April 14, 2008
Elitism and the Democratic Party (John Feehery)
Elites don’t bowl. And they don’t drink shots of whiskey.
That could be the headline coming out of the weekend’s battle over who is and who isn’t the elitist in the Democratic Party.
Of course, the irony is that the Democrats are an elitist party.
Republicans are the party of Wal-Mart; the Democrats are the party of Starbucks.
Republicans are the party of those who go to church; the Democrats are the party whose members pray at the altar of secular humanism.
Republicans are the party of guns; the Democrats are the party of gun control.
Of course, this is a gross simplification.
And the problem with Republicans is that they have lost both the Wal-Mart crowd and the CEO crowd.
But that doesn’t mean that Democrats can easily shake the elitist label.
Barack Obama is following in a long line of elitists who look down on the habits of normal Americans. Remember Adlai Stevenson? George McGovern? Al Gore? John Kerry?
Bubba Clinton was the picture of anti-elitism, which is why he won twice, and Jimmy Carter ran as a Bible-thumping man of the people. It turned out that Carter was just another elitist, which is why he was quickly bounced.
Of course, Hillary Clinton is an elitist, too. But at least she can drink a boilermaker.
Now, Barack Obama’s story of struggle growing up a black man on the South Side of Chicago may make it seem like he is not an elitist. But that is not the whole story.
His mother was very much an intellectual elitist, as was his father. His unique upbringing, including stops at elite East Coast universities, gave him an elitist outlook that showed itself in his speech to a roomful of elite (and rich) San Francisco liberals.
Take one look at how Barack Obama bowls. He bowls like an elitist, which is why so many elitist Democrats love him so.
This label will stick, and it will hurt more than the media elite really understand.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 51 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Who do you think you're fooling? You're afraid of loosing the status quo, which I'm sure has served you very well. I guess you should be afraid of change then.
Comment by robin m — April 14, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
A bitter party full of bitter people who hold the average American public in bitter contempt. What a party of losers!
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — April 14, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
robin- john acknowledged that the GOP has trouble w/ some of their typical voters.
if the status-quo has served the GOP well, then doesn't that mean the avg. voter identifies w/ the GOP more affluently than w/ the LIB/DEMS?
you reinforced his point by attacking w/ a "DUH, you just don't get it" ELITIST attitude.
believe as much as you'd like that BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is a poor kid from the streets who "made-it", but he's just not.
Comment by j — April 14, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Obama is worse than an elitist, he is a Marxist elitist. He believes that not only does he know better than the stupid people what's good for them, he will do it to them against their will. Obama's values: respect for high taxation, racial hatred, Sharia law, Halal food, talking to terrorists, destruction of the military, being friendly with terrorists, hate for guns, respect for racial hatred for minorities, open borders, promotion of multiculturalism. How much worse can this get? When will people have enough and boot this dangerous radical from his place as a front-runner of a major party.
Comment by Igor R. — April 14, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Mr Feehery,
There is certainly some truth in what you say. In a certain sense, anyone from the elite schools can claim, or be labeled with, the tar of elitism. But it is the opposite of wise to do away with these information-rich centers of learning…some of which even accepted, not without grimaces, someone so far from elite at George W. Bush. (Skull and Bones are the Bubba's, right?)
The Democratic Party, being the oldest living political party in the world, is the de facto Harvard or Chapel Hill of American political parties, being the most ancient and prestigious… but you don't strike me as one caught up in that humbug of suburban post-adolescence, envy.
My own experience of elite institutions is that the majority of people were charitable, community-spirited, non-selfish folks, who wanted to master themselves to better serve a greater cause…most universal, yet wondrously individualized. Some went toward Religion, some toward Science, but most included both in their studies. It really isn't and Either/Or decision one must make…unless either becomes so rigid that it has already become a mere skeleton of a once-supple body.
The next president will need to be a good genius.
Peace,
David
Comment by David K Beckwith — April 14, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Elitist? I thought Obama was an angry black guy who had not been in Washington long enough?
McCain and Clinton - two super-rich Senators that have each lived in the bubble of DC for more than twenty years - calling Obama an "elitist" that is "out of touch" is like two pots calling the black man a kettle.
