turned off voters, enough that despite losing the party nomination for his re-election, Joe Lieberman handily won the general election as an Independent. Roll back to 1972, now. I don't now if you're old enough to remember how supporters of George McGovern were acting, but I do and let's just say they were a couple notches below 'hippy' on the sane-people scale. Once again, a lot of people decided to play it safe. The thing is, voters get motivated to vote when they are scared or angry. And they go vote to punish the guy they are angry at, or they vote to keep out the guy who scares them.

The web is a fascinating place, in some ways like a city with a variety of neighborhoods. So yes, some people are unaware of the character and behavior of Kos and MoveOn, but that is starting to change. MoveOn was happy to have its advertisement discussed in the halls of Congress, but now a lot more Americans realize that such groups hate the troops and the men who lead them; the lie that they only hate Bush has been blown apart. The vitriol that is the daily fare of the Left in American politics polarizes voters and drives many to react; while the Left appeared to be the minority and unable to effect change their hate and bile could be overlooked by some, but as the Left's figureheads pay homage to increasingly extremist hate groups, the moderate voter is going to feel more and more pressure to balance the government against the threat of Leftist extremism. The Right needs to conduct itself properly, or it will fail to gain from the existing conditions. But presuming that the GOP has a sense of prudence about it, and that its nominee can express his positions and reasoning in a forthright and civil manner, the sullen and crass behavior of writers like Lee Ward and his cohorts will inevitably drive voters to the Right in the next election.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (48)

Another point, or issue, mi... (Below threshold)

Another point, or issue, might be which of the constituencies will, in a pinch, vote for a candidate that is on the margins of its primary issues. I'm speaking primarily of a possible Giuliani candidacy. We've seen that the Left will, at times, eat their own children. What about the Conservatives?

"That is, Bill Clinton had ... (Below threshold)

"That is, Bill Clinton had no intention of letting his candidacy be damaged by hate-filled morons. Oddly enough, the modern Democrats do not seem to grasp this point."

In the past, "hate-filled morons" needed to get the attention of the press before their spewings reached more than a handful of people.

With the advent of the internet, anyone who wants to type a comment on a blog has a huge audience. There are so many people, on both sides, outputing drivel, that it would be a full time job for the campaign to refute them all. In fact, in most cases, it's better to ignore them rather than give them wider exposure.

I'm voting Democrat myself,... (Below threshold)

I'm voting Democrat myself, so by all means take this with a grain of salt...but IMHO, if the Democrats lose this time around, it won't be due to the hate-filled morons on the Democratic side.

It'll because the Democratic party went with a candidate who's a woman that conservatives have hated with an almost inexplicable passion since 1992 (Hillary Clinton, of course), or a black man (Barak Obama).

To be fair to conservatives, quite a few I've talked to like Obama, like his way of speaking and acting, and would vote for him. So I definitely think that overt racism in conservative Southern states would be an issue for him, but perhaps not as much.

But Hillary is so hated that her candidacy will be very problematic, IMHO, because of the hate she will inspire in any and all conservatives.

As per hating Bush...well, once again, either:

a) the %66 percent of America that don't approve of Bush all have 'BDS', or
b) he really is that bad a President.

One minor correction: more... (Below threshold)

One minor correction: more Democrats actually voted for Reagan in 1984 than in 1980. This mirrored Ike in 1956 and Nixon in 1972, and the same was true for LBJ (with parties reversed) in 1964. Note that most partisans still stayed with their party, but it doesn't take a huge defection to tip the balance from a close race into a landslide. Clinton, on the other hand, never managed a majority of the popular vote.


Rance ~ It may well have been best to ignore the fringe maniacs before today's viral online society, but now their views are out there for all to see. Heck, sometimes a heavy web presence isn't even enough for them, so they buy a full-page ad in the NYT so they CANNOT be ignored.

The biggest threat to candidates isn't their weirdo opponents, but rather the nuts who support them. Bill Clinton drew a line with Sista Souljah, declaring there was only so far he would go in pandering to the black vote, for example.

