Third Party & Independents Archives

Bye Bye Barry

The final results are in on this historic November day. Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars he raised, Barack Obama has lost the 2008 presidential election. American voters have boldly spoken truth to arrogance.

Turned out that all those pre-election opinion polls that showed Obama’s inability to get over 50 percent support were prescient. Much of the public was never comfortable with Obama, though he clearly was so comfortable acting like he already was president.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are probably drinking champagne and having the sweetest time since Bill won his first presidential election. Hillary must now bite her lip repeatedly and resist saying publicly that “I told you so!” Hillary in 2012 will reveal that she learned her lessons well.

All that Obama audacity of arrogance from the smiling, glib politician finally died the death it so richly deserved. Too many pundits will blame his loss on his blackness and racist voters. But the larger truth is that sufficient voters saw through the many lies and deceptions. Obama always had a hard time giving a simple, short straight answer to tough questions. He was always mentally calculating exactly how to game his answers so that he would achieve all the benefits he had his eyes on. He was simply too damn presumptuous and too smart for his own good. In the end, Americans do not want the smartest person in the presidency or endless nuancing. They want someone they can easily understand and trust, despite their skepticism. There were many reasons not to trust the calculating Obama to do anything he promised to do or, for some people, to fear he might.

And now the bloviating pundits will also blame third party presidential candidates for siphoning votes from Obama, as if Americans have no right to exercise their political freedom and vote for someone they honestly think has the best policy positions and would most help restore American democracy.

Jon Stewart and other late-night comics will feast on these election results, as they should. I can’t wait to hear jokes about Obama’s wife becoming a more vocal and militant critic of the good old USA, now that she has proof positive that so many Americans are stupid white racists.

Of course, now the nation must suffer through the ineptness, confusion and dementia-like dullness of the living-in-the-past John McCain, tough-talking but brain dead. Will the McCain presidency look like an extension of the incredible terrible George W. Bush White House? Of course.

Still living off a once-true characterization as a maverick, McCain must now surround himself with people who actually are smart and knowledgeable about myriad issues. Should be no problem finding enough lobbyists. Pundits will start speculating that McCain will be lucky just to stay alive for four years, but thankfully his vice-president seems more capable. One thing for sure: the power plutocracy that really runs the country will have little trouble pulling the strings behind the scenes and keep the puppet McCain dancing to tunes written by corporate interests.

Ralph Nader summed up this way: “A large fraction of Americans know that we need a Jeffersonian political revolution to fix our corrupt system. They were not fooled by the Obama rhetoric about change, not from someone that has been a product of and servant for the two-party plutocracy. Yes, all the votes for me and the other third-party presidential candidates spelled the difference between Obama winning and losing. Our voters correctly protested against the corrupt two-party system. They did not elect McCain. Only those who voted for McCain elected him, and that is something they must live with as they watch a McCain administration continue dismantling American democracy and budget-busting global warmongering.”

Cynthia McKinney wisely noted that “It is time to stop saying God bless America, and begin repeating God save America. The good news is that we will build even greater public support for a true political revolution during the McCain presidency. All too often things must get much worse before they can get better. They will get worse.”

As to Obama, half-jokingly he said: “I may come back as a third-party candidate.” Or did that reflect a calculation that Democrats had learned their lesson? As to all the screaming from the left that the Republicans stole this election also, Obama immediately said “John won it fair and square.” Thanks Barry, exactly what I expected from a phony change agent.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at August 19, 2008 1:31 PM
Comment #258883

Actually, Yogi O’Reilly said it best: “It ain’t over till Diebold says it’s over!”

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 19, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #258884

He was simply too damn presumptuous

As is this thread Joel.

Posted by: RickIL at August 19, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #258885

Joel the Beginning of the end came for Obama in mid August when he took part in the saddleback forum.His next big mistake was on Aug.19th as he went in front of a group of U.S. War Veterans and Demanded that Russia Pull troops out of Georgia.Putin very Quickly sent more troops to the region and and stated that just because Barack Obama has Germany and the United States of America Brain washed,Do’es not mean Russia is so Naive.Last but not least his biggest blunder was to Question John McCains Military record.I knew when the U.S. forces and U.S. military Vets Blasted Obama for showing such disrespect for a True American Hero it was over for Obama.It did not help Obama to take the arrogant Sen. Bidan as his running mate.Now its time to get ready for 2012 as John McCain has made it clear he is a one termer.America is safe for four more years.God Bless the American people for using their brain and voting McCain.

Posted by: John at August 19, 2008 2:14 PM
Comment #258889

Fantasy is fun, isn’t it?

Since Americans recognize a need for a Jeffersonian change, they would vote for McCain over Obama? Nader over Obama? How’s that working for ya?

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 19, 2008 2:36 PM
Comment #258892

John -

Still think Russia’s the bad guy in this? Or did Georgia actually start it?

Or are you still listening only to what Fox News and McCain’s top policy adviser (and Georgian lobbyist) will tell you?

So here’s a little something Fox News broadcast - you see, it’s a 12 year-old American girl (who was visiting South Ossetia at the time) who was telling a story of how the Russian soldiers saved them from the Georgians.

But nah, who am I kidding? Everybody’s evil in the world except for the neo-cons, Republicans, NRA contributors, and the ones they support, huh?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 19, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #258895

Well, the Jeffersonian change would be the Libertarian Party, wouldn’t it, being as they are the only ones actual following those principles…

And interestingly enough, they are pulling close to 10% of the polling in an environment that is stacked against them as strong as it is…

And over 50% of Americans think that Barr should be invited to the debates. They should know that what they want isn’t any of our government’s concern.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 19, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #258896
Still think Russia’s the bad guy in this? Or did Georgia actually start it?

You don’t think that Russia is the bad guy? I’m not saying Georgia is the good guy but Russia is definately not in this case.

Maybe there are two bad guys? Or is that not a possibility…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 19, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #258897


“But nah, who am I kidding? Everybody’s evil in the world except for the neo-cons, Republicans, NRA contributors, and the ones they support, huh?”

what ? neo-cons, you guys really like that term huh ? i like this one better, neo-coms. this describes the far left in this country, and the wing of the dem party that now controls the party.

actually i don’t know many of the details about the russians occupation of georgia, so i won’t speak about it, but that last remark of yours shows your true irrational hatred of those on the right. it is that irrational hatred, and emotional outbursts that turns off the majority of middle of the road voters. keep it up.