Try again John. The GOP has yet to find a good enough "distraction" to prevent McCain from getting blown out in the general election by Obama.
Keep digging my friends…
(Oh - and keep up that false sense on confidence. It is working on some of the Democrats - but not on this Independent….)
Comment by warren — April 14, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
John;
I find your comments weak and insulting. Wasn't it the republican party that promoted tax breaks for the rich and affluent. I can remember phrase like "death tax" and the like. When your party gets into trouble, especially during an election, you bring out the gods, gays and guns issues. I can remember Jesse Helms and his black hand ad. The Willie Horton ad and many others. By trying to label Obama elitist, you forget which side your bread is buttered on. Where did W attend schools. I believe it was Andover, Harvard and Yale. They are hardly non-elitist in their outlook. Trent Lott attend Ole Miss, that for a long time denied AA entry. Barack Obama worked his way through school and kust paid off his students loans. W was a legacy and got a gentlemen's C. For RR, Igor and the rest that have drank this kool-ade, give it a rest. The GOP has used fools like you to advance their cause while leaving the rest of us behind.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 14, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
David Beckwith, you stated that in your "own experience of elite institutions is that the majority of people were charitable, community-spirited, non-selfish folks, who wanted to master themselves to better serve a greater cause". Given the political orientation of the vast majority of the faculty in the social sciences at the elite American institutions of higher learning, the greater cause these well-meaning young students were likely to have wound up serving was of some anti-capitalist, anti-traditional American, and multicultural variety.
I remember arguing with a Marxist (self-described) professor from an elite institution, pointing out the millions that were killed in the name of what he believed in, and all I got was the standard Euro-Communist argument that those forms of Marxism weren't pure enough.
David Beckwith, those who built America were a combination of risk-taking entrepreneurs and hard-working people doing real jobs, they were not elitist windbags proclaiming the brotherhood of men.
I prefer community-spirited, in the sense of believing in fairness and following the civilized norms of behavior, but selfish, in the sense of wanting to win through their own meaningful economic achievements, people to those who believe that just because they are intelligent and got accepted to an exclusive institution they need to be in charge of solving other people's problems. Barack Obama has a unique background and what he managed to learn from this background and from his studies and left-wing extended adolescence is that America needs to be changed a great deal. This makes Barack Obama a deadly threat to the future of this country and mankind if he ever reaches the goal he is seeking. Beware of sincere-sounding pitchmen calling for "change".
Comment by Igor R. — April 14, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Mike, the only reason you've been left behind is that the capitalist societies are not kind to the people of low IQ without some other compensating factors such as an extreme athletic ability or talent for for some form of entertainment. Since you don't get to chose your own IQ, there is indeed an element of unfairness there, but nobody has managed to solve this problem satisfactorily up to now, so you might as well give up, you won't be the one to solve it.
Comment by Igor R. — April 14, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
Yea John, and that Mitt Romney guy was poor white trash, a 'good old boy'.
Bubba and Hillary Clinton are packing $100 Million, Barack payed off his student loans 5.5 years ago, and subsequently that Barack Guy is an elitist. Yea, we can all see it now.
John, It's a good thing you're not an 'inside-the-beltway guy' or you're conceptual interpretation would probably be clouded.
Comment by Lester — April 14, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
There is most certainly one group of citizens I know I'm intellectually superior to and look down upon with utter contempt: Anyone who has voted for any republican candidate for any office in the last 28 years is an obvious idiot. In those 28 years the republican party has not put forth one successful public policy intiative foriegn or domestic. That is the issue in this election and nothing else.
Don't bother telling me what an elitist I am or how patriotic you are. Point to one successful thing the republican party has accomplished in 28 years. You will have a hard time doing that because there is nothing but ignorance, ill-temper, murderous incompetence and abject failure.
Comment by Pghremodeler — April 14, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
OT, but related to the Democratic Elitism.
Global Warming darling reverses the theory that made him the Global Warming darling. Democratic Mainstream Media: silent. Al Gore: continuing with his mind control "you will believe my crap even if I have to spend $300 mil to do it".
http://www.dailytech.com/Global+Warming+Researchers+Reverse+Stance+on+Storm+Intensity/article11471.htm
Comment by Igor R. — April 14, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
More results of the Democratic Elitism.