Hillary will not repudiate MoveOn. She refuses to draw a line there. It will do her no good to repudiate Lee, since he is an insignificant organism.

Well Jim,a) Either... (Below threshold)

Well Jim,

a) Either 80% have CDS or,
b) This congress really stinks

Actually conservatives didn't hate Hillary until the health care fiasco when we all found out that she wants to micro-manage all of our lives, including yours.

Great piece DJ. I tend to ... (Below threshold)

Great piece DJ. I tend to see my wife as a barometer similar to the last part of your post. She is fairly moderate. She voted for Clinton both times and Bush both times and I would fit her into your definition of Nomad. She is not a political junky so she doesn't see or particularly care about the crazy behavior that comes out of either party.

But she saw the MoveOn ad and it's controversy. That got her attention. It also riled her up. Much like your article suggested it turned her off toward the Democrats. At least at this time.

How anyone can predict whic... (Below threshold)

How anyone can predict which part will win the presidency at this point is beyond me. There's too much time and too many opportunities for dramatic events between now and next year.

My take is that all of the major candidates on both sides have each have glaring weaknesses. Those weaknesses will be brought out in the campaign of the 2 nominees.

The notion that Drummond puts forth about the hatred of the left is laughable. You must never read the comments of some(not all) the regular righties on this site. The truth is that both sides are equal in the nastiness and name-calling. If this or any election rests on the nasty factor wouldn't that be a sad commentary of our system? It assumes that the majority of voters use "hatred" as a method of choice. That's an assumption that as far as I know has no proven basis in fact, assumes that most voters are stupid and is condescending at best.

You Go, DJ.(Now le... (Below threshold)

You Go, DJ.

(Now lets see Brian start asking innocent questions again...)

Mall of Blogoria: do... (Below threshold)

Mall of Blogoria: does that look anything like the Mall in the Dave Chapelle skit "What if The Internet Were a Place?"

Is he going to be like ROSS... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Is he going to be like ROSS PARROT?

jfo, point me to anywhere c... (Below threshold)

jfo, point me to anywhere conservatives placed an ad as hateful as moveon. org.

And DJ, everything you write is now questionable to me after reading, "John Kerry seemed likable at times in 2004". Are you kidding me?!?! He has ZERO personality, was NEVER likable, I truly believe that the people that voted for him didn't even like him, they just hated Bush. Look how quickly his "supporters" turned on him after the election.

JFO:The notion... (Below threshold)


The notion that Drummond puts forth about the hatred of the left is laughable. You must never read the comments of some(not all) the regular righties on this site.

Horseshit! To equate what a few here say (a rough est is about 3-4) to the cesspools that Huff & Puff or DKos swim in is laughable.

Being opposed to a particul... (Below threshold)

Being opposed to a particular candidate is not the same as hatred.

The key to voting for someone is not whether they are a woman, a black man or a Hispanic. The key is and should be what they stand for.

Conservatives seem to have a healthier attitude on this than liberals as we seldom label our candidates as to their genetic associations. Nor do we intimate non-supporters as being racists or misogynists.

OK D-Hoggs, let's explore t... (Below threshold)

OK D-Hoggs, let's explore that. Why did the Democrats choose Kerry? Sure, they figured he had the best chance to beat Dubya (okaaaaay...). So, why was that?

"inexplicable"Seri... (Below threshold)



Rance, you are too precious... (Below threshold)

Rance, you are too precious.
No, the dems won't lost because of bad strategy or bad PR... they will lose because the republicans are racist misogynists.
You help illustrate DJ's point.

marcAnd you have C... (Below threshold)


And you have Coulter, Malkin, Savage et al. Purverors of hate each and every one. So don't give me that pious bullshit. The famous Bush Sr. ad, the South Carolina hate material about McCain and on and on. I don't even mention Hillary and the names she's called just on this blog. Spare me the sanctimonious outrage please. Both sides are nasty, both sides cross the line and neither is cleaner than the other. If you can't admit that you're just another hack marching thoughtlessly with the rest of the far right.