Posted by: dbs at August 19, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #258904

1) National polls are not what decides elections, but electoral votes. Obama currently leads.

2) The National convention is yet to come.

3) Obama was on vacation for the last couple weeks.

4) McCain out spent him in several states, but with little to show for it.

McCain has to fight to make things close. He has to spend millions on negative commercials to make marginal gains. This against a candidate considered to be something of a risk.

Obama’s not going to be handed his ass by this guy. It might be close, but so are most turning points in history.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #258908


“It did not help Obama to take the arrogant Sen. Bidan as his running mate.”

i hadn’t seen that one. is that true obama picked biden for his vp. thats actually a good thing, biden is a real arrogant assh#@le. i loved his smug attitude during the supreme court confirmations.he really showed his true colors.

Posted by: dbs at August 19, 2008 4:30 PM
Comment #258910

It’s premature to call the shot at this time. I believe the coming debates will be the deciding factor. Largely based on personality, if Obama keeps his hair combed and doesn’t say something like he thinks Saakashvili likes living in Atlanta he will make the cut.

Posted by: roy ellis at August 19, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #258915


Summary: both candidates suck?

It might be close, but so are most turning points in history.

Weren’t you one of the ones in the left column predicting a landslide? I’ll have to go recheck…

And, I’m sure that if McCain were to win the popular vote and lose the electoral, your side will hand it to him, as you wanted Bush to do for Gore, right?

Actually, that would be one of the funniest things to happen in a long time, I think I will root for that. :)

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 19, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #258916

Oh, and I think it is hilarious that Obama is calling for an ‘end to the negative campaigning’, I wonder when he will stop?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 19, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #258920


but that last remark of yours shows your true irrational hatred of those on the right. it is that irrational hatred, and emotional outbursts that turns off the majority of middle of the road voters. keep it up.

I can’t speak for Glen, but I certainly do view many on the right as neocons. It is a descriptive of those on the right who promote an aggressive military agenda. It really is nothing more than a label which defines a group of people who ascribe to a particular mindset. It does not necessarily apply to all conservatives or all republicans. It is no different than all the labels those on the right apply to liberals on a regular basis. A few are gullible enough to believe they apply to all liberals. But anyone with a bit of common sense knows that notion is absurd. In defense of Glen he was responding to a poster who is way over the top. The guy seems to thrive on inflammatory and absurdly ridiculous notions.

I do believe that the use of labels to create hatred or fear has gotten out of control. They tend to create so much vitriol that it is difficult to have any civil discussion. I am guilty of getting caught up in the label game just the same as most here. Over all when used to inflame labels are largely non productive and often regressive in nature. I sometimes wonder how much more productive our government and ourselves might be if we could drop the inflammatory and hate inducing labels and have a conversation as simple human beings inhabiting the same nation with the same needs and problems.

Posted by: RickIL at August 19, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #258923

No. McCain has to spend a ton of money to break even. Obama can go on vacation and his number remain relatively stable. More to the point, the numbers referenced will be irrelevant to the results.

When I said it might be close, I said might, not would.

McCain won’t get the popular vote, I’ll bet you that, at least.

As for an end to negative campaigning? Lets be clear on something: Obama’s hitting McCain’s policy choices. McCain’s attacking Obama’s personality. Who do you think has the more substantive argument here?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #258925


“I do believe that the use of labels to create hatred or fear has gotten out of control. They tend to create so much vitriol that it is difficult to have any civil discussion.”

i agree. the name calling is childish, and acomplishes nothing. it’s a lot tougher to debate with with well thought out arguments, than it is to resort to childish name calling and labeling.

Posted by: dbs at August 19, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #258929

Rhinehold -

Y’know, I really like It’s not often one finds a site that is to all appearances truly non-partisan.

And there, one can see that McCain’s been throwing more (yes, MORE) false accusations against Obama. That doesn’t excuse Obama for his own exaggerations (that the folks at cheerfully expose), but it becomes quite plain that when it comes to negative advertising…and particularly with false accusations…Obama’s not in the same league as McCain and the Rove Tabernacle Choirboys.

If you complain about Obama’s negative advertising, make sure you’re complaining at least as much about McCain doing the same thing. Otherwise you’re just throwing stones inside a glass house.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 19, 2008 6:32 PM
Comment #258935

I really don’t get the point of this article. Let the duopoly nominate some candidates, we’ll have an election, and then we can say “I told you so”. The candidate who wins this year will be a one term POTUS, and will be screwing his own party. The winner in 2012 will be reelected in 2016. This is a bad year for Democrats, but all the candidates suck except Cynthia McKinney. The talking heads have Daschle as either the VP or COS for BHO, so they think he’s the one who’s going to be running the government if the noob is elected.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 19, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #258937

Isn’t part of free speech pointing out the faults of others? Especially those who are condescending and elitist. I don’t think you can get any more negative than how liberals use Bush as both their straw man and scapegoat.
Personality traits are important in a president.
I believe the more confrontation the better. Who wants a sissified election? If you can’t handle criticism get out of the race. Obama reminds me of that pesty little brother who whines to mother every time you look at him.

Posted by: Kruser at August 19, 2008 8:43 PM
Comment #258938

ohrealy -

“This is a bad year for Democrats”

Concerning the presidential election, you might be right - if Diebold gets its way.

Concerning Congress…I’ll remind you of what you said sometime this November.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 19, 2008 8:44 PM
Comment #258940

mom! they’re picking on me!
Libs- Now thats just awful! You are hurting his self esteem.
That’ll work with aggressive world powers.

Posted by: Kruser at August 19, 2008 8:52 PM
Comment #258941

The Onion, on Diebold accidentally releasing the results of the 2008 election:

Posted by: ohrealy at August 19, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #258947
If you complain about Obama’s negative advertising

I didn’t. I pointed out that it kind of highlights a character flaw to do something and then complain that someone else is doing the same thing, don’t you think?

I don’t see a problem with pointing out character flaws in your oponent, and Obama has no trouble with people calling McCain old, ill-tempered, mean, adulterer, etc… He just has a problem with being made to look bad, just ask Rev Wright. He was all behind defending Rev Wright right up to the point when the Reverend called him a ‘typical politician’ and then the gloves came off.