Food Inflation, Riots Spark
Worries for World Leaders
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120813134819111573.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one
"When millions of people are going hungry, it's a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," said India's finance minister, Palaniappan Chidambaram, in an interview. Turkey's finance minister, Mehmet Simsek, said the use of food for biofuels is "appalling."
Now why is it that the US is subsidizing corn-based ethanol? Elitism: believing that the elites know how to address "Global Warming", the biggest con in the history of the world supported by the uber-elitist Al Gore. It's ironic that the Nobel Prize winning "humanitarian" is responsible for crimes against humanity. The audacity of elites.
Comment by Igor R. — April 14, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
elitist Pghremodeler-
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Comment by j — April 14, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
To let you know how an average, middle of the road, american vet, living in South Dakota sees all this; Obama should never have walked into that bowling alley or opened his big mouth in California. Hillary needs to stay out of bars, not talk about shooting and tell Bill to shut up. McCain seems to be the only one with Creds. Military Academy, not the top of his class. A fighter going up who has made mistakes but like most of us, he has married well above himself.
Comment by OldSarg — April 14, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
While the elite label is interesting political rhetoric, it is not based on the context of the discussion, which these media rating-driven escapes and political opponents love to ignore.
For a full discussion from someone who was at Barack's talk in San Francisco versus the sound bite.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html
Comment by David — April 14, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
Igor,
As usual, you're wrong. Senator Obama (to the consternation of leftys like me) actually wants to be collegial with conservatives. His particular skills, in fact, are in community action, diplomacy and conflict resolution.
Obama: …According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog[dailykos] - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
I think this perspective misreads the American people….
Comment by Don Bacon — April 14, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
Pghremodeler - in the last 28 years Republican Party was instrumental in winning cold war and bringing freedom to millions in Eastern Europe. It's something foreign sounding to liberals, that's why Pghremodeler is a bit confused…
Comment by Misha F. — April 14, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
"Obama is worse than an elitist, he is a Marxist elitist. He believes that not only does he know better than the stupid people what’s good for them, he will do it to them against their will. Obama’s values: respect for high taxation, racial hatred, Sharia law, Halal food, talking to terrorists, destruction of the military, being friendly with terrorists, hate for guns, respect for racial hatred for minorities, open borders, promotion of multiculturalism." — Igor R.
Igor R. is almost funny. Igor R. posts wild accusations and runs away or changes the subject when challenged.
In another comments thread ("The President Should Go to the Olympics", http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/04/10/the-president-should-go-to-the-olympics/ comment #6) Igor R. claimed that the "Democrats [were] the real threat to America." I challenged him with a series of questions. I repost them below. Igor refused to answer them, either because he doesn't know the answers, or because he DOES know them, and knows that answering them would gut his sorry BS claims.
Some of these questions are also relevant to the issue of which party, Democratic or Republican, is the REAL party of the elite. (Hint: It ain't the Democrats!) And others could be asked as well.
Here are my questions again. Igor once again will be unable to answer them.
Question 1. In 4 parts.
a) What was the national debt when Ronald Reagan took office?
b) What was the national debt when he left office?
c) What was the national debt when George W. Bush took office?
d) What does it stand at today?
Question 2: At what point or points in United States history has fighting a war (or multiple simultaneous wars) been accompanied by a cut in taxes?
Question 3.
a) Which military contracting company supplied contaminated water to US troops in Iraq, under contract from the U.S. government, causing skin abscesses, cellulitis, skin infections, diarrhea, and other diseases?
b) How much was that company paid for this “work”?
c) What is the current and historical relationship of this company to the Vice President of the United States (a Republican)?
Question 4.
a) Which 2008 Presidential candidate:
– voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000 in August 2001;
– urged other Senators in April 2003 to table a vote to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests;
– voted in October 2003 to table an amendment that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq;
– voted in March 2004 against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans’ medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating tax loopholes;
– voted in March 2006 against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007;
– was one of only 13 Senators in April 2006 to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans;
– voted in May 2006 against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities;
– is currently refusing to co-sponsor S. 22 (introduced by Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Jim Webb), the 21s Century GI Bill of Rights?
b) To which political party does this 2008 U.S. Presidential candidate belong?
