Harry’s Place

with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke

A state governor, vs. a lazy senator and Chicago apparatchick.

Sick joke … whatever …

The other Hitchens is much better - a Trot who recanted (and who therefore regularly calls for the return of a proper Labour Party), not a Trot who merely changed his means to the same old ends.

But, alas, it is this one who is right about Obama.

My support for Obama is more enthusiastic, but I agree with Hitchens’s implication that “the surrender faction” will quickly find themselves at odds with an Obama administration.

However Obama’s tone on Iraq has, since the success of Patraeus’s tactics in helping Iraq start to win the war against the nihilistic Jihadis. Obama was against Patreaus when it counted. More; he has never - as far as I am aware - shown any sign of moral fortitude, which both Mc Cain and Palin have.

That, him being a lefty as well as - at absolute best interpretation - the appalling judgment displayed by his close associations with the terrorist Ayers and the racist, nutjob hate preacher Wright. Ad his toxic wife….Oh and the Messiah complex thing; which I find a little creepy…creepier than Kerry saluting and reporting for duty, and that was creepy. Throw in the Dems having all the three branches of government and the prospect of a Obama victory, is really quite scary.

Nick (SA) should really enjoy this, from Michael Barone:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjUwZWIwZTNhY2Y0YTFkYzFmZTIyZWUwZWNkYjk4ZGM=

Hitchens seems to be reflecting a general shift in the population.
Todays ABC News poll

Yet on the broader question of leadership, voters gave Obama a 14-point advantage, saying, by 54 percent to 40 percent, that he is a “stronger leader” than McCain. The two were about tied on that question in late September, and McCain held a 13-point edge on strong leadership in early March before the Democratic nomination battle wound down.

The bizarre selection of Palin and his exposure as a lighweight over the economic crisis seem to have destroyed his strongest card.

ABC News, viaMarc Cooper:

Given the global economic crisis, a record 90 percent of registered voters say the country is seriously off on the wrong track, the most since this question first was asked in 1973. At 23 percent, Bush’s job approval rating has fallen below Nixon’s lowest; it’s a point away from the lowest in 70 years of polling.
[...]

Powered chiefly by the public’s economic concerns, Obama leads John McCain by 10 points among likely voters, 53-43 percent, in this ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Though every race is different, no presidential candidate has come back from an October deficit this large in pre-election polls dating to 1936.

P.

I don’t think the Americans really have much of a choice this election;

On one side an empty suit and a plagerist on the other a sick old man and a simp.

Who are the ’surrender faction’?

Is it the same as ’stoppers’?

Or a smaller faction.

If he means those who have allied themselves with jihadis then they never backed Obama. They’re asking where he will bomb first.

surrender faction = stoppers

Surrender faction:

The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid told journalists.

4/19/2008

I figured Hitchens to come around eventually.

“Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion” - Hitchens

Compared to … Bush 43 ? Clinton ? Bush 41 ? Reagan ? Carter ? Ford ? Nixon ?
Has Hitchens the historical materialist become Hitchens the idealist ?

Shorter Gene: many = 2. Of course, many of them already have. [2 links]

On one side an empty suit and a plagerist on the other a sick old man and a simp.

That about sums it up, except that the empty suit has strings, pulled by some seriously dodgy individuals. If I were an American I would despair at what my electoral system had thrown up - and look at those they dumped: Huckabee, Romney, Clinton. The only real heavyweight was Guiliani, who could not fund an even half decent campaign. God help America, because He does not seem to want to bless it.

Oh yes. Giuliani. He who spent 50 mil and earned one delegate. The evil powers that stole the nomination from him !

Mesquito,
What were Sarah Palins views on Iraq and did they influence John McCains decision to put her on the ticket?

The only real heavyweight was Guiliani, who could not fund an even half decent campaign

He had plenty of money, he just chose a very poor strategy and invested it all in Florida.

Alcuin @ 8:04 pm

That’s really a jaw-dropper. Unless this is the first U.S. presidential election you’ve followed.

Tim -

I still don’t believe McCain chose her. Pawlenty had Secret Service protection the day before the pick. That’s usually the giveaway. The deep red base were not going to open their purses for a McCain-Pawlenty ticket.

When Hitchens refers to “the surrender faction,” I think he’s referring broadly to the struggle against Islamic extremists. In some ways (especially when it comes to Pakistan), Obama sounds more hawkish than McCain.

M.B.
Reagan and Ford were intelligent men, vastly underrated.

I take all his points, but you don’t get this: http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/03/nailin-palin/ as a spin off from the Obama/Biden ticket, do you?