Do you think it is appropriate to identify and point out character flaws in people who might be president?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 19, 2008 11:13 PM
Comment #258953

I hope your right Joel. I hope the voters do see through Obama’s phony BS and don’t vote for him. And I hope they see McCain for what he is and don’t vote for him either. Even though he is the lesser of the two evils.
We need a third party or independent President. But with the duopoly as strongly entrenched as it is it’s going to take some doing.
I’m not going to try to guess who’ll win the White House in Nov. But with Congress’ approval rating I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a whole heap of new faces there in Jan.

The only name y’all need to remember in Nov is Ron Brown. A vote for me is a vote to make me rich.:)

Posted by: Ron Brown at August 20, 2008 12:21 AM
Comment #258959

The article quotes Nader as saying: ““A large fraction of Americans know that we need a Jeffersonian political revolution to fix our corrupt system. They were not fooled by the Obama rhetoric about change, not from someone that has been a product of and servant for the two-party plutocracy.”

Nader doesn’t know his butt from a hole in the ground when making this statement. He ignores two blatantly obvious facts:

1) Anyone NOT a servant of the two party plutocracy has NO CHANCE of being elected. Nader is a case in point.

2) Obama can be true to his promise for change as president and have been true to his State constituents in the past, as well. It is a matter of changing jobs, and therefore duties. As a state Senator, his job was to work for the interests of the people who elected him in his State. By all accounts, those who elected him Illinois were not disappointed.

As president, his job description and constituency is very different. Having lived up to his job description as State Senator, he was elected to the U.S. Senate by the majority of voters in his State. As a presidential candidate, he is making a very different set of promises than he made to get elected as Senator, because the job he is applying for requires it.

There is no duplicity here. Those who want to see one defy the logic that a welder who joins metal cannot later become a scrap metal recycler who destroys metal in order to recast it. Different job requires different expectations. I have held many in my life, and if I approached each one exactly the same, I would have been UNemployed most of life.

Nader is playing politics with the issue that Obama has a chance to actually become president while Nader does not. There is a reason for that, and Nader damn well knows what that is. Nader has refused to work within the (albeit corrupt) political system to achieve the office of president. Obama chose otherwise.

Both men are to be lauded for their choices. Both have and will accomplish different things as a result of their choices. I respect them both. But, they are, afterall, both politicians, and getting elected is all about appealing to the voters one chooses to appeal to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 20, 2008 6:30 AM
Comment #258963


Except that Obama didn’t defend Wright’s words, he defended his own (Obama’s) participation in his church. Is that kind of distortion a character flaw?


Posted by: googlumpugus at August 20, 2008 8:50 AM
Comment #258965

Yes, it is called passivity and poor judgment.
Community status is worth ignoring blatant racism and falsehoods.

Posted by: Kruser at August 20, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #258966

People played the equivalency game eight years ago, and again four years ago, and got burned for it. The truth is, though there is a difference. Only when events undid the ability of one party to serve as an inhibitory force on the other did that difference become glaringly clear.

All the name calling and derogatory, loaded language doesn’t change that fact. It doesn’t change the need to start tipping the balance in another direction, or the fact that one side has made it its business to stall that correction as long as possible.

You don’t need to have faith in the Democrats. God knows many Democrats have little enough. You just have to know that whatever choice you’re presented, however bad, they’re usually the better choice of the two. That’s all you need to know, for the time being, because the other party has no interest in taking responsibility for the problems at hand, or facing the reckoning that their policies have brought upon them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2008 10:22 AM
Comment #258967

David, I think you are going to be surprised by the % of vote given to 3rd parties or write-in’s this time around. Nader is right in that a vote against the duopoly is a well placed protest vote and a good showing will help strengthen the 3rd party effort come 2012. As I see it the duopoly has committed malfeasance and criminal acts over the past 10 years and people are mad as hell about it. It makes absolutely no sense for us non-stakeholders to carry water for the duopoly. We should get behind a good 3rd party, preferably one with built-in citizen oversight and start preparing for 2012. The status quo will not be shaken by anything less.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 20, 2008 10:35 AM
Comment #258991

Glenn What would you suggest?Let Russia Take Poland ,Georgia and the Ukrain?Hell if thats the Case,Let them have Alaska.While you are at it give them the Great Lakes.Yes Liberals should take the Whitehouse.I know I would feel much safer!

Posted by: John at August 20, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #259018

“Glenn What would you suggest?Let Russia Take Poland ,Georgia and the Ukrain?Hell if thats the Case,Let them have Alaska.While you are at it give them the Great Lakes.Yes Liberals should take the Whitehouse.I know I would feel much safer!”

LOL, ummm how about no more of this unilateral BS of pretending we are the ultimate police authority. How about we exercise the power of the United Nations to move towards solutions that don’t displace and fuel the anger of someone like Russia to other nations, but rather smothers aggressions with world wide support (something not exercised by our ‘coalition’ in Iraq). The only way to win a war like these is with having the higher moral ground with compassion for the ‘enemy’, just intentions, and taking action through the teamwork of unanimous world wide support, something Bush senior never taught his 62 year old baby boy)

Say that Russia takes some country like the Nazi’s did, their unjust actions provoke the universal appeal of humanity in our globalized age causing an uprising for justice through cooperative policing not just ‘let’s go kick some camel jocky/ vodka drinkin’/ anti-american butt!’

G.I. Joe is dead. Like God. Things change. Living as partners in a global community means the same as living in your precious gated community: don’t play your stereo so loud to molest your neighbors and you don’t single handedly storm into someone’s house to end the tyranny you believe they may have at one time committed.

Our world neighbors are all we have. We can not survive on our own, and if we piss enough of them off, they will call the cops on our sex, drugs, and rock & roll party (figuratively speaking).

Posted by: thinktwice at August 20, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #259020

“Yes Liberals should take the Whitehouse.I know I would feel much safer!”

All that bush has done is to create more enemies faster than he can kill them. That has sure made our world a lot safer. idiota! We can not do ANY of this alone, no matter what our gun slingin’, cow tippin’, coke snortin’, faliure of a president has managed to convince a whopping 34% of the country.

Posted by: booooo! at August 20, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #259029

“Concerning Congress…I’ll remind you of what you said sometime this November.”

Contrarian, Who said anything about congressional races? The Democrats will pick up seats in the USHOR, and maybe a few in the Senate, if BHO doesn’t screw that up by getting elected with another senator who will be replaced by a Rpblcn, and Illinois doesn’t end up eventually replacing him with a Rpblcn, if our idiot governor decides he wants that seat.