The Dems will lose because ... (Below threshold)
John S:

The Dems will lose because at least 51% of voters would vote for anyone to keep the Clintons from gaining a 3rd term.

Always, leeward blows a fou... (Below threshold)
twolaneflash Author Profile Page:

Always, leeward blows a foul wind.

This is what I love about t... (Below threshold)

This is what I love about the Left. You can tell them directly why they lose Presidential elections, yet they cannot accept the truth.

While he's just plain wrong in his specific statements, JFO does have it somewhat right, however, in that some on the Right also refuse to learn from their own mistakes.

I do think, then again, that claiming that Coulter, Malkin, and Savage are the same brand as each other is far from true. I also think that JFO truly misses the bus when he fails to understand that I am not talking about the behavior of commentators and ordinary people making noise, but the PACs and people in direct contact with candidates. Let's say, for argument, that Savage is as big as ass as is Michael Moore. Savage was not seated at the GOP Convention as a guest of honor. When Coulter speaks crudely and offends people, you don't see the top GOP candidates try to defend her behavior, much less try to play on her screeds the way that the top Democrats demeaned General Petraeus.

There is NO comparison; the Republicans have some bad apples but the Democrats have more, and are applauding them and rewarding them. If you cannot see how this offends the average American, you will learn the hard way, or else we will - yet again - hear how a Republican Presidential win "must" be a conspiracy, since you are unable to understand why the majority rejected the 'benevolence' of Kos and MoveOn.

The "Lee Ward" Demographic ... (Below threshold)

The "Lee Ward" Demographic Factor? Would that be the plagiarist element, or the libeler?


Both.... (Below threshold)


Evening, Jay.You l... (Below threshold)

Evening, Jay.

You like?

DJ, you forgot one critical... (Below threshold)
stan25 Author Profile Page:

DJ, you forgot one critical factor in Nixon winning in 1968. It was the riots that were held during the Democrat Convention in Chicago that sealed the election for Nixon. The far-left showed their true colors when they turned on their own.

People like Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jane Fonda and a bunch more like them made the American people angry and George McGovern represented everything that was vile about the anti-war people.

We all know now that the anti-war crowd was heavily funded by the Soviet Union and Red China, in support of North Vietnam. Now that the Soviet Union is now defunct, the far-left protesters are vastly underfunded. They just don t have the oomph that they had during the Vietnam War.

This piece was as much a la... (Below threshold)

This piece was as much a laughable demonstration of your early Alzheimer's onset as was your absurdly silly attempt to define The Chimp as a "great" or "near great" president awile back.

freedomFRIED:T... (Below threshold)


This piece was as much a laughable demonstration of your early Alzheimer's onset as was your absurdly silly attempt to define The Chimp as a "great" or "near great" president awile back.

Can we assume you have done better?

Where? Show us.

I think the libtrolls here ... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

I think the libtrolls here illustrated your points perfectly DJ.

I love how when you point out the "hate sites/speech" aspect they try to say limbaugh, coulter, savage etc... are the same thing but on the right. O'reilly even said the same thing and agreed that there were the same hatred on both sides. I couldn't disagree with anyone more.

The right does not have a full site that is as prominent as KOS, huffpo, moveon etc... The right doesn't participate in this type of speech in the same numbers as the left. The candidates on the right don't show up to their conventions, as was the case with KOS. We had Coulter "not calling edwards a fag" cause she didn't want to put gay people down, but i find the comments by Joe Biden about "finally having a clean articulate black man" to be more offensive. Glad you have your little plantation going there Joe. Coulter is over the top, but she is merely a spectator and a commentator. Michelle Malkin is not hateful in the least bit. Not like calling Bush Hitler. Not to mention the right doesn't have this agenda to push that accuses a president of orchestrating 9/11. funny how they call him a chimp, yet "the chimp" orchestrated 9/11 while only being in office for 8 or 9 months.