That should do for a start. Happy playing. Cheers.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 14, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
Igor: Al Gore is an idiot but as I remember GW is President. Al Gore has some theories. GW has literally murdered hundreds of thousands for no discernable reason. John McCain has made it clear he intends to continue those irrational policies. Given those observations it's hard to imagine what your point might be.
Ya see the facts are; GW is a war criminal and Al Gore is a fool. What are you posting in support of?
Comment by Pghremodeler — April 14, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Okay, so Obama came from a single parent family who needed government assistance. He made his way through school on scholarship, and then used his education to become a civil rights attorney. He spent time organizing on the streets of the South Side of Chicago to help better a struggling community, and he an elitist? And, Hillary Clinton, who went to Wesley and Yale, and was a member of the Wellesley Young Republicans, later to spend most of her life living in the Governor's Mansion and the White House before making over $100 million selling books is not?
Oh, an intellectual elitist you say? What makes him an intellectual elitist? Being intellectually elite and being an intellectual elitist are two different things. Elitist don't spend their post-graduate lives on the streets. Even the philanthropic donate to charities, and fight for the "lesser" from afar so not to get their hands dirty … much like Hillary has.
After the present administration, I welcome the intellectually gifted. If there is one thing we can't say of Bush, it's that he's intellectually elite. But, as we can hopefully see now, we are not electing a drinking buddy or a bowling mate. We are electing a president. And, when electing a president I want someone who can understand my problems, because he has been there, but who was smart enough and strong enough … and even lucky enough, to overcome them.
Barack Obama has never struck me as an elitist. But, since the President is essentially the leader of the nation, who problem solves for our lives, and who represents us to the world, don't we want someone who is smarter than the average Joe, whether he has noticeable pride about it or not?
Comment by DC — April 14, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
So let me get this straight:
George Walker Bush, born into extreme wealth and privilege, who went to Andover and Yale, who slid into a "champagne unit" posting in the Texas ANG courtesy of his family connections rather than go fight in Vietnam (despite thousands of other ANG personnel having been called to active duty in Vietnam), and who has now sent far more thousands of National Guard troops on extended duty in Iraq despite the hardship caused to them and their families, and John Sidney McCain III, who upon returning home from Vietnam dumped his first wife (who turned out to no longer be pretty), married a beer heiress (whom on at least one documented occasion he called a "c*nt") and lived off her money, which also fueled the launch of his political career (during which he starred as one of the Keating Five), are the Regular People, the Plain Folks?
And Barack Obama, who grew up in at best a middle-class family, raised by a single mother between the ages of 2 and 6, is the effete elitist?
Comment by Jim Martin — April 15, 2008 @ 12:51 am
…And more important, WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DOES THIS MATTER?
We are in an occupation (two, actually) costing $12 billion and an unknown number of human lives (US troops and civilians) each month, the housing market is collapsing due to Republican dismantling of the banking regulation system (with Democratic collusion), the dollar is in free-fall, food and fuel prices are skyrocketing, and THIS is what we fixate on.
Jamison Foser puts it better than I could:
**
On last night's Hardball, host Chris Matthews and David Shuster focused like a laser on the things that really matter:
MATTHEWS: He's [Sen. Barack Obama] not that good at that — handshaking in a diner.
SHUSTER: No –
MATTHEWS: Barack doesn't seem to know how to do that right.
SHUSTER: — he doesn't do that well. But then you see him in front of 15,000 people in some of these college towns, and that's why, Chris, we've seen Chelsea Clinton and Bill Clinton in Bloomington and South Bend and Terre Haute. I mean –
MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?
SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."
MATTHEWS: No.
SHUSTER: He did.
And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] –
MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.
SHUSTER: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.
The mind-blowing inanity of this conversation can't properly be appreciated through the transcript. When Matthews said "No" in response to Shuster's revelation that Obama ordered orange juice in a diner, he sounded as though he had just been told that Obama had punched a nun in the face. Watch for yourself.
When CNN's Candy Crowley suggested after the 2004 election that John Kerry's attempt to order green tea in an Iowa restaurant showed a "disconnect" between the presidential candidate and "most of America," it seemed unlikely that we would see a sillier attempt to find meaning in a candidate's beverage choice. Not only was Crowley taking the elitist attitude that simple Iowans couldn't possibly be familiar with green tea, she was also wrong. The Kmart in Dubuque, Iowa, stocked Lipton's green tea.