I said a long time ago, that the Rpblcns actually need the Democratic wins this year, so that they can begin to blame them for all the problems that existed the day they took office, just like all the BS from the far right here, blaming the Democratic majority in Congress for the problems which already existed the day they took over. If JMcC is elected, WTF can he do, put us even further into debt? Abolish most government programs except the military? They would still want to increase military expenditure.

That’s why we need to get someone from outside this process to stop all the back and forth nonsense, between one side spending and borrowing, and the other side taxing to spend on programs that will be subverted when they lose power again. Your guy is Nader. I hope he gets a big vote. My lady is Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney. I hope she gets a bigger vote, without any coverage from organizations manufacturing news for fun and profit, and benefitting from this years expected billion dollar duopoly campaign season.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 20, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #259049


I’ll give you it’s pandering to middle white America, but you have to live under a rock (which a lot of white America apparently does) to not have heard black anger before. Certainly there is no racism coming from the other side. They are pure and lily white.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 20, 2008 8:30 PM
Comment #259066

“Certainly there is no racism coming from the other side.”
That is true with most whites I know. My grandfather was from the south and would shoot them on sight. Neither my parents, brothers, sisters nor sons have a bit of anger toward blacks. We are from Detroit and are cautious toward them since many are dangerous and thieves in the environment there. We are the same toward white hicks. It is simple logic and not the unbased illogical hatred from Barry’s church. A person supports and endorses a church and its message by attendance. Thinking you can dismiss this with an after the fact denouncement shows contempt for those who question it.
My sister dated a black man a couple years ago and we had him over for Christmas. He was included in our gift exchange. Color isn’t an issue with us. We all had alot of fun. You generalizations are off base. Nice try equivocating.

Posted by: Kruser at August 20, 2008 10:56 PM
Comment #259100

ohrealy -

Y’know, I’ve thought for some time that although Bush II was the worst president in American history, he certainly was good for the Democratic party. Forsooth, we couldn’t have risen above without him.

He and Cheney and Rove, awash in the absolute corruption that comes with absolute power, whizzed away the very real possibility of that ‘permanent Republican majority’ which Rove was certain he could bring about.

And the Dems? If Obama wins the White House, and if we control both houses of Congress, IF we bring about another surplus before Obama leaves office, what will that say about the economic philosophies of both parties?

You won’t say what it really means, because it would go against the grain of what you want to believe.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 21, 2008 12:23 PM
Comment #259116


Yeah, it’s all over now. Gift sharing erases lynching. That’s equivalent. Come down south for a bit. Read the Houston Chronicle comments and keep saying “racism by whites doesn’t exist”. Tell it to the guy they dragged behind a pick up truck a few years ago. Tell it to the A&M black students that were barred from voting in Waller County a couple of years ago.

I grew up in Ohio. It’s still there. Maybe it’s totally gone in Michigan…..I doubt it.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 21, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #259132

Contrarian, I don’t get what you mean this time either. I said a while back that special Bush bonds, with a picture of W with his finger up his nose, should be sold to pay off his debt, or better yet it should be repudiated, which is more unlikely, or we could find a buyer for Alaska, with its oilfields, to pay it down, even less likely.

The next POTUS has already been screwed, and may get screwed even more by W in his last 153 days of uselessness, and then even more afterwards by Bush family friends in the oil business. BHO is unlikely to be elected, but if Babar helps him enough, and several other miracles happen, it is a remote possibility. Why would he want to play along with the game of paying off Rpblcn debts? To encourage them to do exactly the same thing again, the next time they come back in.

If he pulls the Armed Forces out of Iraq, and ends up paying even more for private contractors to protect the oilfields, while randonmly shooting at Iraqis to keep the goodwill going, he will have his own additional deficits to deal with. W may be dumb, but he’s very good at messing things up for other people.

Lewis Black’s End of an Empire Sale:

Posted by: ohrealy at August 21, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #259170

There will always be hatred for those who are different. Always be bigoted people. You cannot legislate away all human faults. The fact is, our laws support equality. Color really isn’t an issue anymore. Of course there will always be law breakers and that is why we have law enforcement. Libs are chasing windmills on this. Conservatives simply want to look at personal merit alone. Always have.

The notion that I am responsible to erase past wrongs is irrational. Should we hold Italians responsible for Roman slavery?

Posted by: Kruser at August 22, 2008 12:04 AM
Comment #259178

“Libs are chasing windmills on this. Conservatives simply want to look at personal merit alone. Always have.”

Typical conservative logic Kruser, you talk meritocracy yet you walk aristocracy as conservatives support the repeal of the inheritance tax and the regressive unfair tax. This is why it is hard to accept the conservative rhetoric when it comes to people of color. Sure its easy to say one thing but actions speak louder than words.

“It is simple logic and not the unbased illogical hatred from Barry’s church. A person supports and endorses a church and its message by attendance.”

Kruser walk a mile in the shoes of the people attending “Barry’s church” before you call their position illogical hatred. Despite gains from the civil rights and equal opportunity laws ample hatred remains alive and well in conservative America today. You dont think those coon and beaver hunting “jokes” come from the liberal camp do you? How many of your liberal friends tell you they wont vote for Obama because he is black? Im sure its a different story than what you hear from your conservative friends, it sure is in my case.

Here are a couple of links to show you what your fellow conservative are up to and perhaps why Rev. Wright has some anger on the issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at August 22, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #259179


I never held you responsible for your ancestors trangressions. No one is asking that. Stop throwing in phoney issues.

Our Laws have supported equality since the Civil War. That doesn’t mean it’s enforced. Color IS an issue even if you want to wish it away. It’s an issue in the presidential election.

Pretending you are above it speaks perhaps to personal guilt. It’s always the guys who pretend reality is something it isn’t, who are hiding something.

Have we improved on racism? Yes. Are we at equality yet? No. That you think we are demonstrates your disconnected state. Why do you think Blacks support Obama? Because THEY are racist and whites are not? Get Real. You haven’t got a clue.

Why is Collin Powell leanin towards Obama? He said on Tavis Smiley he is pleased with Obama’s progress. Why? Because he knows there is no barriers to blacks, or because this is positive change? Have you ever watched Tavis Smiley? Do you have any notion at all of the discourse in black society?

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 22, 2008 10:09 AM
Comment #259201

Let’s hear it for Ron Paul. Actually heard rumors about him pulling votes away from McCain and throwing the victory to Obama.