Bottom line is that the hatred on the left is far more ingrained in their elected officials. They participate in it, they are invested in it, and they ultimately own it. Robert Byrd and the KKK anyone? Everyone knows the KKK was an extension of the Democrat party back during the civil rights era. Well, everyone knows that but Lee i suppose...

Chuck Schumer... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Chuck Schumer

JFO:And you ha... (Below threshold)


And you have Coulter, Malkin, Savage et al. Purverors of hate each and every one. So don't give me that pious bullshit.

Remind me again whether Coulter, Malkin and Savage are as closely connected to the repub party as morOn.org and DKos is to the dem party.

You can't, there is no comparison to be had.

The dems have flocked to DKos and his "convention" and written diaries at his blog. The same can be said for Huff & Puff.

There is no equivalent on the repub side.

The difference between Kos ... (Below threshold)

The difference between Kos and MoveOn and HuffPost and MyDD and DUh, and Coulter and Malkin and Limbaugh and Savage (who? anyone really pay attention to that guy?) is that the Republicans aren't afraid of Coulter or Malkin or Limbaugh. The Democrats slither on their bellies to kneel before Kos and MoveOn.

This election will be a real test if Hillary is nominated. Has the Democratic Party, and the national majority, really moved so far to the left that disparaging flag officers with impeccable records of honor is acceptable? Is surrender now an option for the United States at war?

I can't recall a single election where the American electorate chose the option of defeat. I suppose we'll find out soon enough, eh?

While you obviously couldn'... (Below threshold)
dirty frakking troll:

While you obviously couldn't produce something as rigorous as an academic study supporting your hypothesis that fringe groups are ruining the Democratic Party, could you at least find something as dubious as a fucking poll? St. Petraeus does his dance, MoveOn prints something retarded, and you cry victory in '08 for the Republicans. Why don't you try and find a credible piece of evidence which suggests that this non-incident caused even a tremor in the public's opinion of the Democrats greater than the margin of error?

You're a hack, Drummond.

dft, what are you gonna do ... (Below threshold)

dft, what are you gonna do when the public finds out the globe is cooling and that the war in Iraq is over and we won?

Nice, DJ. Let's hope you'r... (Below threshold)
Eric Forhan:

Nice, DJ. Let's hope you're right!
Between the hate ("General Betray-us") and the lame-duck Congress, you may well be.

kim, why don't you change t... (Below threshold)
dirty fucking troll:

kim, why don't you change the subject, clown? Drummond's post is unsubstantiated anecdotal garbage--maybe you should defend him, instead of gloating about being a thirty percenter.

That was an excellent artic... (Below threshold)

That was an excellent article DJ

I would just reiterate the point on California being in play: The Republicans don't have to win the popular vote in California to have a "win". They simply need to build enough of a threat to force the Democrats to divert substantial resources to the state.

marc,Lets see - Mi... (Below threshold)


Lets see - Michael Savage, 400 radio stations and 10-million listeners - all from the wacky segment of the right. No influence there. eh? I love how you folks always claim to not know who he is. That's laughable and of course a lie. This is the guy who represents the thoughts and beliefs of the right wing. Hates gays, hates Muslims, hates Arabs, hates Mexicans, hates liberals, hates anyone who isn't a conservative.

No, Republicans aren't afraid of Malkin et al. Many support their diatribes of hatred. The Republicans have feared and pandered to the extreme religious right, oil, insurance and energy companies.

Once again your self-righteous pious denials are laughable.

JFOAre you serving u... (Below threshold)

Are you serving up Savage as your answer to marc's question. If so you didn't answer it.

You need to work on your rhetoric also

Right on topic, dft. What ... (Below threshold)

Right on topic, dft. What are Democrats going to talk about next year if they can't trash Bush about Iraq and all Republicans about climate? Social Security? Diebold?

JFO, you continue to ignore the distinction between the relative power enjoyed by the extreme rhetoricians of the left and right.

I am a little to the left o... (Below threshold)

I am a little to the left of Savage, but I agree that the US is not doing enough to protect its borders, language and culture.