But last night's exchange between Matthews and Shuster was far worse. Offered coffee, Barack Obama asked for orange juice instead. And Chris Matthews and David Shuster pounced, aghast that he would dare do such a thing as ask for orange juice. A preference for orange juice was supposed to demonstrate that Obama is out of touch with "regular" people. (For what it's worth, neither Matthews nor Shuster so much as hinted that a single, actual voter who was in that diner was put off by Obama's interest in orange juice. But Matthews and Shuster were upset enough for everyone.)
MSNBC runs commercials for itself in which Tim Russert solemnly explains why MSNBC covers politics: "It's about the war. Our sons and daughters. It's about the economy. Our jobs. It's about education. Our schools. It's about health care. Our families' well-being. It's about everything that matters."
MSNBC doesn't run any ads that claim that what really matters is whether the candidates choose to drink coffee or orange juice. But that's what the cable channel's brightest stars (Matthews is reportedly paid $5 million a year for this nonsense) chose to spend their time discussing last night.
Orange juice — and bowling.
***
More at http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110009
Comment by Jim Martin — April 15, 2008 @ 12:56 am
Obama may bowl like an elitist but he plays basketball like one of the neighborhood boys. Can't you guys ever see without your blinders? Obama is admired because he has had to find a comfort zone with the elites and the street people, from private schools to public schools, from a nuclear family to an extended family, from one country and culture to another. Give me a break, what more could anyone hope for as a person of the people?
Comment by Linda — April 15, 2008 @ 2:55 am
How elitist to be pointing such a finger?
Absurd double standards aside, to become president by definition means becoming the one citizen who can take on the elite, the wealthy, the powerful with the blessing of the constitution. It requires interpreting what is the 'common' good, even if those higher-up find their free ride coming to a sudden and unsympathetic end. May it.
Comment by gregory scott dougherty — April 15, 2008 @ 3:40 am
John Feehery bloviates:
"His unique upbringing, including stops at elite East Coast universities, gave him an elitist outlook that showed itself in his speech to a roomful of elite (and rich) San Francisco liberals."
This, of course, is bullshit. It's almost self-parody. How many times can one bloviating pundit cram the word "elitist" into one post? Does he really think we'll believe it if he writes the word Just One More Time?
Leave it to the so-called "liberal" media to take what Obama said out of context so as to distort it. Leave it to some very scared Republican pundits and one scared Democratic candidate whose initials are HRC to try to make hay out if it.
What Obama ACTUALLY said was:
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by — it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). […]
"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Doesn't sound so "elitist" once you have a little context, is it?
How stupid does Feehery think we — or Pennsylvania voters — are?
Nope — Feehery is one scared bloviating Republican pundit, running out of material, trying to do something with the crumbs he's got left.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 15, 2008 @ 5:09 am
Iogr, since you can't answer Jim Martin (19 above) above, knowing how factually challenged you are and all, why don't you forward his questions to your guru Rush "FatHead" Limpbough for some help? Jim sure has quieted your phony talking pts.
Comment by Lester — April 15, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Honestly, does the Hill pay Mr. Feehery a lot to come up with this? So, let me get this straight, the Democrats are elitist. The Republicans, on the other hand are just normal folks? Right. George W. Bush: son of a President. John McCain: son of an admiral. George HW Bush, son of a Senator. Here's another hint, each of these men were legacy cases at their prestigious colleges. Elite by what definition? Democrats aren't the party for Wal-Mart CEOs, but Republicans sure ain't a bunch of Wal-Mart shoppers.
Comment by CH — April 15, 2008 @ 9:02 am
Barak Obama is an elitist who considers himself to be more capable of directing the lives of others than they are themselves.
Being an elitist doesn't always equate with being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth; it has more to do with how a person views his own intellect and capabilities in comparison with those of others. In this case, he certainly thinks he is just a step above.