Obama well he talks a good talk, but I don’t think he can walk the walk.

I am waiting for the debates, but I noticed none of them are in the Rust belt area where a lot of votes are coming from. Remember it was Ohio that gave Bush the Worse his last 4 yrs, maybe both are tiptoeing thru the tulips in the midwest or at least Michigan/Ohio, and I know he doesn’t want Detroits Mayor at the convention.


Posted by: KT at August 22, 2008 1:50 PM
Comment #259203

Kruser -

“Conservatives simply want to look at personal merit alone. Always have.”

Uh-huh. Sure.

Just like you prefer the guy who grew up rich who graduated almost at the bottom of his class, did ONE thing right (as a P.O.W.), has made his whole career on that fact, and doesn’t even know how many houses he owns…

but you reject the guy who grew up dirt poor (yes, his mom was on food stamps) and still graduated Magna cum Laude from Harvard…and instead of taking very lucrative offers from high-powered law firms, chose instead to go to the south side of Chicago to push for social improvement.

When you look in the dictionary under ‘self-made man’, whose picture should be there? “Silver-spoon/desert-disfigured-wife-to-marry-beer-heiress-trophy-bride/but-anything-I-do-wrong-is-OK-‘cause-I-was-a-P.O.W.” McCain?

Or a guy who made it through a broken home, racism, and living on food stamps to graduate Magna-cum-Laude from Harvard?

Yeah, you guys REALLY judge someone on personal merit, huh? That’s why conservatives call Obama ‘elitist’, and try to say McCain’s “the working man’s friend”.

Oh yeah - did you ever hear of the fire that happened on the U.S.S. Forrestal back in ‘67 when a Zuni missile was accidentally fired from a plane on the flight deck? Every career Navy guy has to watch the film of it so we can know what a danger fire is to ships. 167 or so people died, several planes destroyed. I found out a few years back that the the pilot in the plane from which the missile accidentally fired was…Senator John McCain.

Personal merit, indeed.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 22, 2008 2:24 PM
Comment #259206


I heard on NPR this morning that McCain actually crashed several planes during his stint in the service. I didn’t catch the whole program, but it did awaken a few thoughts. I have seen the Forrestal tragedy on one of those worst accident shows a few times.

Posted by: RickIL at August 22, 2008 3:25 PM
Comment #259213

Both the Republicans and the Democrats just want to win.

In the case of liberals, they are suffering from delusions or they are being deceitful if they think Obama is some kind of Jeffersonian revolutionary.

Many progressives have already come to the conclusion that Obama is no revolutionary and that he has every intention of maintaining the statis quo of what is best for the investor class is what is best for you workers government. Unfortunately many of those progressives are also delusional because they think they can hold Obama’s feet to the fire and force him to be revolutionary after he is elected.

You don’t have to take your shoes off to count the number of revolutionary politicians in Washington D.C., as a matter of fact, you could do it with one hand tied behind your back.

There is no way that revolutionary change is going to come from politicians who are fully invested in the system.

IMO, national healthcare could be considered a revolutionary change in The Capitalist States of America. Obama’s healthcare plan was written by the industry and for liberals to try to sell it as revolutionary is not only deceitful but, sinful as well.

Posted by: jlw at August 22, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #259216

Joel, I feel for your disappointment when Obama is sworn into office. For about 1 second. I am a pretty busy person, sorry, all I can afford :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 22, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #259220

Goog: What if a native indian, or a hispanic with an accent, or even Swartzneger (?) were running. The same ole finger of guilt would be pointed at us white pinkos. If those minority folks think they have it tough in this country they should shop around some.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 22, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #259229

Matt drudge says it’s Bayh, Bayh Obama or Obama- Bayh. The Bye Byes are from McCain.

Roy Ellis,

Yep, except Swartzneger…..not a US born citizen and not a minority…yet.

Perhaps a few white folks ought to run for office in say… Zimbabwe, if they feel so put upon.

Is your argument any different than send ‘em to Africa? circa T.Jefferson? It is what it is.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 22, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #259241


Don’t quiet know how to answer that one. I would just state that if Colin Powell was running on a 3rd party ballot with everything else the same, he would get my vote.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 22, 2008 11:18 PM
Comment #259242

I have actually walked in the shoes you suggest. My family of eight was on welfare and we all came out of it.
During a message that was particularly manipulative that was given by a nationally known preacher in my previous church, I gathered my family and walked out in front of everyone; we left altogether shortly afterward. We all have reasoning faculties that are God given and if it isn’t right then you don’t stay and support it.
My son is down in Virginia concerning Pharmacy work and said his northern accent caused immediate bias against him practically everywhere he went. Being friendly in return broke it. This principle is simple. Martin Luther King would roll over in his grave to hear the nonsense from the race baiter’s that Barry endorsed for years. King taught firm resolve and kindness in return for hatred. A denouncement after the fact because it is inconvenient for election is obviously disingenuous.

Posted by: Kruser at August 22, 2008 11:58 PM
Comment #259243


Guess which color a welfare recipient is most likely to be?

Whooooo boy. Yes. Yankee resentment is JUST like black racism. Why do I keep hearing this from every redneck I meet?

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 23, 2008 12:06 AM
Comment #259244

Guess it’s now rumored to be Biden. Secret service has been dispatched to protect him.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 23, 2008 12:09 AM
Comment #259245

For me, a revolutionary leader is one that will use all the power of the presidency to fight for equal representation for workers from their government.

In the entire history of this country, there has only been one president that even came close to being considered revolutionary. It took the great depression to give him that opportunity. It will probably take another great depression for that opportunity to arise again.

Posted by: jlw at August 23, 2008 12:12 AM
Comment #259246

Observe that the baiting, hatred and name calling is one sided here.
The area we lived in (mid Michigan) had the highest welfare count in the US for years running in the late seventies. Look it up. All white too. Michigan’s governer Ingler and the Republican revolution broke it up by eliminating General Assistance. Most of the recipients simply left and went to work. Ours was a case of abandonment.

Posted by: Kruser at August 23, 2008 12:21 AM
Comment #259247

The Forrestal incident: There is ample footage and descriptions of the accident. McCain was on the opposite side of the flight deck of the plane that accidentially fired on his plane. It was caused by an electrical short. I read some of the leftist accounts and their sceneros are impossible.

Posted by: Kruser at August 23, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #259251


No name calling, just the facts. If the shoe, flipflop, or Jeff Foxworthy joke fits…..