LGB shocked to discover Hitch’s pinko roots

‘Hitchen’s doesn’t think Obama will “capitulate”? They will merely call it something else like “ritual sacrifice of the zionists” How does Hitchens explain Khalidi and Odinga?’

‘He still reverts back to idiot leftist mode from time to time. Glitch in the circuitry.’

‘Hitch is little more than an anti-religious and anti-semitic bigot who long ago dove to the bottom of a whiskey barrel.

Good riddance’

‘Hitchens has clearly become a bourgeois decadent with his head up his own too comfortable self satisfied ass. Time for a job change’

‘I guess Hitchens has decided to declare defeat in the war on terror. What a douche’

‘Hitchens flushed his credibility on the War on Terror down the “loo” with the Obama endorsement’

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31556_Kristol-_Junk_the_Whole_Thing_and_Start_Over/comments/#ctop

A fascinating insight into a realm of high delusion and palpable fear, like stirring a bucket of vomit with a dead rat a-floating

I finally get the “hope and change” thing. Vote for Obama, and hope he’ll change once he gets in to office. I suppose the question I would ask Obama supporters (who all seem to have this same mantra) is “If Obama is telling the truth now, would that be worse than what you expect McCain to do?”.

Obama’s friend’s influences and - most notably - supporters put me off him. Weird, threatening cult mentality. If Obama lost it would be like the end of the Stepford Wives and that has to be worth watching.

Plus all the enemies of mankind from Hollywood to Caracas to Lebanon want Obama to win. Their stake? Seeing America weakened because they hate America. Especially Hollywood.

Socialism never ever works. Ever. Anywhere in the world. And no, Norway’s socialism is actually conservatism by anyone else’s standards. I’d have more respect for Obama if he owned up to his Marxist aspirations. I guess America will find out soon enough.

McCain or Obama, whoever wins will just serve 4 years. The world will be a little safer if that’s McCain.

“Obama’s friend’s influences and - most notably - supporters put me off him. Weird, threatening cult mentality.”

Meet Mattie Mertens: Smith Co-ed, cultist.

“I Will Follow Him”: Obama As My Personal Jesus

http://media.www.smithsophian.com/media/storage/paper587/news/2008/09/18/Opinions/i.Will.Follow.Him.Obama.As.My.Personal.Jesus-3440311.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab

Plus all the enemies of mankind from Hollywood to Caracas to Lebanon want Obama to win. Their stake? Seeing America weakened because they hate America.

Because if there’s one thing the Bush era has done it’s make America stronger: right? Come on. Dubya has been an utter catastrophe, he’s squandered so much its soft power and severely blunted its hard power. He has been a gift to clowns like Chavez and Ahmedinejad, a godsend to Putin and a great boon to the Chinese.

The next president is going to start with a pretty awful hand, there’s a chance Obama will play it well and repair some of the damage. (Winning back the goodwill of Latin America, Europe and Africa would be a good start, for instance). For all his good qualities, I really don’t think that McCain would be able to do so.

Who are the surrender faction, Gene? Surrender to what?

As to whom Hitchens means by “the surrender faction,” I suppose you’ll have to ask him. A rough definition for me is those who opposed even the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the ousting of the Taliban.

Could he not have meant Harry Reid, Gene?

Could he not have meant Harry Reid, Gene?

Again, you’ll have to ask him. Meanwhile, this is for you. As a fan of Hank Jr’s original “Family Tradition,” it kind of makes me cringe.

As a black man running for president, Obama has to make doubly sure of not appearing “radical”, not frightening the horses, so as to avoid appearing to conform to the worn stereotypes and fears about angry black men etc., in some quarters. After all, its relatively recently that the US began to finally fully unpack its history of racism, and many assumptions are deeply held.

In a way, McCain has got more leeway to be angry (appealing to the base which seems to be made up of a bunch of angry white folk), even though it won’t do him any good either.

Gene hates Roy (she’s in the Decent’s Rogue’s Gallery, of course), but that is partly what she meant, and it should be an uncontroversial sociological observation.

Please, explain why the Americans would want the goodwill of Nations and leaders who provide a constant stream of asylumn seekers to us? I would take perverse pleasure at this Manchurian Candidate an illegal himself, becoming President.

“Very frankly, Dana, I don’t give a damn about an old unrepentant terrorist.”

John McCain on CNN, getting tired of the Ayers story, and signaling that the talking points have changed. McCain fans at HP should note. New talking points, guys!

Sad to see how deep LGF has sunk. At one point it was an interesting place to visit, now just a hotbed of extremism and paranoia.

“He’ll have to prove that he is whiter than the white man.”

Racist bitch. In any case, Obama’s mother is white.

(Winning back the goodwill of Latin America, Europe and Africa would be a good start, for instance).

Why should the US care about fake goodwill?

The infamous “We are all Americans now” sickfest after 9/11 lasted all of five minutes when the purveyors realised that America wasn’t going to kowtow to limp-wristed liberal self-hatred.

Europe is just interested in surrending to Islam and cosying up to a new Russian Bear, Latin America is too far up its own red arse to care, and Africa just wants to be left alone to continue genocide and slaughter.

If anything, it is the other way about - Europe, Latin America and Africa should be on their knees begging forgiveness for the way they’ve shirked their responsibilities for the last decade.

Pastor at McCain rally brings politics into pre-rally prayer

DAVENPORT, IA (KSLA) - The pastor who delivered a prayer for a John McCain rally in Iowa appeared to call on God to keep Barack Obama from becoming president.

But a spokesperson for the campaign said questions about the candidates religion distract voters from the real issues.

Of course Tim, and The One’s descriples have never ever brought Yahweh into it either eh?

Who the fuck is this Tim pillock anyway? The Dalai Obama’s campaign manager?

Rational political discourse again Morgoth.

You never did answer whether you support McCains nationalisation of negative equity.

Socialism never ever works. Ever. Anywhere in the world.

It’s normally laughable when people say this, but in the week when half the world’s financial system has been nationalised it’s just pathetic. There are sound reasons why McCain and the Republicans are sinking faster than the Titanic. Right wingers seem to think it’s because people have been brainwashed by clever liberal propaganda. I suspect people are not so stupid.

half the world’s financial system has been nationalised: For a separate thread: Is there a real difference, or is it just cosmetic, between the old concept of “state owned” and the new discourse of “taxpayer owned” for what has happened?

Socialism never ever works. Ever. Anywhere in the world. And no, Norway’s socialism is actually conservatism by anyone else’s standards.

By US standards, the Nordic countries are undoubtedly socialist. If any reform was attempted to bring the US closer to the Scandinavian model, or even Germany or France, there would be terrified chuntering from the US right that the country was going socialist or communist.

Neocons fundamentally misunderstand the nature of battle against Endarkenment. This cannot be fought like a conventional war, or with the old paranoid Cold War mentality. It is a battle for hearts and minds. Obama could single-handedly begin to stem the tide of anti-Americanism in the world, re-establishing the US as a beacon of hope and freedom, rather than an aggressive, neo-imperialist power. Compared to McCain - who thought the fundamentals of the US economy were sound and the Iraq war would be a pushover - Obama is clearly the sane, rational choice.

Conrad began his invocation by saying that the Lord’s reputation is involved in everything that happens between now and November.

If Obama wins, then do we get to denounce God as a pinko-commie? Let’s just say there a lot of skeltons in His closet.

I’m not sure I think Obama is exactly the right person, having a few doubts, but Mike that was a brilliant post.

‘Norway’s socialism is actually conservatism by anyone else’s standards’

I saw this last night but thought i was having a pill flash back, could somebody unpack this as I’m having a great deal of trouble comprehending WTF

‘Marxist aspirations’ oh I see, you don’t know what you are chattin’

Its going to get a lot dirtier than this I feel…..

For a separate thread: Is there a real difference, or is it just cosmetic, between the old concept of “state owned” and the new discourse of “taxpayer owned” for what has happened?

Well, European countries have owned shares in major companies for years, which Britain and the US have been trying to force them to get rid of. I guess that’s off the agenda now.

I think the main difference will be that there will be very little Government interference in the businesses. I can’t help but think that from the Government that brought us ASBOs, incitement to hatred laws and ID cards it’s a little hypocritical, but then New Labour has always loved business.

You *know* this had to do with the Kissinger “endorsement” (nevermind that Obama pretended that he had it too).

I am revolted by the choice offered to me this year even more than what we had in 2004. Obama, sorry kids, creeps the hell out of me just as any Chicago politician does but more - the bringing him in to town on palm fronds (didn’t they the last guy who pulled that publicity stunt to a tree?), the need for us to believe that this oh-so-aware (about everything else) up-and-comer didn’t know about Ayers and Wright and how that would be received by centrist, conservatives and those who don’t think post-partisanship means murdering your opponents (both of which are a more stinging indictment against bringing *any* Chi-Town Pol to the national stage), the stupid talk about bringing Russia (and her veto) to the security council over Georgia, and some of his ideas like mandatory volunteerism, and broadcast “neutrality” (which Nixon loved as I recall). This the dumbest choice I’ve been offered since… well… Kerry v W.