Comment by Glennis — April 15, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Igor and the rest of you non-elitist;
Over the past 7 years, you elected a man that you could have a beer with and look at what it has done to our country. This time around, I want a man that may have an elitist intellect that can solve problems that we face and repair the damage done by the Andover, Yale and Harvard educated non-elitist. Bill Clinton said it once that the republicans get economically scared white folks to vote against their own self interest. LAst night on Race to the WH, Joe Scarborough said the exact same thing, watch it:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/14/race-to-the-white-house-rachel-maddow-scolds-media-for-coverage-of-barack-obamas-comments-without-dealing-with-substance/
So who is being elitist, a person that can speak truth to power or one that wants to scare you?
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 15, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Jim Martin, and I told you before that I will not answer such long and detailed question. This is not because I want to run away, but because I don't believe in doing research to which the answer is implied and the implications suggested by you are obvious. I also don't believe that George Bush is fiscally responsible. That doesn't mean we need to ask the Marxists for help. The cure is Conservatives, not Islamist-tinged Progressives or Progressives with a history of accepted questionable contributions from various foreign-born Chinese characters. The cure is not more spending on the UN accompanied by the largest tax increases in history. Anyone who will propose cutting spending on domestic social programs is a friend of mine.
Comment by Igor R. — April 15, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
CH-
i think there are elitist attitudes and lifestyles on both sides. plenty of republicans shop at wal-mart, i assure you.
Comment by j — April 15, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
Pghremodeler, calling someone conducting a war "a murderer" is an old liberal trick that doesn't accomplish anything. Saddam Hussein was a big danger, with a history of threatening surrounding countries and our oil supply. He made all appearances of conducting nuclear research for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons and had a history of known accomplishments in this area. To this day there is a lot of evidence that the weapons and the research material were moved to Syria, in fact only last week the world was abuzz with the imminent revelations. This may or may not be just as valid as Al Gore's theories, but certainly Saddam didn't do much to create a different impression when he was in power.
Saddam was also violating the terms of his surrender in the first Gulf war. He was shooting at our planes and cheating on the oil for food program. He was clearly about to become de facto free from any real restrictions. While his sadistic oppression of his own people was not a reason to take him down, it certainly lent moral authority to the cause.
American forces have killed very few innocent civilians and have taken great (in my opinion too great) care not to kill more. The vast majority of the Iraqi casualties, a lot lower than you implied in total numbers, were killed by terrorists or died in sectarian fighting. You implications are wrong, your tone is wrong, and you're clearly a part of the "blame America first" crowd.
Comment by Igor R. — April 15, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
Glennis;
You want to see who is an elitist, watch this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
I think you'll find it amusing.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 15, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Way to go Mike (#34 above), great movie clip. I've been thinking about this very clip since I witnessed the punditry gaggle and the crazed neocons run with Hillary's "elitist comment". These neocon nuts (icluding HRC) have no foundation left to stnad upon; just the crazed slanderous crap they spew. Thanks for posting that.
Comment by Lester — April 15, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Pghremodeler, it's the mainstream media that's elitist about Iraq. It's now left to the French to tell the truth about what's going on:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jau8cyaqusv7BMEs2SCe0aFbTabA
Will you ever see this after they lied (including some pundits here) that Basra was a defeat? Not until they feel they can't hide it any more.
Comment by Igor R. — April 15, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Lester:
You're welcome.
Comment by Mike Coleman — April 15, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
"Jim Martin, and I told you before that I will not answer such long and detailed question. This is not because I want to run away, but because I don’t believe in doing research to which the answer is implied and the implications suggested by you are obvious. I also don’t believe that George Bush is fiscally responsible. That doesn’t mean we need to ask the Marxists for help. The cure is Conservatives…"
Comment by Igor R. — April 15, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Igor things he can get away with running away from my questions by admitting that George W. Bush isn't fiscally responsible and then going off on wild rants about Marxists and Islamists (for which he has zero evidence). Igor ignores the fact that my questions also dealt with the deficits run up by the Republicans' Messiah figure, Ronald Reagan. (Reagan took us from being a creditor nation to a debtor nation by cutting taxes on the wealthy and simultaneously running up the Pentagon's budget.) Igor ignores the fact that my questions dealt with John McCain's contempt for veterans by voting repeatedly against equitable compensation for their service to our country. Igor ignores the fact that my questions dealt with Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root, which was paid millions in our tax dollars, only to supply contaminated water to our troops in Iraq. Dick Cheney, of course, was the CEO of Halliburton. These questions, and more, demonstrate that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are the real danger to this country, despite assertions to the contrary by Igor and the rest of the drooling winguts around here.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 15, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
"Barak Obama is an elitist who considers himself to be more capable of directing the lives of others than they are themselves."