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 23, 2008 6:58 AM
Comment #259258

Neither fits nor bothers me. Simply an observation.

Posted by: Kruser at August 23, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #259259

Just curious goog. Why are you allowed to make fun of poor whites yet to do so to poor blacks would be racist?

Posted by: Kruser at August 23, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment #259262

I make fun of everybody. I call the locals here Chicagobillys, Go Cubs Go, then you have the Deltabillys, who don’t know they’re not in Mississippi anymore. We used to have genuine Hillbillys, but they don’t move here anymore, unless they’re gays, who congregate around Halstead street, know locally as Boystown. Then you have the Koreans in Koreatown, who watch all the Americans who come in, to make sure they’re not stealing anything. I guess we have a really good reputation in Korea.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 23, 2008 11:36 AM
Comment #259263


Can’t answer for goog. But for me it is easy. It comes down to definition. In order for racism to be it must be directed at a person or group of people of a different race than the person practicing it. Poor whites are of the same race as rich whites. It really is that simple.

Bigot would be a proper choice for someone intolerant of a particular person or group of people held in low esteem because of their situation.

Posted by: RickIL at August 23, 2008 11:49 AM
Comment #259275

ohrealy -

‘deltabilly’? That’s one I haven’t heard before, and I grew up in the very heart of the Delta. But I guess that wouldn’t apply to me since I’ve long since left that place. I love the land there, the weather (the thunderstorms, the March winds), the fresh air (when the crop-dusters aren’t overhead), listening to the doves and the crickets (and slapping at the ‘skeeters with purest malice aforethought), and walking down the gravel road by the cotton field to a bridge over the bayou where I could target the snapping turtles with rocks (while keeping an eye open for the cottonmouths). I’ve fished with a cane pole and bobber more than a few times.

But I’ll never live there again. Why? The people there are still racist, especially those of my own white race. I will NOT expose my family to that. That’s a sadness….

John Ed Pearce said: “Home is a place you grow up wanting to leave, and grow old wanting to get back to”. I guess that’s why I do get teary-eyed every time I listen to the Doobie Brothers’ “Black Water”. But I can’t go home again to what I knew. The best I can do is give my own sons the same love of where they live as I had for where I grew up.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 23, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #259281

G.C., the term originates from music. Country music is from the hills, gospel/blues comes from the delta. The Illinois Central RR brought a lot of people from there to here, and they’re still coming. I was hectoring someone about the accents a while ago, and was surprised about that. Mississippi should be empty by now. You should talk to Jim T (not to be confused with Jim M), who operates some radio stations there. Not eric prince’s black water, but doobies 1996:

Posted by: ohrealy at August 23, 2008 1:37 PM
Comment #259286


Racism exists for all colors and cultures and is equally stupid. Rednecks aren’t a particular race to me, they are simply stupid. I think that is the point of Foxworthy’s humor. Gangsta and Hoodrats qualify for that same title.

To be clear, I live in Houston, a truly multicultural city. While white racism is still strong here, I’ve also known Indians (Asians), Bosnians, Blacks and Mexicans and others express equally stupid sentiments. That doesn’t mean all succumb to it, and I do think there has been great progress in my lifetime. What amazes me from time to time is the audacity of people who come up to me spewing racist crap, assuming because I’m white that it is fine with me. I’m not nearly as likely to hear the other cultures, though thru friends and girlfriends, I’ve been exposed to some of that.

I grew up in Ohio and come from Kentucky Hillbilly stock. While that term is derogatory, as Redneck certainly can be construed, I know it doesn’t apply to everyone from Appalachia. While my parents raised me not to discriminate, it was all around me, and my father was the first person to tell me he understood racism because he was laughed at when he moved to Dayton in the late 40’s. He didn’t. He tried to not be judgmental, but still harbored many of the myths of his culture and generation.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 23, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #259293

BTW, I can play dueling banjo’s on guitar and my Step grandfather on my father’s side was also my great uncle on my mother’s side. :)

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 23, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #259296

Like any experienced Chicago politician, Obama would go the cemetary to register voters. One night he came across a grave so old and worn that he couldn’t make out the name on the tombstone. The staffer holding the flashlight got impatient and suggested they just move on to the next plot. Obama angrily exclaimed, “This person has a much right to vote as anyone else here!”

Bill Clinton said, “I didn’t inhale.”
Barack Obama says, “I didn’t inject.”

Richard Nixon said “I am not a crook!”
Barack Obama says “I am not on crack!”

Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here!”
Barack Obama says, “Leave the bucks here!”

Q. What’s the difference between Ross Perot and Barack Obama?
A. Ross Perot is crackpot with big ears; Barack Obama is a pothead with big ears.

President Barack Obama = Arab base, pink Democrat
President Barack Hussein Obama = A Democrat speaks inane rubbish

Q. What do Obama and Osama have in common?
A. They both have friends who bombed the Pentagon.

Q. Why doesn’t Barack drink Pepsi?
A. He thinks that things go better with coke.

Q. Why wouldn’t Barack salute the American flag?
A. It was ours.

Q. Why did Obama change his name from Barry to Barack?
A. He thought Barry sounded too American.

Q: What do you get when you cross a crooked politician with a crooked lawyer?
A: Barack Obama.

Posted by: Duane-o at August 23, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #259309

And you just contributed what to this blog? — Savage

Posted by: A Savage at August 23, 2008 6:05 PM
Comment #259336

A Savage, what Duane-O just contributed was vitriolic hatred, and all from someone who claims to be a man of God.

Posted by: janedoe at August 24, 2008 1:25 AM
Comment #259346

Hmm, sounded like jokes to me. Barrrumpa.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 24, 2008 7:43 AM
Comment #259354

ohrealy -

Jim T and I have known each other a long time - he’s my brother. Not many people know the Delta better than he does.

One more thing on the ‘deltabillies’. Time was that once or twice a month, a lot of the poorer folk would hop on the Greyhound and go to Chicago, and we’d see them a week later. Come to find out what they were doing was keeping residences there (usually in name only) so they could collect Welfare there as well as in the Delta. They would always come back to the Delta because the cost of living was a lot less.

It also seemed that, even though the racism was more overt in the Delta, everyone seemed ‘to know where they stand’. A black woman just told me this is why she preferred to live in St. Louis rather than in Puget Sound for the same reason - at least in St. Louis, one knew who was racist and who was not, and where the lines were drawn, while in Puget Sound it was less obvious…but still there.

Take care -

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at August 24, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #259361


I have lived the majority of my life in northern Il and like you am born of hillbilly stock. My parents are from Arkansas and Missouri and I still have many relatives down that way. My father like yours did not make efforts to instill racist notions in us boys. However like your father he is the product of his upbringing. He thinks that so long as he treats those of a different race good to their face he is not being racist. On the opposite end he thinks he is not being racist by making crude remarks behind their backs. A few of my brothers have taken that approach over the years. Whether or not it is the result of my father or just their individual circumstances is questionable. While I do believe that racism is on the decline, I also believe there is still more than enough to go around. As for myself for some reason as an early teenager I recognized the hatred that emanated from racist thoughts and could never personally validate those notions. I decided at that point I wanted nothing to do with viewing others as an inferior people.

I am jealous of your banjo abilities. My greatest claim to hillbilly fame is the use of outhouses, and Sears Roebuck catalog toilet paper when visiting relatives while the vast majority of the country had running water and flushing toilets. As for the inbreeding factor well I grew up in a tiny town in which few people left over the years. Sooner or later anyone who spends the duration of their lives there is bound to be related to almost everyone else in town in one form or another. : )

I don’t know if you have seen “Harold and Kumar escape from Guantanomo Bay” or not. There is a great Alabama hillbilly scene that I found hilarious. There is nothing wrong with a bit of regional humor so long as one keeps it in perspective.

Posted by: RickIL at August 24, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #259367

Another on your list….have family still in Arkansas and I’ve been intimately familiar with catalogs as well. No indoor plumbing until ‘65 and drinking water drawn from the well, and I can remember clearly driking water from a “whites only” fountain in Little Rock. I don’t believe any family members still subscribe to that mindset, and Sundays are still the day to restock the liquid larders with that varnish stripping koolaid.

Posted by: janedoe at August 24, 2008 12:36 PM
Comment #259379

Raised in N. Ga. The area was divided over the civil war with brothers fighting on both sides. If someone suggest I am a ‘hillbilly’ or a ‘redneck’ I take that on with pride. The term Georgia ‘Cracker’ never really caught on in my area. But I do like the term, NC ‘Tarheel’. Don’t know where that came from. Scotch Irish settled the applachians thus bringing our ‘Southern accent’, ‘white lightin’, outhouses, country music and the like. A sturdy stock of people who did, still doing, very well in those old mountains.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 24, 2008 2:13 PM
Comment #259393

Harold and Kumar rock. They have both been on House MD, but one is now a regular.

N.Ga, around Dalton, used to be a big “growers” area for “weeds”, but they also have that university museum town where the Firefox books came from, showing how people used to get things done.

Scotland has played a much bigger part in our history than people realise. I was just watching some of that John Adams HBO series with Paul Giamatti last night and found the “rights of Englishman” stuff particularly irritating. Scotland and the Dutch Republic had more liberties than the English.

Arkansas was the first place I ever saw anyone spitting out tobacco juice, in Eureka Springs.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 24, 2008 4:52 PM
Comment #259410

Dang, lots of Hillbilly’s in here.

I have a cousin in Dalton. I’ve never played banjo, but guitar, although I’d love to learn. I am Scotch Irish, as well. My paternal lineage came to Kentucky with Daniel Boone. My favorite story is of an ancestor building a house from the native black, shiny, canal coal in the area. Of course, it promptly ignited and burnt to the ground. I remember outhouses and smokehouses into the sixties, and while a copy of Sears Roebuck resided in the outhouse, my grandparents had advanced to TP.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 24, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #259415


Is the shiny coal story real? If so that is hilarious. I am surprised at the amount of professed hillbilly lineage in this thread. It would be interesting to run a poll to determine the degree and effect of hillbilly reasoning and influence with respect to modern day politics. Fun stuff!

Another noteworthy family fact. My dad came from a family of 12 sisters and one brother. They were not catholic. Just not smart enough to figure out the cause. Could you imagine, I figure there had to be at least 3 of the sisters having their time of the month at any one time. A genuine hillbilly nightmare for sure.

Posted by: RickIL at August 24, 2008 11:02 PM
Comment #259419

I suppose y’all are Irish on St Paddy day too;)

Posted by: j2t2 at August 24, 2008 11:44 PM
Comment #259424

Rick Il,

Supposedly, it was the guy that came with Daniel Boone on one of his trips. He was probably of Welsh descent. The Scottish lineage comes from my great grandfather much later. My mother’s lineage is Irish/English.(There is an Adams line, but not related to John) This event would have been circa the late 1700’s. He also established a church in the area, he was considered a founder of the local community. Canal coal is a high quality anthracite coal that burns like a candle. A town there is called Canal City. It’s been mined out since at least the 1940’s. As far as I know, the story is true. There is still some coal mining in the area. Tobacco farming is also big there. They built a prison in the 70’s there that is another industry base.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 25, 2008 2:34 AM
Comment #259430

My wife’s family are from the Eastern Kentucky hills. All of the women in the family I have met from there are nuts.

While I haven’t seen the “John Adams” miniseries, I am curious why you would find the “rights of Englishmen” annoying.

Many if the rights outlined in the Magna Carta influenced the rights we enjoy through our Constitution.
They include;

The right to trial by jury, jury by peers

Security in one’s home from unlawful entry

No taxation without representation

Regular discussion

No cruel and unusual punishments

The right to rebel

Just what of the above do you find particularly irritating?

BTW, I have read Cynthia McKinney’s positions as a candidate for President. All I have to say on the matter is that it’s easy to state positions, and make promises. Fufilling those promises is another thing entirely, particularly if the candidate possesses an abrasive personality, as does Ms McKinney.
As for being more “qualified”, this is entirely subjective. There are three major qualifications to be President of the US;

Be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
Be at least thirty-five years old;
Have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

That’s it. The Constitution does not require anything else.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 25, 2008 6:32 AM
Comment #259433

“The Constitution does not require anything else.”

I forgot to mention that the candidate must not have already served two terms as President.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 25, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #259438

Hmmm, I’ve got lots of nuts as relatives. Some women, some men. Of course, you didn’t say the men weren’t nuttier, but given someone must have “married” these women to have relatives, I guess one could presume….

Cynthia McKinney reminds me of squeeking chalk on a black board.