Then again, I’m still playing with my fantasy football teams of Hillary and just about anyone vs McCain and Liddy Dole (who would have been a far better choice of estrogen than Palin and she may be needing a new job in november anyway). Instead we have two parties trying to p*ss off the other side with the worst possibly receivable tickets they could find. I can always vote for McKinney … or Bob Barr just to be a total stinker.

(sheesh… didn’t they *nail* the last guy who pulled…)

– Socialism never ever works. Ever. Anywhere in the world.

It’s normally laughable when people say this, but in the week when half the world’s financial system has been nationalised it’s just pathetic.

“But of late, since Bismarck went in for state ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating now, and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism.” (Freddie Engels)

Let’s see: Obama openly favored defeat in Iraq for years. Obama was even willing, as we all should remember, to accept genocide as a result of an American withdrawal from Iraq. (Or, as I like to say, genocide in Iraq was acceptable to Obama, as long as he got to be president.)

But Gene is sure that Obama does not favor defeat now. And Gene believes this because . . . . ?

(If Obama were a Republican, Gene and almost every other Obama supporter would find the fact that Obama has hidden so much of his past, and told so many tales about it that turn out not to be exactly true, highly suspicious. Instead, the more Obama conceals and prevaricates, the more they trust him.)

Dawn Chorus, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Does Engels have have an opinion on whether socialism has ever been implemented anywhere in the world. Does he think Obama is a socialist?

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

Nationalisation is not socialism, according to a principal founder of the latter.

Or perhaps it is? Gene seems to think so. I thought after the horrors of Bolshevik Russia, the Western Left used to insist that only workers’ control, not a change in property relations, defined socialism? Wasn’t that the key excuse Western socialists made to try to avoid the opprobrium heaped on their theories by the consequences of Lenin’s and Stalin’s experiment? It seems to me that if nationalisation is socialism, then the USSR and Mao’s PRC were socialist, and the Cold War Right were entirely correct in describing the Western Left as fellow-travellers of totalitarianism.

I think it’s the right’s habit of referring to any kind of Government regulation as socialism which has led to your confusion. Admittedly the poster who I was quoting from was himself confused, calling Norway conservative but Obama a marxist.

In any case, you seem to regard socialism as akin to Newton’s laws of motion, whereas a political theory is probably best not to regard as so set in stone, so quoting a 19th century source for a definition in a contemporary political debate is perhaps not particularly useful.

Would Engels think Obama or Bush are socialists? Would he think the USSR was socialist? Do you think they are?

Would Engels think Obama or Bush are socialists? Would he think the USSR was socialist? Do you think they are?

In practical terms, the only people who think the USSR wasn’t communist are Western communists and those strongly influenced by them.

Socialism had 100 years and two-thirds of the planet to try out its experiment and make it work. What more do self-identified socialists need to prove their case, a thousand years and the rest of the solar system?

Nationalisation measures, as the Engels quote I unearthed, preceded the rise of socialism and remain a weapon in the government’s arsenal long after socialism has died and been buried. Anyone crowing about about capitalism’s demise in this day and age is literally an unreconstructed Stalinist, whatever they may think of themselves, and should be shunned in just the same way as other moronic bigots like the BNP.

“Let’s see: Obama openly favored defeat in Iraq for years.”

Oh really, what a shocker. I’ll have to vote McCain then.

You know Jim, Vietnam is still there if you want to invade it again. You’re not a quitter are you?

Hitchens knows a true Marxist when he sees one. Was there any doubt he’d endorse the annointed one?

The question remains when the dhimmirat machine can animate enough corpses to give the election to the Obama. My guess is there aren’t enough undead in the world to elect the Obama. Maybe in Illinois but not in the rest of the country with the exception of Massachusetts.

So, tHOMAS j, that would explain why Hitchens supported George Bush over John Kerry, and has been backing Bush for the last 7 years?

Have you got a line ready to explain the Rupert Murdoch shift, when that comes?

Congratulations on “dhimmirat” for Democrats, though; that’s witty. Can I suggest that you put it on a placard, over the words, WAKE UP, PEOPLE!!! OBAMA’s A MARXIST MUSLIM!!!!! Then, take it to a Palin rally, and do try to get yourself in front of a camera.

Thank you.

Hitchens for Obama?

Cleese no longer thinks Michael is the funniest Palin…

http://www.asylum.co.uk/2008/10/14/its-official-michael-palin-is-no-longer-the-funniest-palin/

So you think that socialism and communism are synonymous? Wikipedia might help you out:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

Also, I don’t think that anyone is crowing about capitalism’s demise, since it is manifestly not dead or dying. What people might be crowing about is the death of a certain form of fundamentalist capitalism, and the return to more sensible and socialist policies.