Comment by Glennis — April 15, 2008 @ 9:06 am
Oh, really?
Which Regular Guy President said this?
"It's my job to worry about it. It's your job to go about your business."
Or:
"But I'm the Decider." ?
Which President thinks it's fine to spy on us, read our email, open our physical mail, monitor our phone calls, to make sure we are being sufficiently loyal to the Homeland and the Leader?
That's right.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 15, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Elitist Democratic Governors and the RINO Ah'nold are plotting strategies to fight the non-existent Global Warming. While there is zero evidence that CO2 contributes in any significant way to Global Warming, there is certainly an opportunity there to make the masses' lives harder.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN1559925020080415
Comment by Igor R. — April 15, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Hey Igor, what about the rest of my questions? You know, the ones that are not about George W. Bush?
Still afraid to answer, aren't you?
Because you know. You KNOW. You can't run away from it.
You can run, but you can't hide.
Needless to say, on global warming, you are as fact-challenged as on every other issue.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 16, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Ah yes, the elitist, out-of-touch attitude of liberals.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2005/02/08/20050208_190800_flashss.htm
BUSH: HOLDING THREE JOBS 'UNIQUELY AMERICAN'
Tues Feb 8 2005 9:27:01 ET
Last Friday when promoting social security reform with 'regular' citizens in Omaha, Nebraska, President Bush walked into an awkward unscripted moment in which he stated that carrying three jobs at a time is 'uniquely American.'
While talking with audience participants, the president met Mary Mornin, a woman in her late fifties who told the president she was a divorced mother of three, including 'mentally challenged' son.
The President comforted Mornin on the secrity of social security stating that 'the promises made will be kept by the government.'
But without prompting Mornin began to elaborate on her life circumstances in the course of their discussion.
Begin transcript:
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
Ha! HA! You're a riot, Mr. Preznit! What a knee-slapper!
A couple imagined rejoinders to the Preznit's jocular, regular-guy, non-elitist, knee-slapping "Get any sleep?" joke.
From Ezra Klein: "Not really. Do you also find it weird that you run the entire country yet have time to read in the evenings and exercise in the mornings, while I work three jobs and can't even see my kids?"
From Greg Saunders at The Talent Show blog:
" THE PRESIDENT: Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
ME: Not much. You know what else I don’t have time to do? See my kids!! Because I have three f***ing jobs. I keep my fingers crossed that one of them doesn't end up doing drugs or turning to crime, not that I’d ever find out in the 15 minutes per day I get to see them.
I also hope that none of us ever comes down with a serious illness, since none of my three s***ty jobs offers the health benefits that come with one *good* job. The debt from one serious illness would be enough to have us eating dog food from the back seat of our car until the kids are old enough for college. Did I say 'college'? That was just a joke. I meant 'prison'.
Anyways, enough about me. I wanna hear more about that baseball team you used to own."
Republicans: The Party Of The Little Guy! Because they, like, you know, bowl and toss back whiskey shots. Because That's What Really Matters.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 16, 2008 @ 12:50 am
Elitism isn't a matter of money, it's a matter of attitude.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — April 16, 2008 @ 8:15 am
McCain has now joined the ranks committing to craft climate change policy. How does that square with you're 'global cooling theories', Igor?
Comment by Lester — April 16, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Lester, McCain is wrong on that, just like he is wrong on immigration and many other things. I'm not a member of the McCain fan club, unlike you Obama bots who will support him on anything no matter what he does or says (Is 90% black support a coincidence? Not according to the BET fonder Robert Johnson).
And if you could figure out that any politician's support for the global warming hoax will not have an impact on any thinking persons "global cooling theories", you'd be a lot better off.
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Jim Martin, you have extremely long posts so I only answer whatever catches my eye in thescanning them. On global warming, I have posted more articles here than anybody else, many with facts. One of the articles wasn't about facts, but about how the global warming supporters turned science on its head. Instead of the normal scientific procedure of "prove that this theory is correct" they postulated it correct and then asked "prove that it's wrong".
Since there is no proof whatsoever of human-caused global warming, the burden is on the proponents of the theory. Al Gore standing there and presenting the discredited hockey-stick temperature graph is not proof neither is the non-existing "consensus of science" even if it did exist.
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Still waiting for answers to my questions, Igor. Either answer them or concede them. And if you concede them, you concede that it is the Republicans, not Democrats, who have put this country in hock up to its eyeballs; that it is Democrats, not Republicans, who for the FIRST TIME EVER in our history cut taxes on the wealthy in a time of war; that it is Republicans, not Democrats, that show contempt for veterans; that it is Republicans, not Democrats, who make billions, paid for by OUR TAX DOLLARS, to provide contaminated water to our troops in Iraq. Accordingly, it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are the "real threat to America."
Comment by Jim Martin — April 16, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
"Jim Martin, you have extremely long posts so I only answer whatever catches my eye in thescanning them.
Comment by Igor R. — April 16, 2008 @ 2:27 pm"
Igor, I'm sorry my posts are too long for you to focus on. I'm sorry that your eyes glaze over when the word count hits anything over 25. I'm sorry that I don't write in 30-second sound bites, or post superficial canned talking points without detail, documentation, context or backup.
Reading is hard. I know. I'll try to be more aware of how hard this is for you.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 16, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Jim, may of your anti-Republican points are valid. I'm not a fan of either of the two Bushes and not as much a fan of Reagan (although he did many good things) as most Republicans. I will also concede that the Republican Party has lost its way.
All that having been said, this is not a reason to elect a radical Marxist with terrorist friends, endorsed my Hamas, eagerly anticipated around the Middle East, who wants to withdraw from Iraq come hell or high water at a rapid pace, who wants to transfer a trillion dollars to the UN for fighting poverty, who wants to gut multiple military programs, who campaigned for a Sharia-imposing cousin in Kenya, and who will claim he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than 200K only to admit ten minutes later that he WILL, or is likely to, raise taxes on everyone making over the current payroll tax limit.
I'll repeat to you a similar point I made on another thread: if Ahmadenijad suddenly discovered his American birth certificate tomorrow, would you vote for him for President as an alternative to a Republican?
Comment by Igor R. — April 17, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
I find it amusing that some idiot would post the thought that somehow the republicans ended the cold war. It took even the most rabid republican ten years to say that with a straight face. It took them about five years to realize it had ended. Hilarious!
The PC and the VCR ended the cold war along with Gorbachev.
The rethuglicans prolonged the cold war because it made it easier for them to steal.
Comment by Pghremodeler — April 21, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Igor, you continue to bob, weave, dodge, evade, and run.
And you can continue to run, but as they say, you can't hide.
My questions were directed at the following claim of yours: "Boycott the Democrats, the real threat to America." Nothing more, nothing less. The answers to those questions proved that claim a complete lie. The answers to those questions showed the danger that Republicans have placed this country in, the contempt Republicans hold for veterans, and the contempt Republlcans and their corporate masters (e.g. KBR and Halliburton) have for our soldiers, who to them are merely cannon fodder to pursue their own profit. To paraphrase you, they couldn't get their stories straight on why they wanted us to invade and occupy an essentially unarmed country, at a cost currently running $12 billion per month, estimated by Nobel-winning economists to top $3 trillion, because they were just salivating about getting their hands on the loot.
You could, of course, retract your deranged claim that the Democrats are the "real threat to America." That's where the answers to my questions lead, and you are being dragged, kicking and screaming, millimeter by millimeter, to that conclusion, but you won't ever go there. You'll just continue to spin your way right off a cliff.
Your unhinged calumnies against Obama (Marxist, terrorist-lover, America-hater, etc) — and against Clinton, for that matter — are of course completely unfounded and unsubstantiated. You continue to spew them, and expect somehow that they are true because you and possibly some equally unhinged members of the right wing noise machine say so. You can believe anything you want, but without documentation, don't expect the rest of us in the reality-based community to believe them.
Comment by Jim Martin — April 23, 2008 @ 1:10 am