That the constitution requires nothing else doesn’t mean the voters don’t.

I heard this weekend that only 30% of white voters have a positive image of Barack Obama.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 25, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment #259443
Many if the rights outlined in the Magna Carta influenced the rights we enjoy through our Constitution.

Actually, that is not 100% accurate. The Magna Carta was a listing of rights that the government bestowed onto people. Our Constitution took that a step further and stated that rights existed because we are human beings and we retained them irregardless of the government. Instead of being a document that detailed what the citizens were granted, it was a document detailing the limit of the government, allowing what was necessary to do what it needed but no further.

At least, that was what the intent was. We know that all changed a while back though… :/ Subjects again, we are allowed a little freedom if we yell enough, otherwise the government just keeps growing and expanding beyond all reasonability.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 25, 2008 11:10 AM
Comment #259445


Best answer ever and why I love Libertarians, even if I disagree with them a lot.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 25, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #259472


Point taken, but not entirely correct

“King John of England agreed, in 1215, to the demands of his barons and authorized that handwritten copies of Magna Carta be prepared on parchment, affixed with his seal, and publicly read throughout the realm. Thus he bound not only himself but his “heirs, for ever” to grant “to all freemen of our kingdom” the rights and liberties the great charter described. With Magna Carta, King John placed himself and England’s future sovereigns and magistrates within the rule of law.”

This document was a two way street.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 25, 2008 2:31 PM
Comment #259502

And soon after, the Pope absolved King John of his agreement, and everyone who forced it on him was excommunicated, and hunted down until K J died, including Robert de Vere, 3rd E of Oxford, ancestor of a guy who wrote some plays 365 years later, when they didn’t even remember that any such thing as the Magna Carta ever existed. It was brushed off in the 17th century as jusitication for the actions against Charles 1, which of course began in Scotland.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 25, 2008 5:55 PM
Comment #259521


You have missed the point.

Regardless of what happened after it, the signing of the Magna Carta remains a defining moment in history.
Basic rights such as the right of “Habeus Corpus”, and the “rights of Englishmen” date to that document.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 25, 2008 7:00 PM
Comment #259532

Do you understand what the word “peer” meant to the barons. They were trying to get rights for themselves, like the town coporations that were springing up at the same time. There were a lot of charters. This one became famous because of events 400 years later, after the legal concept of “time immemorial” came into being. Do you know what that meant? In “law, time beyond legal memory, fixed by statute in England as prior to the beginning of the reign of Richard I (1189)”, IOW before the Magna Carta, like unenumerated rights.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 25, 2008 7:48 PM
Comment #259564


You seem to have an irrational anger for things that happened a thousand years ago.

Did you ever wonder if things had been different that day at Runnymede, the event 400 years later you seem so enamored with wouldn’t have taken place at all?

The sealing of the Magna Carta was a pivotal point in history. The King of England conceded, if only for that moment, that he wasn’t above the law.
Whether or not he did so under duress or whether he recanted the signing later is beside the point.

This event put things into motion that affect our laws today, and there is no denying that.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 26, 2008 6:09 AM
Comment #259622

You are missing my point about how history is actually written, which is not concurrent with the events described in it. For hundreds of years, nobody paid any attention to the Magna Carta, which had no force of law, and was less historically significant than town “corporation” charters, until the 17th century, when they needed to rewrite history to justify contemporary actions.

Until our generation, english history was always written backwards, justifying the current situation with historical precedents, which were less significant to the contemporaries of those events, than historians needed them to be to make a coherent narrative, usually intended to show the inevitability of whatever was the historian’s point of view on the subject.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 26, 2008 6:27 PM
Comment #259823


I understood the point before you made it.

Regardless of how history is written.
Regardless of the fact that the life of the common man in England wasn’t affected.
Regardless of the fact that Innocent the third excommunicated King John in 1209, 6 years before the Magna Carta, and John rescinded it later as a part of his way of getting back into the favor of the Church.
Regardless of the fact that King John was bullied by the “peerage” into sealing the Magna Carta, it happened.

It happened nearly 800 years ago and it became a part of the inspiration for some of the rights and freedoms that the common man in this country enjoys today.

That you feel the need to dismiss my point just to make yours isn’t my problem.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2008 6:15 AM
Comment #259877

This looks like the argument that wouldn’t end, but your sixth sentence is a non-historical, non-factual statement, and we don’t have any commoners in this country, we’re all equal.

We’re in the middle of an electoral process where people are revising biographies, and creating fictional lists of accomplishments for their candidates, which are circulating around the world. The job of the historian is to see the reality that existed at the time, not the spin that partisans were spouting, or even the revisions of that spin that occurred later in history to suite contemporary events.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 28, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #259883


So what you are really saying is that you are an uncommon man?

Can I assume that you think you are a historian?

I only know you as ohrealy, and as far as I know you are just as common as I am.

From wikipedia;
“The term common man is used to emphasize the similarities or distinctions between a member of a social, political or cultural elite, and the average citizen.”


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #259886

Thank you for explaining that you don’t understand what I am saying, and please don’t use wikipedia as a source unless you expect people to laugh at you. Use or some other real source:

9. lacking rank, station, distinction, etc.; unexceptional; ordinary: a common soldier; common people; the common man; a common thief.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 28, 2008 5:48 PM
Comment #259891


“Thank you for explaining that you don’t understand what I am saying”

I’m sure you get that a lot.

I do admit that I am quite common. I do lack rank, and station, though I have had distinction once or twice.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 28, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #259900

I think you both made valid points and I know more about the Magna Carta. Thank You, both.

Posted by: googlumpugus at August 28, 2008 7:51 PM
Comment #261080

Joel Hirschorn, do you now feel any regret for having been so absolutely wrong about Obama’s campaign? The polling spread has jumped from dead even to 5 points ahead of McCain.

Nice try. No cigar! The interesting thing about lesser candidates is that they cannot escape revealing their lesser capacity at some point or another. McCain’s judgment in allowing his handlers to dictate Palin as his VP choice has created such controversy and backlash even among Republicans as to cause his opponent’s poll numbers to jump 5 points in a matter of days.

I am just so very glad that McCain is revealing his dependence upon his handlers this early, and not as GW Bush did, after an entire first time in office leading to a disastrous second term. America just may be catching a break here, thanks to McCain’s lack of mental acuity for anything other than beating the drums of war and fear of terrorists.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 2, 2008 9:26 PM
Post a comment