And don't call me a bigot or you're just like Hitler!

kim--the topic was f... (Below threshold)
dirty fucking troll:

kim--the topic was fringe retards sinking the Democrats' hope of taking the White House in 2008, but your point, while more general, is certainly not off base.

To address the Iraq issue: after Petraeus gave his two cents, the American public did not shift its perception of the state of the conflict; and after MoveOn wasted a bunch of money going after a general-cum-political hack while offending a great deal of conservatives, again, there was no detectable shift in the public's opinion of the war. It's a losing issue for the Republicans, and for any Democrat except Obama.

No, dft, you are wrong agai... (Below threshold)

No, dft, you are wrong again. The topic is suggested by the title of the article.

Kim, at least, is not trying to be serious. You, on the other hand, are impossible to take seriously. Maybe it is your inability to grasp the obvious, maybe it's your inadvertant proof of so many of my claims, many it's your inability to keep your language clean even in your screen name. Whatever it is, you're in a poor position to criticize anyone.

the sullen and crass beh... (Below threshold)

the sullen and crass behavior of writers like Lee Ward and his cohorts will inevitably drive voters to the Right in the next election.

Gee DJ, I wonder if you apply this same reasoning to some of your colleagues over here at Wizbang Classic who used the same language to describe me that Lee used to describe you?

UPDATE Larkin the dumbass answered in his comments....

If you don't you're a hypocrite. In my opinion, Paul-boy sets the standard for sullen and crass behavior in the Wizbang family by a longshot.

So rarely am I serious, but... (Below threshold)

So rarely am I serious, but about this I am. The war in Iraq is essentially over, stopped by their religious figures, and Canon Andrew White. The globe is cooling starting in the last ten years. The exact moment is probably indeterminable, since average temperature is actually difficult to measure.

...and you're bound and det... (Below threshold)

...and you're bound and determined to not only meet that standard, but surpass it, aren't you, Larkin?

Tell you what: when Paul reaches the point of legally-actionable libel, as you and Lee collaborated on doing last week, then you can talk.

No, never mind that. If you choose to determine your own standards by the rule of "I'll do whatever I feel like, as long as it doesn't go as far as someone else," you have bigger problems.

"Hypocrisy" seems to be your buzzphrase, your greatest sin, your fixation. Kind of like "LIAR!!!!!" is the obsession of Lee. And you both use that to excuse your own flaming assholeness -- "yeah, but at least we aren't hypocrites and liars!"

As if being an honest asshole is any great improvement.

Just to utterly Godwinize this discussion, it reminds me of Hitler saying "...but at least I don't eat meat!"

Oh, and Larkin, a mistake is not necessarily a lie. But an uncorrected mistake can become a lie -- ask your buddy Lee The Libeller (formally known as Lee The Plagiarist). Did you ever correct your original piece that Paul called you out on -- that Congress should NOT have allowed Petraeus to testify, despite that they had required it by law just a few months earlier?


The dissonance on the left ... (Below threshold)

The dissonance on the left is so thick you can cut it with a butter metaphor.

Did you ever correct you... (Below threshold)

Did you ever correct your original piece that Paul called you out on -- that Congress should NOT have allowed Petraeus to testify, despite that they had required it by law just a few months earlier?

But I didn't say that. Here's what I said:

Gates should have been the one to deliver testimony on the state of our mission in Iraq on Capitol Hill last week, not Petraeus.

That's an opinion of how I think things should work, not a declaration of fact of how they are, and I still hold it. Congress shouldn't have required his public testimony and Bush shouldn't make him the public face of his policy.

I will say that it pleases me to no end that I've touched a nerve over here with this one (I'm doing my level best).

As for accusations of libel and plagiarism against Lee, I think that would be something best raised with the management (kevin) and not in public). If you stop hyperventilating for long enough I think you would realize that's the right thing to do.

Topic, gentlemen?... (Below threshold)

Topic, gentlemen?

Topic?TOPIC?... (Below threshold)










Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy