• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

After dobbs, women are no longer free.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

The gop couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

In after Baud. Damn.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

Another missed opportunity for Jamie Dimon to just shut the fuck up.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

This country desperately needs a functioning Fourth Estate.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Never forget that he train is barreling down on Trump, even as he dances on the tracks.

Donald Trump, welcome to your everything, everywhere, all at once.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Ah, the different things are different argument.

In short, I come down firmly on all sides of the issue.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / My Thoughts On Iowa

My Thoughts On Iowa

by Tim F|  December 31, 200711:02 am| 227 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

It seems to me that a lesson from the Dean-Kerry race is that it’s not enough to be the first choice of a lot of Iowans. It seems equally important to rank well as the second choice of people who support other candidates. As I recall John Kerry went into that state with far from a commanding lead in the overall polls, but he crushed Dean largely because he was the second choice of many more voters. It also matters that Kerry had well-connected operators while Dean had a larger number of young volunteers doing this for the first time, but that’s the game.

Given that, it seems weird to me that nobody (that I know of) is polling Iowans’ second choice in the race. I suppose it doesn’t much matter much in the Democratic field since the second tier doesn’t have that many supporters to throw around, but the bizarro Republican field could go anywhere right now. I for one would love to know where Huckabee’s supporters, or Thompson’s or Giuliani’s would go if their guy failed to make the cut.

Or maybe this has already been done and I don’t know about it. Discuss.

***Update***

The word from the comments is that Edwards consistently polls as the top second choice of Iowans, by a wide margin. Based on that, and given the three-way photo finish for first choice, I predict that Edwards will take the state.

I have a hard time understanding why anyone would support any of the Republican candidates this year, which makes handicapping difficult. But since McCain seems like the only candidate with[out] some glaring disqualification hanging over his head (fringe loony, criminality, fake like Pam Anderson’s boobs) I will have to go with McCain.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « 2008 Predictions
Next Post: Happy New Year! »

Reader Interactions

227Comments

  1. 1.

    4tehlulz

    December 31, 2007 at 11:10 am

    I thought that the Republicans didn’t count second choices.

  2. 2.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 11:12 am

    I like the “second choice” theory.

    For example, George Bush was America’s second choice for president, and that turned out pretty well for him.

  3. 3.

    Paddy

    December 31, 2007 at 11:12 am

    On C-Span this morning they were talking about the second choice candidates- I believe this is the poll- MSNBC

    From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
    In an InsiderAdvantage poll in Iowa, Edwards leads among (977) likely voters 30-26-24 over Clinton and Obama. Edwards is also the clear second choice winner, 42-29-28 over Clinton and Obama. This is the first poll to show Edwards solely in the lead in Iowa since July.

    Don’t see second choice polling for the R’s there.

  4. 4.

    John Cole

    December 31, 2007 at 11:17 am

    From everything I have read, Edwards has the deepest support and should caucus goers who are currently supporting Clinton or Obama decide to shift, Edwards is their second choice. That was part of the reason he has not been written off even though he is trailing in Iowa. You never know what will happen in the caucuses, and Edwards has support that runs deep.

  5. 5.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 11:22 am

    Every four years we obsess over Iowa for months, New Hampshire for a week or two, then forget about them completely until the next round.

    Neither state is anywhere near representative of our nation as a whole, they are rural and ethnically homogeneous.

    Jimmy Carter used Iowa to jump out of the pack and eventually win the nomination. Since then it has been the launching pad for several upstarts that soon flamed out.

    Meanwhile, here in Big Smoggy where I live, we haven’t had any say in picking the nominee from either party since I was old enough to vote.

    Even though we are the biggest electoral prize in the nation, we rarely see very much campaigning here in the general election either because we were reliably red until Pete Wilson’s anti-immigrant campaign for governator, and since then we have been reliably blue. The come here to get money, then go back east to spend it.

  6. 6.

    cleek

    December 31, 2007 at 11:30 am

    myiq2xu, at least CA is part of the big “Super Tuesday” cluster – where things really solidify. many states don’t have their primaries until May or June.

  7. 7.

    Robert Johnston

    December 31, 2007 at 11:37 am

    I for one would love to know where Huckabee’s supporters, or Thompson’s or Giuliani’s would go if their guy failed to make the cut.

    Well, after the 3% of Paul supporters get really pissy, annoying, and loud when their guy doesn’t make the cut, the 10% of Giuliani supporters will decide that starting a brawl is better than supporting a second choice. Paul supporters end up with their jaws wired shut, Giuliani supporters end up in jail where corrupt thugs belong; everybody wins.

    Too optimistic?

  8. 8.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 11:41 am

    myiq2xu, at least CA is part of the big “Super Tuesday” cluster – where things really solidify. many states don’t have their primaries until May or June.

    We’re having a first-time-evah February primary, along with another in June (the usual date) and then the biggie in November.

    But it wouldn’t surprise me to have at least one of the nominations virtually decided before we get to vote anyway.

    We should have 4 regional primaries set for March, April June and July with the conventions in August. The regions would be Northeast, South, West and Frozen Tundra, and would rotate every four years.

    The general election should award the electoral votes from each state to the national popular vote winner.

  9. 9.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 11:43 am

    myiq, are we safe from that whole proposal to split up CA’s electoral votes? I heard that raised its ugly head again. Too lazy to research, I will rely on whatever you tell me.

  10. 10.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 11:47 am

    We should have 4 regional primaries set for March, April June and July with the conventions in August

    What, you don’t like the system that has given us Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush One, Clinton, and Bush Two?

    The two worst presidents in our history, two other feckless buttheads, a guy with Alzheimers, one impeachment, and a war that won’t end?

    I say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

  11. 11.

    Chris O.

    December 31, 2007 at 11:57 am

    Republicans just do a straw poll, they have no second choice nuttiness like the Dems do. If you want to see polling on second choices for Dems, head on over to mydd.com.

  12. 12.

    michael

    December 31, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    add to that that as a European, I always have to shake my head at that whole primaries thing. Seems really strange. But OTOH it’s probably an artefact of having only 2 parties.

  13. 13.

    Gus

    December 31, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    I don’t know that I’ve seen numbers, but I’ve heard the same thing John has. Edwards is the number one number two choice.

  14. 14.

    demimondian

    December 31, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    TZ, your rant would be more effective if you didn’t misspell the name of the President with Alzheimer’s.

    Oh, and it is worth noting that the three Presidents prior to Nixon were Kennedy (machine pol), Eisenhower (incapacitated midway through by a heart attack), and Truman (crony pol extraordinaire). What was that about “if it ain’t broke?”

  15. 15.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    myiq, are we safe from that whole proposal to split up CA’s electoral votes? I heard that raised its ugly head again. Too lazy to research, I will rely on whatever you tell me.

    To paraphrase Will Rogers, “The GOP is in business, and no one is safe.”

  16. 16.

    Adam

    December 31, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/18/524511.aspx

    MSNBC has the 2nd choice voters going Edwards-Clinton-Obama at 42-29-28% as of 12/18. It’s not even close.

  17. 17.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    TZ, your rant would be more effective if you didn’t misspell the name of the President with Alzheimer’s.

    Somebody with your job assumes a typo to be a misspelling?

    They should fire your incompetant ass today.

    Leave it to the inventors of an empire of shitty software to blame the users for its shortcomings.

    Don’t you have some crappy code to review?

  18. 18.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Oh, and it is worth noting that the three Presidents prior to Nixon were Kennedy (machine pol), Eisenhower (incapacitated midway through by a heart attack), and Truman (crony pol extraordinaire). What was that about “if it ain’t broke?”

    Since you didn’t actually articulate a point here, I assume you are arguing that since alternatives aren’t perfect, the fact that the present system is COMPLETE SHIT just doesn’t matter?

    Uh, good point. Thanks for sharing it.

  19. 19.

    Kevin K.

    December 31, 2007 at 12:16 pm

    Paul supporters end up with their jaws wired shut, Giuliani supporters end up in jail where corrupt thugs belong; everybody wins.

    Too optimistic?

    Too unrealistic.

    The Paulsters might be annoying, but I’d put my money on them over a brawl with the bedwetters in the Giuliani camp. All the Paul folks would have to do is yell, “Look, there’s a Muslim behind you!” and then coldcock the Rudy dorks as they gaze down at their pee-drenched trousers.

    On a serious note, Huckabee supporters go Thompson for 2nd choice. Giuliani supporters go Romney. Thompson supporters go back to sleep.

    On the Dem side, I agree with Cole. Edwards will be the surprise here, with Obama and Hillary following at #2 and #3.

    And I recall reading post-Iowa that the reason Dean lost it is that all of the overzealous young supporters he bussed in ended up annoying the Iowans with their wild-eyed, out-of-town ways.

  20. 20.

    TheFountainHead

    December 31, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    I had actually read on CNN that Obama leads the polls in second choice candidate, as second choice to both Edwards and Clinton, but I could be wrong. It has happened before.

  21. 21.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    Eisenhower (incapacitated midway through by a heart attack),

    Demi’s treatise on how to avoid electing presidents who get sick later is still in the final stages of being composed (after another bottle of Thunderbird, I presume).

    And historically speaking, Eisenhower was affected more by a stroke, than by his heart attack.

    While speaking to his secretary on November 25, 1957, Eisenhower found he could not complete his sentences. When examined he had neither motor nor sensory impairment. The diagnosis was occlusion of the left middle cerebral artery. Eisenhower, who was 67 years old and had three years remaining in his second term of office, was already taking coumadin at this time [6a].
    After remaining in seclusion for 3 days, Eisenhower returned to work, his speech not yet back to normal. To some, the press coverage of his difficulties in this period seemed “unnecessarily savage and sadistic,” since some reporters seemed to be counting the number of goofs Eisenhower made during a press conference. But unlike the 1955 heart attack and the 1956 abdominal operation, the 1957 stroke occurred at a time when important presidential meetings were scheduled [6a].

    ——————————————————————————–

    Eisenhower would react belligerently when he felt his staff was shielding him from an important issue. Once he said “Either I run this damn show, or I’ll resign.” His reactions to his speech difficulties were variable. Among friends he would occasionally laugh off his mistakes, but on one occasion, when he was having difficulty speaking, he said with effort “There’s nothing the matter with me, I’m perfectly all right.”

    Also unlike the heart attack, his advisors worried about the President’s ability to carry on the duties of his office. They worried whether Eisenhower was mentally impaired and whether he would have more strokes in the near future.

    Of course, what any of this has to do with a completely dysfunctional primary system is yet to be explained. Demi’s staff will be releasing a white paper shortly, I presume.

  22. 22.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 12:24 pm

    And by the way, demi, your answer to my question yesterday about American policy on Israel …. still in the writing stages?

    Or, you just hoped I’d forget?

  23. 23.

    RandyH

    December 31, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    Maybe I’m repeating someone above because I haven’t read all the comments. But I don’t think the R’s pay attention to second choices. I think it’s just the Democrats who require 15% of the room to decide viability for candidates, where if your candidate is found not viable you must move to your second choice or go home and not be counted.

    I am pretty sure that the republicans count everyone’s first choice in caucuses, regardless of how unpopular they may be.

  24. 24.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 12:36 pm

    What, you don’t like the system that has given us Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush One, Clinton, and Bush Two?

    The two worst presidents in our history, two other feckless buttheads, a guy with Alzheimers, one impeachment, and a war that won’t end?

    Is this a riddle? I count 6 names and seven . . whatevers.

    If two of them were feckless, does that mean the rest had plenty of feck? I’d say that there are at least 4 of the 5 worst Presidents in that list, all of them feckless buttheads.

    By “impeachment, and a war that won’t end” I presume you are referring to Clinton, and Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Because the Vast Right-wingnut Conspiracy has been waging a never-ending war on the Clenis and the Clagina.

    G-Dub can’t be the one with Alzheimer’s, cuz you can’t lose your memory if you never knew shit in the first place, so that must refer to Ronnie Raygun.

    But what about Carter?

  25. 25.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    I am pretty sure that the republicans count everyone’s first choice in caucuses, regardless of how unpopular they may be.

    Without looking it up, I think you are right.

    Strikes me that the R’s find it too difficult to distinguish between the idea of a caucus as opposed to the idea of an election, or a convention. Elections and conventions have to pick a winner. I’m not sure what the purpose of an Iowa Republican caucus is.

  26. 26.

    Kevin K.

    December 31, 2007 at 12:37 pm

    D’oh!

    RandyH is right. I completely forgot about that:

    In the Iowa contest’s system in which voters gather in groups — or caucuses — to select a candidate, Republicans do not have an option for a second choice. But with the state’s complex system for Democrats, a voter’s second choice could be as important as the first.

    Under the rules, a Democratic candidate must receive at least 15 percent support of the attendees in each precinct to be considered viable. Since the votes are held in rooms where supporters gather in separate groups depending on their preferred candidate, they can move to another if their first choice fails to get the 15 percent support.

  27. 27.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    We’ll see when we see.

    And I recall reading post-Iowa that the reason Dean lost it is that all of the overzealous young supporters he bussed in ended up annoying the Iowans with their wild-eyed, out-of-town ways.

    I don’t know. I think it was a combination of that, and some of the things happening in the news. Dean and his campaign gave off a smell of being unstable, and people were looking for some stability.

    This time around. Hard to say.

    In years past, like Gore and Bradley. Bradley had the support of the college educated and young dems, but Gore had the support of the old time Dems and the blue collar dems. So Gore ended up winning in a landslide.

    This time around, Clinton and Edwards have divided up the old time Dems and blue collar dems, which allows Obama to have a chance with the educated set.

    We’ll see.

  28. 28.

    silver

    December 31, 2007 at 12:39 pm

    In answer to Jen about CA splitting the electoral votes, the repubs tried very hard (with lots of cheating) to get the required number of signatures to place this on the ballot, and failed miserably at it. So the electoral votes in CA will stay together.

  29. 29.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    But what about Carter?

    A weak president who couldn’t deal effectively with the power structure in Washington, and failed to sell his “moral equivalent of wah” idea to anyone, including probably his wife and daughter. An idealistic, pigheaded man who had a great opportunity and turned it into a one term presidency, losing to the imposter, Reagan.

    Thanks for everything, Jimmy. You did the Democrats proud.

  30. 30.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Under the rules, a Democratic candidate must receive at least 15 percent support of the attendees in each precinct to be considered viable. Since the votes are held in rooms where supporters gather in separate groups depending on their preferred candidate, they can move to another if their first choice fails to get the 15 percent support.

    It’s somewhat similar with the Republicans too, although it works differently.

    The Republicans get to listen to speeches first. Each candidates group get’s up and makes their case.

    So as you are watching, you can get the feel for how a candidate is doing. So it is quite possible that everybody who is terribly opposed to Huckabee may kind of unofficially decided to get behind Romney or something, just to insure that Huckabee doesn’t get 1st place.

    That’s what we did in 1988, when we got behind Dole to make sure Robertson didn’t win 1st place.

  31. 31.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    Thanks for everything, Jimmy. You did the Democrats proud.

    He was, however, the epitome of a true Christian, or at least the closest we have ever seen in the White House.

    Strangely enough, the Right-Wing Fundies voted for Raygun in 1980, a man who rarely even attended church.

  32. 32.

    Philip the Equal Opportunity Cynic

    December 31, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    @myiq2xu Says:

    Neither state is anywhere near representative of our nation as a whole, they are rural and ethnically homogeneous.

    Actually, in sheer population terms, NH has become something of a bedroom community for Boston. I realize that the state as a whole has a lot to offer — heck, as a Libertarian it’s one of my favorite states! — but in political terms, the immense growth along the southern third of the state pretty much stifles any influence of the lovely rural areas.

    Agree that both IA and NH are absurdly unrepresentative, though. But if we changed every political tradition that didn’t make sense, then the rich and powerful might not stay that way.

  33. 33.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    If two of them were feckless, does that mean the rest had plenty of feck? I’d say that there are at least 4 of the 5 worst Presidents in that list, all of them feckless buttheads.

    The International Committee on Feckless Buttheadism will meet in 2009 to consider a revision of the list.

    As usual, your house, and we bring our own beer?

  34. 34.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    As usual, your house, and we bring our own beer?

    Yep, BYOB

  35. 35.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Neither state is anywhere near representative of our nation as a whole, they are rural and ethnically homogeneous

    .

    Did you just call Iowa people white gay intelligent hicks?

  36. 36.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 12:53 pm

    Neither state is anywhere near representative of our nation as a whole, they are rural and ethnically homogeneous.

    Is any state representative of our nation as a whole?

  37. 37.

    Tom Hilton

    December 31, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    We should have 4 regional primaries set for March, April June and July with the conventions in August

    The best primary alternative I’ve seen is an idea Hendrik Hertzberg wrote about (not his idea, but I don’t recall who actually came up with it: have a nationwide primary on June 30, allow early voting by mail as early as January 1, and announce monthly totals. It would remove any regional advantage, and reward the candidates who are best at inspiring people.

  38. 38.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    The best primary alternative I’ve seen is an idea Hendrik Hertzberg wrote about (not his idea, but I don’t recall who actually came up with it: have a nationwide primary on June 30, allow early voting by mail as early as January 1, and announce monthly totals. It would remove any regional advantage, and reward the candidates who are best at inspiring people.

    Sounds better than some ideas.

    If the parties actually cared about inspiring people, they’d establish a system where nobody knew the nominee until the actual convention. Then at the convention each candidate would give numerous speeches trying to win over delegates. And if none of them were good enough, they’d open the floor and find someone new.

    Kind of like how it used to be, back when we had good candidates.

  39. 39.

    Sinister eyebrow

    December 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    I’ve heard Edwards is in a dead heat for 1st and is the leader for 2nd. I think the two may combine to give him the top spot. He’s running as a populist, which may not resonate as well in NH, but I think the biggest thing to come out of IA and NH is not the couple votes or the poll-bump but the media attention. Edwards has really not gotten that much media attention, and I think he does well in front of the cameras (trial experience will do that for you). For some, the scrutiny can be deadly but I think Edwards will benefit from it enormously.

  40. 40.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    Is any state representative of our nation as a whole?

    California – a state full of rejects immigrants in a nation full of rejects immigrants. We are the most ethnically diverse state.

    We have it all: urban, rural, redneck, sophisticated, sea coast, mountain, farmland, forest and desert. If we ain’t got it, you don’t need it.

    It’s like living in a bowl of granola though: what ain’t fruits and flakes is nuts. It’s like God tilted the map and everyone who wasn’t nailed down tightly slid west into Big Smoggy.

  41. 41.

    jnfr

    December 31, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    I’m hoping Edwards does well enough to hang on for the Feb. 5th primaries. I would very much like to vote for him in the Colorado caucuses.

  42. 42.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 1:07 pm

    Myiq, you ain’t got Eastern NC barbecue, and I need that.

    Well, maybe you do. There’s probably some cutsier-than-thou Southern place in LA…

    But I need it with vinyl checkered tablecloths and a pigs wearing clothing theme.

  43. 43.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    California – a state full of rejects immigrants in a nation full of rejects immigrants. We are the most ethnically diverse state.

    Nixon and Reagan.

    Need I say more?

  44. 44.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 1:11 pm

    But I need it with vinyl checkered tablecloths and a pigs wearing clothing theme.

    Right here in my hometown we got a place called the BBQ Pit with a big wooden pig statue outside. The pig is wearing bib overalls and a cowboy hat.

  45. 45.

    TheFountainHead

    December 31, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    If I’m the GOP, I’m hoping that Hillary wins big in Iowa so I can start spending my money on ripping her apart early and go into my own nominations with a little momentum and edge.

  46. 46.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Nixon and Reagan.

    Need I say more?

    Reagan was from Illinois, but Nixon . . well, sorry America. Our bad.

    We gave the world John Wayne though.

  47. 47.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    Reagan was from Illinois, but Nixon . . well, sorry America. Our bad.

    Bah, Reagan was Governor of Calinuttica like two times over.

    We gave the world John Wayne though.

    John Wayne was born in Iowa. :-)

    But I’ll give you Clint Eastwood in exchange.

  48. 48.

    demimondian

    December 31, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    The Other Steve already answered you, TZ. But don’t start letting facts get in the way of your claims.

  49. 49.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    If I’m the GOP, I’m hoping that Hillary wins big in Iowa so I can start spending my money on ripping her apart early and go into my own nominations with a little momentum and edge.

    What money? Mellon-Scaife admits he fucked up.

  50. 50.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    The Other Steve already answered you, TZ. But don’t start letting facts get in the way of your claims.

    I answered TZ? I usually ignore the guy.

  51. 51.

    Mr Furious

    December 31, 2007 at 1:27 pm

    We gave the world John Wayne though.

    Not sure that helps your case…

  52. 52.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    The Other Steve already answered you, TZ. But don’t start letting facts

    He gave no answer at all, and his dumb assertion was easily refuted by me, see the other thread.

    The question you did not answer is, putting aside your zeal to talk about anti-semitism, how does unqualified support for Israel mesh with the true interests of the United States, not only today, but over the long term of this support going back to Eisenhower’s administration?

    And in view of the profound nature of this question, why has the support-for-Israel community had to resort to cries of anti-semitism to knock down criticism? Why can’t this community put up a coherent argument built on a foundation of clear and unambiguous American interests?

    Do you want to play footsie with this question, and have me ride you like a cheap mule until you answer it, or would it be easier to just answer it?

    Why does America support Israel? And why are challenges to that support handled with dishonest rhetorical devices instead of substance?

  53. 53.

    Libby Spencer

    December 31, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    We have a contest going at Newshoggers so since I’m already on record, here’s my predictions.

    Edwards will ride his recent ‘mo to a narrow win, followed hard by Clinton in second and Obama in a close third.

    On the GOP side, Huckabee will squeak in barely ahead of Romney. McCain at third. Surprise here will be a strong showing for Ron Paul who will come out with low double digits.

    I heard some speculation that Dodd will do better than expected but it won’t be good enough. Too bad. I like him best. I wish he had a chance at it.

  54. 54.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    I usually ignore the guy.

    Fuck, I wish. What you actually do is ankle bite and then run away.

  55. 55.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    Do you want to play footsie with this question, and have me ride you like a cheap mule until you answer it, or would it be easier to just answer it?

    Why does America support Israel? And why are challenges to that support handled with dishonest rhetorical devices instead of substance?

    At the 24-hour point, under what we shall call the Michael D Rule, when you can’t answer a question, then that in itself becomes an answer. Don’t you think, Mister Know It All? I mean, if you know everything, why isn’t this question just a drop kick for you?

    Fill in the blank:

    America must give Israel unqualified support because _____________________ (clear American interests listed here).

    Feel free, if not compelled … heh …. to flesh out your answer with the relevant history of those true interests vis-a-vis Israel going back at least fifty years.

    Why, I wonder, is there more open criticism of Israel’s policies in Israel than there is in the United States?

    What’s up with that? Americans criticize everything. But for some reason, we’re silent on Israel.

    Hmmm.

    Maybe Bill Kristol’s new column will explain it all? Do you think that’s why NYT hired him? To shed light on this issue?

  56. 56.

    Kevin K.

    December 31, 2007 at 1:50 pm

    The latest Iowa Repub #’s for Rasmussen were just posted. Romney (27%) and Huck (28%) neck-and-neck with McCain a distant 3rd (14%). Thompson (8%), Paul (6%) & Rudy (8%) are all bunched up for the table scraps. I’m calling it in that order.

  57. 57.

    Cain

    December 31, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Is any state representative of our nation as a whole?

    I vote oregon. We got it all, hippies, white supremeists, smart fellahs, dumb fellahs, exported southerners who drive around with the confederate flag on their cars and didn’t get the memo, latino gangs, black gangs, (no punjabi gangs though, that seems to be a canadian thing), guns, naturalists, wierdos. druggies, mountains, deserts, etc etc etc. We can add crockpot cooking too now.

    The only thing we don’t have are southern belles and good creole cooking.

    cain

  58. 58.

    Cain

    December 31, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    Oh yeah, apparently we had sane republicans here too. Fancy that.

    cain

  59. 59.

    demimondian

    December 31, 2007 at 2:08 pm

    Here’s a simple truth, TZ: you’re not worth debating. You’re a demagogue on all issues, and I’m not buying into your game.

    So fuck off.

  60. 60.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    So fuck off.

    So your whole schtick on the Israel-antisemite thing is just a ruse? You actually have no substance, no explanation, no answers at all?

    And this is not addressed necessarily, or entirely, at you, but the BJ contingent that cries “anti-semite” at the slightest suggestion that telling Israel to fuck off, to borrow your language, is just full of shit? Speaking from an entirely irrational and emotional viewpoint? The entire ME foreign policy of the “greatest nation on earth” should be a dog wagged by the tail of Israel, and if somoebody speaks against it, this is the kind of cowardly crap they can expect from you?

    I thought so. Just wanted to confirm it.

  61. 61.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Why does America support Israel? And why are challenges to that support handled with dishonest rhetorical devices instead of substance?

    Probably because the majority of anti-Israel arguments are dishonest rhetorical devices lacking substance and deserve a similar response.

    That’s just a guess on my part.

  62. 62.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    I’m not buying into your game.

    Nice try, but it’s your game. I’m just playing it.

    Try answering my question, demi. You do have an answer, don’t you? Or is “anti semite” and “demagogue” all you got?

    What American interests drive unqualified support for Israel, today, ten years ago, twenty years ago, fifty years ago? Why is criticism of this support surrounded by a wall of cheap rhetoric?

    I think you got nothing. Please, prove me wrong.

  63. 63.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    And this is not addressed necessarily, or entirely, at you, but the BJ contingent that cries “anti-semite” at the slightest suggestion that telling Israel to fuck off, to borrow your language, is just full of shit?

    Can we also tell the Palestinians to fuck-off? I think we could find common cause.

  64. 64.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:23 pm

    Probably because the majority of anti-Israel arguments are dishonest rhetorical devices lacking substance and deserve a similar response.

    That’s just a guess on my part.

    Is it a guess? That means, you have no clear and unambiguous argument grounded in true American interests and/or ME policy interest favorable to the US, to support the claim?

    If you have such an argument, make it.

    I’m at looking at fifty years of results. What I got is artificially cheap oil for most of that time, and a complete fucking trainwreck in the region, and America mired in a useless war and being whipped around by neocons and crazy people.

    I want to know how these policies were necessary and why every American shouldn’t be standing up and saying WTF?

  65. 65.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    Edwards will ride his recent ‘mo to a narrow win, followed hard by Clinton in second and Obama in a close third.

    I’m hoping the folks considering Edwards realize the guy only has about $15 mil to spend from now until September, and 90% of that will be blown in January. Realize he’s going to lose, and support Obama, just so Clinton doesn’t get 1st.

    That’s my dream. I like having dreams.

  66. 66.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    The Paulsters might be annoying, but I’d put my money on them over a brawl with the bedwetters in the Giuliani camp. All the Paul folks would have to do is yell, “Look, there’s a Muslim behind you!” and then coldcock the Rudy dorks as they gaze down at their pee-drenched trousers.

    For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, this made me laugh so hard I had to spend 90 seconds or so cleaning up food bits on my desk.

    Myiq, you ain’t got Eastern NC barbecue, and I need that.

    TZ is now a fan of BBQ from North Carolina?

  67. 67.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    Can we also tell the Palestinians to fuck-off?

    Nice jackalope.

  68. 68.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    The pig is wearing bib overalls and a cowboy hat.

    That sounds like the wrong kind of barbecue, possibly some sort of Texas style barbecue. Eastern NC barbecue (vinegar-based) pigs generally wear some sort of simple pants. Occasionally they wear little jackets without pants, but I think that’s weird.

  69. 69.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    And if there’s anyone else out there who thinks I am TZ, I think I have just conclusively demonstrated otherwise.

  70. 70.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:28 pm

    TZ is now a fan of BBQ from North Carolina?

    I’ll give you NC BBQ if you give me an end to Iowa having any effect whatever on American presidential politics.

    I’d start with a complete ban on all Iowa participation in the process, and then let the Iowans work their way back from there.

    We’re getting wrecked by crummy presidents. Iowa is apparently central to the process of choosing them. Where in the Constitution does it say that a bunch of corn farmers get to run the country?

    Before you call “anti-maizism” on me, let me remind you that half of my family background is Iowa farm people.

  71. 71.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Is any state representative of our nation as a whole?

    We are leaving New Mexico for Vermont:

    1.Ranked #2 by the NRA for best gun laws.

    2. Senator Bernie Sanders

    Now THATS what I call diversity! (Oh, and Vermont actually gets a bit of precipitation now and again.)

  72. 72.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 2:32 pm

    That means, you have no clear and unambiguous argument grounded in true American interests and/or ME policy interest favorable to the US, to support the claim?

    How is it not?

  73. 73.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Nice jackalope.

    How come you’re never willing to address direct questions?

  74. 74.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Before you call “anti-maizism” on me

    BTW, my friends, that is a four footer, which is far better than any of you are managing to do here today.

    Well, unless you think “fuck off” is a suitable argument in favor of American Israel policy.

    Damn, I can’t wait for the Kristol columns to start.

  75. 75.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    How come you’re never willing to address direct questions?

    You got nothing, do you Steve?

  76. 76.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    Where in the Constitution does it say that a bunch of corn farmers get to run the country?

    In the part where election laws are left up to the individual states. The two major political parties often time join hands at the State level to further the mutually beneficial cause of ensuring only R and D candidates have a legitimate chance at winning elections.

    U.S. Constitution – Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 2

    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

    The National Primary and National Popular Vote, both mentioned above, seem to be reasonable solutions.

  77. 77.

    demimondian

    December 31, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    Fuck off, TZ.

  78. 78.

    D. Mason

    December 31, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    You actually have no substance, no explanation, no answers at all?

    I’ve been pointing this out for days now, glad someone else finally sees it too.

  79. 79.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 2:46 pm

    I’ll give you NC BBQ if you give me an end to Iowa having any effect whatever on American presidential politics.

    I’ll give Arizona the first caucus/primary in the nation if–and only if–you give Iowa both Lute Olsen back and Stoops’ little bro (Mike? Larry? Curly?) football coach. Package deal, no negotiation.

    I can handle a bunch of illegals voting in Mike Gravel or Duncan Hunter for prez…what I cannot handle is another sorry-ass performance from my Hawks on the gridiron….

  80. 80.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    Fuck off, TZ.

    Well argued.

  81. 81.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 2:53 pm

    The National Primary and National Popular Vote, both mentioned above, seem to be reasonable solutions.

    Perpetual skewing of national politics around places like Iowa and New Hampshire is a reasonable solution?

    Spread the glory. Let’s let Hawaii and Nevada go first for a while. And then, Montana and Alaska. Then, Wyoming and West Virgina.

    There are fifty states. Let’s pick two to be first, every four years, without a repeat until every state has played.

    I can put up with Iowa every hundred years or so. I came from Iowa people, I know better than to trust them.

  82. 82.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Perpetual skewing of national politics around places like Iowa and New Hampshire is a reasonable solution?

    Actually, Iowa, while nearly 100% cracker and largely unawares what a Dirty Sanchez or carjacking means, is pretty level-headed. They’re not meth-addled hicks (Missuori sp?), not racist fucks (Mississippi), not poor toothless yuks (Tennessee), not beholden to Big Tobaccy, mining, or oil (Kuntucky, Texas, et al), and almost textbook dead center of their leanings, politically.

    I have no prob with Iowans making the first choice, but I will agree the caucus system is a bit archaic.

  83. 83.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    They’re not meth-addled hicks (Missuori sp?

    The meth is addling your spelling, punch…

    :)

  84. 84.

    Face

    December 31, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    BTW, my friends, that is a four footer

    Is this a bong reference?

  85. 85.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    Perpetual skewing of national politics around places like Iowa and New Hampshire is a reasonable solution?

    I will refrain from pointing out your obvious misreading of my point.

    National Primary: as in every state having a primary on the same day.

    National Popular Vote: as in, well, read the link.

  86. 86.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Occasionally they wear little jackets without pants, but I think that’s weird.

    That’s what I wear to them fancy places with signs that say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.”

  87. 87.

    Dug Jay

    December 31, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    GP above says he’s moving to Vermont. Following are recent comments from Mark on that very subject:

    I have a soft spot for the Green Mountain State because I have many friends there, but I often find myself mulling over Howard Dean’s statement in the ’04 campaign that “Vermont is the way America should be.” Thank God it isn’t. It has a European Union-level birthrate; schoolhouses are emptying up and down the state; and its marquee boutique brands’ Vermontiness is mostly honored in the breach: Ben & Jerry’s arthritic hippy-dippy peace-popsicles are a wholly-owned operating unit of the Anglo-Dutch multinational Unilever; and Vermont Castings wood stoves are made by CFM, which stands for Canadian Fireplace Manufacturers. And, unlike most Vermont main streets, Brattleboro’s can’t even manage to look quaint.

  88. 88.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:23 pm

    National Primary: as in every state having a primary on the same day.

    Well … no. But my point is, the goofy system we have now isn’t mandated by the Constitution. We have license to change it.

    So let’s change it. End the Iowa-NH-Carolina stranglehold on our national politics.

    I don’t happen to think that a same-day nationwide primary is doable, because it forces weaker candidates to spread their thin resources even thinner and pretty much skews the whole thing toward the people with the power and the money.

  89. 89.

    RandyH

    December 31, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    In case anyone is curious about how a caucus works, C-Span will be broadcasting a Live Democratic Caucus on C-Span1 and a Live Republican Caucus on C-Span2 Thursday night from Iowa.

    I recently moved to Nevada and we will have Caucuses here, which are totally foreign to me. Should be interesting because I’ve always done (secret ballot) primaries everywhere else I’ve ever lived.

  90. 90.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    Well, unless you think “fuck off” is a suitable argument in favor of American Israel policy.

    Fixt

    A pox on both their houses.

  91. 91.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    I have no prob with Iowans making the first choice

    Well, then we strongly disagree. I have a big problem with it.

  92. 92.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Actually, Iowa, while nearly 100% cracker and largely unawares what a Dirty Sanchez or carjacking means, is pretty level-headed.

    Dirty Sanchez – a farm laborer that needs a bath

    Carjacking – what you do before you change a tire.

    What did I win?

  93. 93.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 3:28 pm

    GP above says he’s moving to Vermont. Following are recent comments from Mark on that very subject:

    And some of what Mark says is fact. But all of what I said is fact. I’ll just have to make sure I take all my guns with me–to ward off all the multi-national corporatists and hippies–of course. Who knows, if I buy a Prius I might be able to take a drive through Burlington now and again.

    It really is a shame that Vermont has all those small classroom sizes in elementary school. Gosh, what kid can’t get a great education packed into 30+ students per class? Sissies, I say! A bunch of crybabies. Why when I was a kid ….

    We’ll take our chances in Vermont. Something tells me we’ll be just fine. Americas a great country and living where we please is part of what makes it great.

  94. 94.

    RandyH

    December 31, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    I would really like to see a western state be first in the primaries. I understand the reasoning for having it in small states like Iowa or NH because you can do the local retail campaigning and such. I would suggest Oregon. A smaller low-population state that’s easy to cover by bus, but has western values and not overly religious. My 2 cents anyway.

  95. 95.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Fixt

    A pox on both their houses.

    Good work.

    And we’ve had that flame war here, especially in the summer of 2005. But even that misses the real point here.

    The real point here is, I insist on a rational explanation for our policy … any policy. I am not interested in emotional responses, With Us Or Agin us responses, You’re A Bigot responses, or Fuck Off responses.

    The single biggest flaw in American politics today is diversion from true interests by using artificial “issues” as diversions. You see it everywhere you look.

    What do we think is happening when somebody challenges Israel or our policy toward Israel and you hear “anti semite?” That’s jackalope politics, and I am sick of it.

    It’s the same trick as Defense of Marriage. It’s intellectual thuggery, and I am surprised that there is anyone who has been here for any length of time who thinks that shit is going to fly here without being shot down.

    Anyone wants to articulate a coherent rationale for American Middle East Policy since 1950, go right ahead. Teach me about the Shah of Iran dining in the White House East Room, and weapons to Saddam Hussein, and unflinching support for Israel, and show me how we to to here, where we are today, and how that’s a good thing. Because the way I see it, our ME policy is grounded in oil, and Israel. And I call foul. It’s time reexamine, and move on.

    And if the people on that little strip of land over there can’t get along with each other, well, you know, that’s too bad. They’ve had my entire lifetime to figure it out. I’m not interested in enabling any of them any more.

    As you say, a pox.

  96. 96.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Ya know, maybe we all owe Iowa a debt of gratitude. After all, they spend months watching, listening and reading political ads from 10-15 candidates, then winnow it down to 4 or 5.

    They’re kinda like human bullshit filters.

  97. 97.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    They’re kinda like human bullshit filters.

    Great line, and funny. But ….

    Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ………

    ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

  98. 98.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 3:41 pm

    I don’t happen to think that a same-day nationwide primary is doable, because it forces weaker candidates to spread their thin resources even thinner and pretty much skews the whole thing toward the people with the power and the money

    .

    Point taken. (And a very good one.) But what is the alternative? How do you level the playing field? You would have to change the mindset of 50 different state legislatures and both Parties. So you have, at a minimum, 100 competing groups, based on state and party affiliations to contend with.

    I would be curious to know if you have any suggestions for how we might improve the process?

  99. 99.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    So let’s change it. End the Iowa-NH-Carolina stranglehold on our national politics.

    If I recall correctly that’s what people said they were going to do this time. And it resulted in a January 3rd caucus. Same with New Hampshire.

    You move it any more forward, and Iowa and NH are going to move their caucus/primary into August of the previous year.

    Stupidity is doing the same thing expecting different results. How about we just acknowledge Iowa and NH are first, and make different changes?

    Let’s start from a different point of view. What’s the problem you are actually trying to solve? It surely isn’t just that you hate these states being first.

  100. 100.

    Face

    December 31, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ………Clinton

    Finalized.

  101. 101.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    I would be curious to know if you have any suggestions for how we might improve the process?

    Well, I stole somebody’s idea here for rotating primary cycles, and extrapolated it into an even longer and more diverse cycle so that no one state gets to go early more often than, say, once every 20-30 years.

    I’m not a national party wonk so I can’t detail it any better than that.

    But I’ve also said on these pages that if you let me pick the method, I’d choose the smoke-filled room over what we have now. I think it’s that bad.

  102. 102.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    The real point here is, I insist on a rational explanation for our policy … any policy. I am not interested in emotional responses, With Us Or Agin us responses, You’re A Bigot responses, or Fuck Off responses.

    And yet every time someone asks a question of you, you tell them to fuck off.

    Real mature.

  103. 103.

    TheFountainHead

    December 31, 2007 at 3:45 pm

    Can we also tell the Palestinians to fuck-off? I think we could find common cause.

    Sure. Tell ’em all to fuck off. The Palestinians won’t give a damn ’cause they’ve wanted to tell us to fuck off since we started meddling over there anyway, and the Israelis will be too busy trying to keep themselves from being pushed into the ocean to do much more than sputter in protest.

    /popcorn

  104. 104.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ………

    The only solution is to bring back the one Prez you didn’t mention.

    Gerald. Gerald. Gerald. Aw shit that won’t work either. He’d just pardon the Former Cheerleader before the Congress had a chance to NOT investigate that bunch of War Criminals.

    It sounds like we’re all tired of getting fucked without being kissed. And what’s worse is that they really don’t respect us in the morning. Trust them, indeed.

    Where’s my check? Jesus! Don’t get me started on the mail!

  105. 105.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    What’s the problem you are actually trying to solve?

    As stated multiple times here, and in the past, quite clearly ….

    Shitty presidents. Shitty politics.

    There’s no rational reason for those states to go first. Or for any couple or three states to be in that position. Makes no sense whatever. Not based on theory, and certainly not based on the results we are getting.

  106. 106.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Great line, and funny. But ….

    Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ………

    http://www.theiowacaucus.com/Iowa-caucus-history-results.php

  107. 107.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    And yet every time someone asks a question of you, you tell them to fuck off.

    Really? Cite the examples, please.

  108. 108.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 3:50 pm

    Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ………

    Well, it’s not Iowa’s fault that those were the best choices.

    GIGO

  109. 109.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    There’s no rational reason for those states to go first.

    And yet there is nothing you can do to change it.

    So why are you beating your head against the wall arguing a point you lost before you started the argument?

    Why do you think the last couple of election cycles the nominee was determined after the first couple of states voted? I think it’s because by the time Iowa voted, they’d been campaigning for a year and people wanted the whole thing over with.

    So how about we not have debates until September, and we prohibit candidates from advertising until then as well?

  110. 110.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 3:52 pm

    Really? Cite the examples, please.

    Go back and re-read this thread. I asked you reasonable questions at least twice, and you refused to answer.

  111. 111.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    As stated multiple times here, and in the past, quite clearly ….

    Shitty presidents candidates. Shitty politics. Shitty presidents

    Fixt

  112. 112.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    The only solution is to bring back the one Prez you didn’t mention.

    Gerald. Gerald. Gerald.

    Are you certain we want a Zombie President?

  113. 113.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    And yet there is nothing you can do to change it.

    So, you’re suggesting that if a poster here cannot change something, we should not challenge it?

    That would probably also serve as your answer to my Israel question, then, too, right?

    Sort of a “neener neener” response. Oh yeah, don’t like it, what are you going to do about it?

    Thanks, Steve. Very helpful.

    What did you say the rationale for our Israel policy was again?

    Oh yeah: The Palestinians are rotten. That’s it, right?

    Twenty four hours to field a reasoable question, and we get that from you, to whom the question was not addressed, and “fuck off” from demi, to whom the question was addressed. Very impressive.

    Oh, and of course, “anti semite!” if anyone brings up the subject.

    Great job.

  114. 114.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ………Clinton

    Finalized.

    Now as far as HRC goes: She’ll be equally corrupt and wrongheaded as the former Cheerleader and his band of merry neocons, just as devious, and she will be just competent enough to keep the ship of state on an even keel. Then in 2017, she can hand off the controls to the next half-bright disaster in waiting.

    But I’ve also said on these pages that if you let me pick the method, I’d choose the smoke-filled room over what we have now. I think it’s that bad.

    See it really isn’t all that bad, is it? Got any smokes on you?

  115. 115.

    TheFountainHead

    December 31, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    And yet there is nothing you can do to change it.

    That’s his point. It can be changed. It doesn’t even require the Senate to stop talking about Patreus or Congress to stop telling us how important Christianity is. It just takes about 20 movers and shakers from the DNC and the GOP to sit in a room, drink, smoke, be merry, and FIX THE GODDAMN SYSTEM!!

  116. 116.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    I asked you reasonable questions at least twice

    Point them out, please.

    And also explain why your answer to my well formed question of yesterday is to ask me two questions? I missed something there.

    I asked demi, not you, poor little demi who grew up in a shack by the railroad tracks and ain’t got no book learnin, to explain American policy towards Israel in terms of true American interests.

    What I got was “fuck off” and “what about the Palestinians?”

    Which I have to say is better than you two were doing two years ago when we had the same argument. You guys have come a long way.

  117. 117.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    December 31, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    What, you don’t like the system that has given us Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush One, Clinton, and Bush Two?

    The two worst presidents in our history, two other feckless buttheads, a guy with Alzheimers, one impeachment, and a war that won’t end?

    Two impeachments, one resignation.

    The older I get and the more I learn about Nixon, the more conflicted I am about him. He was brilliant. He was venal. He could have been the greatest president of the 20th century (that honor still going to TR). Even with that whole abuse-of-power-constitutional-crisis thingy, I’d still put him above anyone who’s come since.

    Oh, and it is worth noting that the three Presidents prior to Nixon were Kennedy (machine pol), Eisenhower (incapacitated midway through by a heart attack), and Truman (crony pol extraordinaire).

    I think you forgot one. Not that LBJ was any better a person or a President (although I consider him the most effective President of the latter half of the 20th century).

  118. 118.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    So, you’re suggesting that if a poster here cannot change something, we should not challenge it?

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Be my guest. That’s what a few states tried this cycle, and all they did was fuck things up further.

    As I said, only an idiot keeps doing the same stupid thing expecting different results, and you have certainly proven yourself to be a major fucking idiot.

  119. 119.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Got any smokes on you?

    Sigh. I am well into my third year of not smoking. I can’t go back, and have no desire to go back.

  120. 120.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    And also explain why your answer to my well formed question of yesterday is to ask me two questions? I missed something there.

    Because asking questions makes for a better answer.

    Besides yesterday you were whining about 60 years of history. Today it’s 50. I figure we keep hounding you and you’ll finally admit it’s maybe 30 tops.

  121. 121.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    He could have been the greatest president of the 20th century (that honor still going to TR).

    Teddy was out first and only real cowboy president

    Recently we had a couple drugstore cowboys in the White House, but they don’t count.

  122. 122.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    Shitty presidents. Shitty politics.

    You tellin’ me that Billiam Clinton was a bad prez? I call shenanigans. Unless you have unreachably high standards, it’s an improbably sell to say Clinton had “shitty politics” and was a “shitty president”.

  123. 123.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    The older I get and the more I learn about Nixon, the more conflicted I am about him. He was brilliant. He was venal. He could have been the greatest president of the 20th century (that honor still going to TR). Even with that whole abuse-of-power-constitutional-crisis thingy, I’d still put him above anyone who’s come since.

    But! Since Nixon, the people have gotten to choose their candidate.

    Are you saying the people are stupid?

    All we need do is go back to the pre-1968 way we selected nominees. It’s really that simple.

  124. 124.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    That’s what a few states tried this cycle

    A few states can’t change it. The national parties have to want to change it.

    Even you should be able to figure that out.

    What’s your answer, Steve .. that literally, nothing can be done about it?

    Can you send us a list of things that we can do something about and can talk about under your rule? Thanks.

    Is US-Israel policy on that list, or is that on the list of untouchables too?

  125. 125.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    Teddy was out first and only real cowboy president

    Recently we had a couple drugstore cowboys in the White House, but they don’t count.

    Horses are scarey. You really can’t blame the guy. Those nasty beasties bite.

  126. 126.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    All we need do is go back to the pre-1968 way we selected nominees

    I thought you said there was nothing we could do to change the current situation?

  127. 127.

    Dreggas

    December 31, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Jen Says:

    Myiq, you ain’t got Eastern NC barbecue, and I need that.

    Well, maybe you do. There’s probably some cutsier-than-thou Southern place in LA…

    But I need it with vinyl checkered tablecloths and a pigs wearing clothing theme.

    There’s a place out here called Po’ Folks. It has everything down to the checkered table cloths and fried green tomatoes along with sweet tea. It runs the gamut from your neck of the woods (the carolinas) to the deep south as far west as louisiana.

  128. 128.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    Although I am indeed a “shitty spelar”

    (improbable, not improbably, above)

  129. 129.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 4:07 pm

    A few states can’t change it. The national parties have to want to change it.

    Now let’s assume that’s not going to happen.

    What other solutions do you have?

  130. 130.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 4:09 pm

    I thought you said there was nothing we could do to change the current situation?

    Man, you are dense.

    You’ve been harping and whining about how if only North Dakota were first instead of Iowa, everything would be different.

    And I’ve been pointing out all along that the real key is to make the conventions mean something.

    But do you listen? Nope. you just want to argue about who goes first.

  131. 131.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    You tellin’ me that Billiam Clinton was a bad prez? I call shenanigans.

    Yes. I am telling you that. He squandered his second term on a careless blowjob. That was an irresponsible act. That’s not my opinion, that’s his opinion.

    “I think I did something for the worst possible reason — just because I could. I think that’s the most , just about the most morally indefensible reason that anybody could have for doing anything. When you do something just because you could … I’ve thought about it a lot. And there are lots of more sophisticated explanations, more complicated psychological explanations. But none of them are an excuse … Only a fool does not look to explain his mistakes.”

    But then he goes on to talk about how it hurt his family. But he never bothers to mention how it hurt the country.

    Or how it hurt the Democratic party, about all the oxygen it took out of a congressional term to go through the kabuki play he put us through.

    I think he did some good things, like Nixon did, and was brilliant, like Nixon was, but I don’t think he was a good president. Sorry.

  132. 132.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    December 31, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush ………

    The only solution is to bring back the one Prez you didn’t mention.

    Gerald. Gerald. Gerald.

    There’s a reason Ford isn’t in that list. Think on it a bit.

  133. 133.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    You’ve been harping and whining about how if only North Dakota were first instead of Iowa,

    Harping and whining? It’s called posting, Steve.

    Don’t like it? Filter it out.

    To my knowledge I have not mentioned North Dakota, have I?

    My assertion is that the process isn’t rational, and has not produced good results. Therefore we probably ought to change it.

    You, of course, are trying to turn the topic into an argument about me, because you can’t stand me attacking demi for his asshole anti-semite crap. But, you are wasting your time. There’s no defense here for the anti-semite crap, there’s no defense for our Israel policy, and I don’t see anyone arguing that having Iowa go first is the best thing about American politics.

    But hey, you are determined, maybe you can turn things around?

  134. 134.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Po’ Folks, oh my. There used to be one in my hometown that my Dad dragged us to all the time because kids ate free and parents ate for like $1. Their sweet tea is served in mason jars. I guess I thought they’d fallen by the wayside/been pre-empted by Cracker Barrel. I would be interested in checking one out for old time’s sake, but according to their website there aren’t any in the Carolinas anymore.

    But if anyone is interested, you can click on “franchisin'” to open one up.

  135. 135.

    MNPundit

    December 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm

    What? Are you crazy?

    There might not have been a ton of second choice polls but they’ve been showing up about once a week for a while now. Visit Mydd.com sometime and look.

  136. 136.

    MNPundit

    December 31, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    Uh also, from where I am sitting right now I can see North Dakota–and it blows. It should go last.

  137. 137.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    I’ve been pointing out all along that the real key is to make the conventions mean something.

    How would that work, Steve?

    Can you explain it? I’ve been over the thread, and I can’t find anything that looks like “the real key is to make the conventions mean something.” Must be my poor old eyes. Which post did I miss?

  138. 138.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    But then he goes on to talk about how it hurt his family. But he never bothers to mention how it hurt the country.

    Didn’t hurt the country one bit. Didn’t affect his diplomacy, our national security, his foreign policy, other countries’ respect for him and the US, our (non) deficeit, the booming stock market…

    Yeah, it affected the Democratic party somewhat, simply b/c the R’s were already in Congressional power and were able to make into a spectacle. But that does not a bad President make, and SURELY not bad politics, as a whole.

    Damn, if you think a budget surplus, a ridiculous economy and market jump, and incredible international respect represent “shitty politics”, I’d hate to see what you call Bush’s policies…

  139. 139.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Personally, I think discussing the merits of BBQ is more productive than reformulating Middle East policy on a blog, but I wish all of you a happy 2008 doing whatever you like best.

    Here I will reiterate my plug for Belgian fruit-flavored lambic mixed 1/2 and 1/2 with champagne or any other sparkling wine, for your celebrations tonight. I particularly like the peach, as it tastes like a Bellini but with more alcohol. For the first time I have found black currant lambic so I will report back to you, most likely Wednesday rather than tomorrow.

    John went out of his way to call me gay last time I recommended it (whatevs, I’m a girl) but I persevere. If you like it, give me a shout out. Do the kids still say that, shout out? Punchy?

  140. 140.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Uh also, from where I am sitting right now I can see North Dakota—and it blows. It should go last.

    North Dakota – It’s like Canada, without the fancy-schmanzy cultural sophistication.

  141. 141.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Personally, I think discussing the merits of BBQ is more productive than reformulating Middle East policy on a blog, but I wish all of you a happy 2008 doing whatever you like best.

    Shhh! Don’t encourage them. They might as well be fighting a duel with wet noodles.

  142. 142.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    December 31, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Are you saying the people are stupid?

    In large enough groups? Abso-fucking-lutely. They re-elected the current Jackass-in-Chief, didn’t they?

    All we need do is go back to the pre-1968 way we selected nominees. It’s really that simple.

    Honestly, I wouldn’t be opposed. Were FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson really any worse than those who came after?

  143. 143.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Damn, if you think a budget surplus, a ridiculous economy and market jump, and incredible international respect represent “shitty politics”, I’d hate to see what you call Bush’s policies…

    Well, let’s not mix “politics” and “policies” here. I voted for Clinton’s policies. Twice.

    The “politics” I refer to in the context of my post which contained the phrase “shitty politics” is the carefully manipulated Iowa-New Hampshire thing that we do every four years. America is about the ability to change itself. So let’s change it. Other Steve wil oppose it with his dying breath because as demi’s lawyer, he is required to do so. But if the national party people would set about doing it, it could be done.

  144. 144.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    December 31, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    Whoa. That’s weird.

  145. 145.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 4:33 pm

    I dunno, I find the idea of making the candidates campaign in North Dakota in January kind of appealing, but there’s only like 64,000 people there. If you lived there, you wouldn’t be able to escape the candidates if they tried. You’d have John Edwards pouring your coffee in the diner, John McCain shoveling your driveway, Hillary checking out your library books, Guiliani staying the hell away…

  146. 146.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    I think discussing the merits of BBQ is more productive than reformulating Middle East policy on a blog

    Probably so, but tell it to people who use the term “anti semite” when the subject comes up. They pull this crap and then run away when challenged.

  147. 147.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    Guiliani staying the hell away…

    He’s like a fugly girl – the farther away she is from you, the better she looks.

  148. 148.

    Punchy

    December 31, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    John went out of his way to call me gay last time I recommended it (whatevs, I’m a girl) but I persevere. If you like it, give me a shout out. Do the kids still say that, shout out? Punchy?

    Yeppers. Likewise, you can insist on props from your peeps, natch. As fer yer mixing of beer and bubbly…uh…hmmm…yeah, that may indeed be gay. Why not throw some Hola Fruity in there too, and just make it obvious?

    /spots Cole furiously scribbling down above reciepe

  149. 149.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    You’d have John Edwards pouring your coffee in the diner, John McCain shoveling your driveway, Hillary checking out your library books

    The folksy Daschle style of politics. Has a certain charm.

  150. 150.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Punchy, if you can get a bum to go into the beer and wine store for you, you really should try it before you knock it.

    I’m glad I can still get props from my peeps. I did buy a onesie for a newborn once that said “where my peeps at?” and it had a little pictures of the Easter peeps….have not been invited to any baby showers since them…must confine myself to the Target list…

  151. 151.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    Honestly, I wouldn’t be opposed

    Me either. The national primary idea is to politics what the fan voting idea is to baseball’s All Star game.

    Sounds nice, but, meh.

  152. 152.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    Here I will reiterate my plug for Belgian fruit-flavored lambic mixed 1/2 and 1/2 with champagne or any other sparkling wine, for your celebrations tonight. I particularly like the peach, as it tastes like a Bellini but with more alcohol

    A tip of my proverbial hat to Jen. Belgium should be declared a Universal Treasure and all its brewers bestowed a sainthood (or some parallel award.)

    Ben Franklin must have been a Belgium Beer drinker.

  153. 153.

    Jen

    December 31, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    I appreciate your not calling me gay, GPJ. I nominate the brewers for a parallel award, as sainthood necessarily involves being dead = no beer.

  154. 154.

    TheFountainHead

    December 31, 2007 at 4:51 pm

    Punchy, if you can get a bum to go into the beer and wine store for you, you really should try it before you knock it.

    Thank you for reminding me I have a stop to make on my way home today!!

  155. 155.

    Cain

    December 31, 2007 at 4:52 pm

    I’ll try th lambic. Although I prefer cherry. :)

    cain

  156. 156.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 4:55 pm

    A tip of my proverbial hat to Jen. Belgium should be declared a Universal Treasure and all its brewers bestowed a sainthood (or some parallel award.)

    Ben Franklin must have been a Belgium Beer drinker.

    German beer! THE BEST BEER EVAH! Germans founded the breweries here and in Mexico (Mexico got the best ones) so we get to enjoy the nectar of the gods.

    German beer helps to make-up for that occasional goose-stepping thing they do.

    As for mixing drinks, this is what my late uncle Jimmy Jack told me:

    “Beer before liquor, never been sicker.
    Liquor before beer, nothing to fear”

    Jimmy Jack died in a tragic brewery accident. They said he fell into a vat and took three hours to die. It would have been quicker but he kept getting out to piss.

  157. 157.

    Dug Jay

    December 31, 2007 at 4:57 pm

    Re Belgian beer, I also like the custom in many Belgian cities, such as Bruges, where most bars have unique glasses for the various kinds of beers that they serve. First timers need also to be aware that the alcoholic content of many of these beers is 12+ percent.

  158. 158.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    German beer! THE BEST BEER EVAH! Germans founded the breweries here and in Mexico (Mexico got the best ones) so we get to enjoy the nectar of the gods.

    If lager is your thing then German beer is what you want. BUT, a good Belgium Abbey or Abbey-style Ale will get you right with (fill in the name of your favorite deity here)! Go to your favorite place to buy beer and buy this gem. If dark ale is not your thing then this one should do the trick. I guarantee you once you’ve had it you won’t go back.

    With so many fine small brewers here in the US you don’t have to go far to find great beer. Stone Brewing out of SoCal makes some great beers, and they even made this in honor of me! (Well I wished they had, but it is very good beer and a great brewery.)

  159. 159.

    cleek

    December 31, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    McCain seems like the only candidate without some glaring disqualification hanging over his head

    fixed ?

  160. 160.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    McCain seems like the only candidate without some glaring disqualification hanging over his head

    fixed ?

    Actually Johnny Mac is apparently the “least insane” of the GOP field.

    But that’s like being the skinniest hippo or the nicest zombie.

  161. 161.

    The Grandest Panjandrum

    December 31, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Re Belgian beer, I also like the custom in many Belgian cities, such as Bruges, where most bars have unique glasses for the various kinds of beers that they serve. First timers need also to be aware that the alcoholic content of many of these beers is 12+ percent.

    Yes! I make a visit to Belgium every 2-3 years and visit many of the “holy shrines.” Germany is fine, but every serious beer drinker should make at least one pilgrimage to Belgium.

    Dug Jay, I’ll even invite you up to Vermont for some shooting and Belgium beer drinking after we get settled in. You can bitch about Clinton and I’ll hate on Bush!

  162. 162.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    America is about the ability to change itself. So let’s change it. Other Steve wil oppose it with his dying breath because as demi’s lawyer, he is required to do so. But if the national party people would set about doing it, it could be done.

    I’m not opposed to change. I just don’t see it as a problem.

    The real problem is the convention is meaningless. Until you realize that, you really aren’t worth talking to.

  163. 163.

    cleek

    December 31, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    Actually Johnny Mac is apparently the “least insane” of the GOP field.

    right. but that’s not what the update says.

  164. 164.

    Tim F.

    December 31, 2007 at 5:48 pm

    fixed ?

    Thanks. My bad.

  165. 165.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    you really aren’t worth talking to.

    And yet, because you are being an asshole and providing cover for demi, for some reason, who foolishly won’t back down from acceding to calling Wilfred an anti-semite for bashing American policy on Israel ….. you keep talking to me.

    I said that a return to the old way of picking candidates was a good idea at least two years ago. Do you think you just invented the idea today? Do you think if you keep saying that over and over, people will think you deserve credit for the idea?

  166. 166.

    Evilbeard

    December 31, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    Darn. I got to the bottom of this thread without hearing anyone attempt to answer TZ’s question. I’ve wondered myself why we support Israel so unquestioningly and why we’re not allowed to ask about it.

  167. 167.

    Emma Anne

    December 31, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    What, you don’t like the system that has given us Nixon, Carter, Regan, Bush One, Clinton, and Bush Two?

    The two worst presidents in our history, two other feckless buttheads, a guy with Alzheimers, one impeachment, and a war that won’t end?

    Oh, I want to try!

    Nixon – a worst
    Carter – a feckless
    Reagan – Alzheimers
    Bush 1 – a feckless
    Clinton – impeachment
    Bush 2 – a worst *and* war without end

    Did I get it?

  168. 168.

    Emma Anne

    December 31, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    jnfr Says:
    I’m hoping Edwards does well enough to hang on for the Feb. 5th primaries. I would very much like to vote for him in the Colorado caucuses.

    You and me both. Since I am in Boulder, I’ll have to argue with the Kousinich folks. But I will come armed with quotes.

  169. 169.

    Emma Anne

    December 31, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    At the 24-hour point, under what we shall call the Michael D Rule, when you can’t answer a question, then that in itself becomes an answer.

    “LOL”

  170. 170.

    Emma Anne

    December 31, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    I’m hoping the folks considering Edwards realize the guy only has about $15 mil to spend from now until September

    We’ll have his back.

  171. 171.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 6:18 pm

    Darn. I got to the bottom of this thread without hearing anyone attempt to answer TZ’s question. I’ve wondered myself why we support Israel so unquestioningly and why we’re not allowed to ask about it.

    Heh. How do you think I feel, I had to work the thread.

    There are some dynamics at work here that are not visible to the naked eye.

    First of all, you have to go back to thread 9368, and Wilfred’s first post to that thread at 10:38. He bashes the policy.

    Immediately, the turd spooftroll DugJay chimes in calling Wilfred an anti-semite. When Wilfred puts up a defense, demi jumps all over him and, in my version, accedes to calling Wilfred an anti-semite.

    Now, the battle is joined, so to speak, and here we are a couple days later. Yesterday, a posted a very softball question for demi which deliberately shunted aside the anti-semitism question, and put the matter squarely on policy and national interest terms. So far, there has not been a word of coherent, substantive answer to that question.

    Instead, two things happened: Demi called me a damagogue, and told me to fuck off. That was apparently his answer to my question. Then, when Other Steve saw that demi was in over his head, he started a harangue here to distract me and throw a jackalope screen over the whole subject. He also has provided no answer to the question (other than, hey, Palestinians suck, which is about the same thing that a poster here named Stormy said three years ago before we ran her ass out of here on a rail). He also wants to argue that the Truman-Eisenhower years don’t count in the litany of decade-after-decade knee jerk support for Israel, and pretends that this quibble is somehow relevant to the current issue. I documented the irrational attutide of the US back to Eisenhower but I really don’t want to address Truman. I think Truman was something of a butthead and the whole idea of digging into his policies gives me a severe headache. AFAIC, the whole package of Truman-Eisenhower-Dulles policies is a toxic ball of shit for this country that we are still trying to free ourselves from. But that’s just me.

    Anyway, to fully get the dynamics, you have to go back to a real flame war (not the little tepid one you saw today) that we had back in 2006 during the Israel-Lebanon war. Animosities and resentments were formed then that still rear their heads today.

    Personally, I sense that the anti-semite rhetorical device is losing its sting, and that is long overdue. But in blogville, there is still a tendency to play the card, and I for one just wont stand for it. Anyone wants to make a coherent argument for any rational Middle East policy, let’s get it on. But calling anti-semite when somebody challenges Israel or US policy? Nuh-uh. In the immortal words of the great George Herbert Walker Bush, kisser of the Saudi Royal Ring, This Shall Not Stand!

    That’s my two-bit summary. Since I own stock in a popcorn conglomerate, it’s all about selling the popcorn and keeping John’s page views up. I do what I can.

  172. 172.

    Kevin K.

    December 31, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    For reasons that aren’t entirely clear, this made me laugh so hard I had to spend 90 seconds or so cleaning up food bits on my desk.

    Punchy, thanks. You’ve made my (new) year. Sorry about the desk.

  173. 173.

    4tehlulz

    December 31, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Huckabee commits biggest fuck up in IA caucus history.

    I’m betting my 2 cents that IA goes Romney > McCain = Huck after this little stunt.

  174. 174.

    PeterJ

    December 31, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    The only solution is to bring back the one Prez you didn’t mention.

    Gerald. Gerald. Gerald.

    Are you certain we want a Zombie President?

    Sara Jane Moore got released today. Not sure how long Zombie Ford(tm) would survive with her roaming around.

  175. 175.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    Darn. I got to the bottom of this thread without hearing anyone attempt to answer TZ’s question. I’ve wondered myself why we support Israel so unquestioningly and why we’re not allowed to ask about it.

    This was answered in the other thread. The reason why we support Israel, is because they are an island of stability in a unstable region. As noted, US interest in Israel began in the 1970s just as Arab nationalism was starting to run rampant and upturn everything.

    It’s not that TZ’s question wasn’t answered. His problem is he doesn’t like the answers. Just like he doesn’t like the questions posed back.

  176. 176.

    Dug Jay

    December 31, 2007 at 8:12 pm

    Someone in this thread asked for some background on US policy toward Israel as it’s evolved over the years. Here’s a stab at it.

    Following its creation in 1948, the US was the first country to officially recognize Israel, consistent with a 1922 US Congressional resolution backing the Wilson-era League of Nations mandate for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. While rocky at various points in the intervening years, the US and Israel have generally had a fairly close relationship. Following are some key historical events related to the relationship that anyone can independently validate from any number of sources.

    After Israel became an independent country in 1948, the United States joined an embargo on weapons sales to Israel. Although the US sold hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to Arab states during the 1950s and early 1960s, there were no sales to Israel until 1962 when the US agreed to sell to Israel its first significant American system, the HAWK anti-aircraft missile.
    American military involvement with Israel remained sporadic until the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Following an Egyptian refusal to accept a cease-fire and a Soviet military airlift to the Arab states, the Nixon Administration sent a United States airlift of weapons and supplies to Israel enabling her to recover from earlier setbacks. Starting on October 14, 1973 US Air Force “Operation Nickel Grass” flew resupply missions to Israel for a full month.

    As a direct result of the Yom Kippur War, the United States quadrupled its foreign aid to Israel, and replaced France as Israel’s largest arms supplier. The doctrine of maintaining Israel’s “qualitative edge” over its neighbors was born in the war’s aftermath. This was based both on US appreciation of Israel’s role as a defender of Western values such as democracy in a generally hostile region, and also on the Cold War calculus of opposing the Arab client states of the Soviet Union.

    In 1951 the US provided the first aid to Israel, $65 million to help Israel take in Holocaust survivors and endangered Jews from Arab lands. Within 3 years, Israel’s 650,000 Jews absorbed 600,000 refugees from Europe and the Arab nations.

    There has been economic aid to Israel every year since 1949, with the amounts fluctuating, generally increasing as the cooperation with Israel became closer or in years when Israel was forced to fight defensive wars or terrorism. From 1960 until 1985, there were no grants; aid consisted largely of loans, which Israel repaid, and surplus commodities, which Israel bought. Aid to other countries in the region, which excludes countries with large oil revenues, has also increased and is similar in total amount. Much of the aid to Israel is for defense and the money is actually spent with U.S. suppliers so it recycles back to the United States.

    For many years Israel received US financial and military assistance in a combined total of about $3 billion, divided into $1.2 billion in economic assistance and $1.8 billion in military aid. As the Israeli economy grew, and Soviet-era refugees were absorbed, the need for the aid package decreased. In recent years the economic aid has been reduced, while the military package has grown.

    I’ll leave it to TZ, Demi and others to address the residual issues that surround charges and countercharges of anti-Semitism. But as noted above, I think the general support for Israel has been based both on US appreciation of Israel’s role as a defender of Western values such as democracy in a generally hostile region, and also on the Cold War calculus of opposing the Arab client states of the Soviet Union.

  177. 177.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 8:14 pm

    I’m betting my 2 cents that IA goes Romney > McCain = Huck after this little stunt.

    Won’t matter. Huckabee is whistling to the converted.

    What it might do, as I noted before, is unite opposition on caucus night. People might decide to throw their support to Romney because he’s got the largest group next to Huckabee, even if they preferred McCain or Rudy or something.

    Pat Robertson did far worse back in 1988. He claimed he was a combat Marine, serving at Heartbreak Ridge in the Korean War. His army buddies came out in the media and noted he spent his entire time in Japan working the bar at the officer’s lounge. Robertson had to apologize, but he was still a godly man so he garnered a fair amount of support.

    What scares me about Huckabee is he isn’t nearly as crazy as Robertson, and he’s far sharper on his feet. His attacks are softly spoken, but sharp as a knife.

  178. 178.

    The Other Steve

    December 31, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    I’ll leave it to TZ, Demi and others to address the residual issues that surround charges and countercharges of anti-Semitism. But as noted above, I think the general support for Israel has been based both on US appreciation of Israel’s role as a defender of Western values such as democracy in a generally hostile region, and also on the Cold War calculus of opposing the Arab client states of the Soviet Union.

    A rare moment of intelligence from Dug Jay.

  179. 179.

    myiq2xu

    December 31, 2007 at 8:48 pm

    A rare moment of intelligence from Dug Jay.

    What would I know, I’m just a notorious 13 year old.

  180. 180.

    conumbdrum

    December 31, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    The reason why we support Israel, is because they are an island of stability in a unstable region. As noted, US interest in Israel began in the 1970s just as Arab nationalism was starting to run rampant and upturn everything.

    An “island of stability” you say? Well, that’s certainly worked out nicely.

  181. 181.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 8:58 pm

    I’ll leave it to TZ, Demi and others to address the residual issues that surround charges and countercharges of anti-Semitism. But as noted above, I think the general support for Israel has been based both on US appreciation of Israel’s role as a defender of Western values such as democracy in a generally hostile region, and also on the Cold War calculus of opposing the Arab client states of the Soviet Union.

    From this reasonable sounding material, where did you get the shoot-from-hip “anti-semitic” blast at Wilfred?

    Also, “Israel’s role as a defender of Western values” is pretty weak stuff. I see a bellicose nation that can’t make peace with basically weak neighbors in five or six decades of “trying.” I see whining and perpetual victimhood, and nonsensical “God gave us this land” which is word for word what the crazy people next door (Palestinians) are saying.

    They’re a model for lifetimes of war, as near as I can tell. As for the cold war angle, that’s over. That doesn’t explain any need to support them now.

    I’d argue that there’s another, darker way of characterizing this. Namely, that the US has used Israel as a proxy buttkicker in the neighborhood over there as part of our Oil Defense plan. And that by so doing, we’ve aggravated a hostile element in that country and kept it aggravated all these years to serve our own cynical interests … knowing that public sentiment would serve as a screen. See my 11:03 to the Clinton and Haters thread. This angle is traceable all the way back to Eisenhower.

    No matter how you slice it, support for Israel has been pimped by one US administration after another on the basis of sentiment and cold war gobbledegook. Now that the cold war is over, a new basis for it had to be invented. Oh look, it’s the Waronterra and Scary Iran and a whole bunch of other bullshit. I’m sick of the lies and the manipulations. I want American foreign policy based on clear, understandable lines of American interests and a coherent longterm strategy that delivers stability, peace, and doesn’t stir up rather than quiet down, the terror trend.

    If that coherent foreign policy includes guaranteed support for Israel, then fine … let’s see the strategy and an explanation of how the policies will work. “Anti-semite!” doesn’t feed the fucking bulldog, mister spoofapalooza.

    Facts, reason, argument. Not the phony anti-semite charge set loose by people here who, when challenged on it, have the stones to call somebedy ELSE a fucking demagogue.

    Your post is good, even though I dont’ agree with its presumptions. But what the hell was that anti-semite thing about the other day? How does it mesh with

    I’ll leave it to TZ, Demi and others to address the residual issues that surround charges and countercharges of anti-Semitism

    It was your blast that started the whole anti-semite argument. You were just joking around?

  182. 182.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    The reason why we support Israel, is because they are an island of stability in a unstable region.

    Sure. A constant state of war with its neighbors is what you call “an island of stability?”

    I suppose you think ginning up a cruel aerial war against Lebanese civilians because a few of their soldiers got in trouble in 2006 is the action of an “island of stability?”

    There appears to be more coherent criticism of Israel’s bellicosity within Israel than you can find on this blog.

    If pissing on our legs and telling us it’s raining is your plan, you are in for a long seige, dude.

    Sorry, but calling a country that can’t figure out a way to make peace with its neighbors in half a century of trying doesn’t strike me as an “island of stability.”

    Island of delusion, maybe.

  183. 183.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’, and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’

    The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East . . . But the next great battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.

    From London Review of Books, re: The Israel Lobby (Mearsheimer and Walt)

    For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

    Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

  184. 184.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Sorry, forgot this link.

    Read, as they say, the whole thing.

    And, weep.

  185. 185.

    Asti

    December 31, 2007 at 10:09 pm

    Now let’s assume that’s not going to happen.

    Why? Because otherwise it would hurt your argument? You have to assume that the way you want things to turn out will be true so you can make your point? Is this a reasonable debate tactic? Because to me it looks more like a ruse.

    And you know what TOS? Things will never change as long as you say “we can’t change them”.

  186. 186.

    The Unprofitable Prophetess

    December 31, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    The reason why this debate is so difficult for anyone to challenge is because it is religious in nature. It has nothing to do with US Policy for the ones who believe in “Jesus’ Daddy” it only has to do with allowing Israel to exist so the Bible predictions in Revelations can come true.

    The reason this is so important to those who believe in Jesus’ Daddy is because the land that Israel sits on is supposedly hallowed ground, a birthright, a land of promise which has been promised, according to the Old Testament, to Israel but (always a but in these types of things) Israel is not supposed to inherit the promises and the land, according to the New Testament – no, those who only accept Jesus as their savior, and his Daddy has their Daddy are going to inherit the promises.

    This is a game of greed; and while those of the Christian persuasion don’t want to admit it, the entire reason for the Christian religion existing is to usurp the throne of David, and place Jesus on that throne.

    The only problem? Jesus isnt supposed to be ON that throne. Jesus asks his followers to drink blood (something the Daddy would never permit. Jesus beleivers walk around with crosses about their neck, something else his supposed Daddy detests. Many people who claim to believe in Jesus don’t even believe Daddy has all that much power, they think Jesus’ Mama has wears the pants in the family, and some actually pray to HER instead.

    The promises in the Old Testament do not jive with the results that are desired in the New Testament at all. Judaism and Christianity cannot both be the chosen ones. One has to suffer the loss so the other can survive (well, actually, they both are going down, but that’s not something we need to discuss here and now). The problem of why the questions posed about Israel’s involvement in US foreign policy is all due to a religious war, and anyone who believes in the protagonist of that war (Jesus himself) can’t answer honestly without appealing to emotional reasoning, because it questions their very faith to do it.

    The fact is, believers of Jesus and his supposed Daddy WANT Israel to be our best friend, because the only way you can stab someone in the back is when they really, really TRUST you!

    Carry on kids!

  187. 187.

    Dug Jay

    December 31, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    While deferring to others on the anti-Semitism aspects of this, I can’t avoid bringing forth a few comments of myself and others relative to a driving premise of the Mearsheimer and Walt material that TZ has linked to above.

    If it is Israel that decides on the deployment of American force, it seems odd that the first President Bush had to order them to stay out of the coalition to free Kuwait, and it is even more odd that the first order of neocon business has not been an attack on Iran, as Israeli hawks have been urging. Mearsheimer and Walt are especially weak on this point: They speak darkly about neocon and Israeli maneuvers in respect to Tehran today, but they entirely fail to explain why the main initiative against the mullahs has come from the European Union and the International Atomic Energy Authority, two organizations where the voice of the Jewish lobby is, to say the least, distinctly muted. Their theory does nothing to explain why it was French President Jacques Chirac who took the lead in isolating the death-squad regime of Assad’s Syria (a government that Mearsheimer and Walt regard, for reasons of their own, as a force for stability).

    As for the idea that Israel is the root cause of the emergence of al-Qaida: Where have these two gentlemen been? Bin Laden’s gang emerged from a whole series of tough and reactionary battles in Central and Eastern Asia, from the war for a separate Muslim state in the Philippines to the fighting in Kashmir, the Uighur territories in China, and of course Afghanistan. There are hardly any Palestinians in its ranks, and its communiqués have been notable for how little they say about the Palestinian struggle. Bin Laden does not favor a Palestinian state; he simply regards the whole area of the former British Mandate as a part of the future caliphate. The right of the Palestinians to a state is a just demand in its own right, but anyone who imagines that its emergence would appease—or would have appeased—the forces of jihad is quite simply a fool. Is al-Qaida fomenting civil war in Nigeria or demanding the return of East Timor to Indonesia because its heart bleeds for the West Bank?

    Mearsheimer and Walt belong to that vapid school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started. Their wish is father to the thought that there must be some way, short of a fight, to get around this confrontation. Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly.

  188. 188.

    ThymeZone

    December 31, 2007 at 11:50 pm

    Mearsheimer and Walt belong to that vapid school

    Oh for crissakes, you got nothing.

    Okay, people can read the article and decide for themselves. They don’t need Dug Jay to decide whether it’s “vapid” or not.

  189. 189.

    Dug Jay

    December 31, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    TZ, I have concluded that are not worthy of responding to in any rational form. You are LIKELY a very real anti-Semite of the old-fashioned Hitler/Goebbels kind, as well as a great big obnoxious shithead.

  190. 190.

    Dug Jay

    January 1, 2008 at 12:03 am

    In anticipation of TZ’s response to the prior comment, I might save him some time by simply putting up “The Best of ThymeZone in All His Current and Former Incarnations” as compiled back in 2006

    “Bill Bennett is a big fat lying stupid piece of shit.”

    “SHUT THE FUCK UP”

    “FIRE THEIR SORRY ASSES”

    “Fire these incompetant sonsabitches and get new government. That’s what America is for, it’s why we have elections and stuff. To get rid of the imcompetants and the crooks and the liars and the self-serving fucks.”

    “Don’t EVER give somebody else a hard time about citing facts, you asshole. You sling proof-by-assertion crap in here every fucking day.”

    “Answer the goddammed question”

    “Now go away and shut the fuck up.”

    “Suppose you’re a shepherd, and you crave sex with sheep”

    “Ben Stein, the fat slob”

    “Jesus. Do you ever stop to think before you post?”

    “this is the piece of shit that you posted”

    “You fear-mongering, bigoted asshole”

    “you are really making an ass of yourself now”

    “why do we have to settle for this kind of dumbshit Stormy-scs-stickler commentary in here?”

    “I find you a suck-ass embarassing piece of crap, myself.”

    “shut the fuck up”

    “fuck every lying Jew in the world.”

    “Limp-wristed bastard.”

    “resident piece of shit homophobe”

    “Fuck them…..It’s about me”

    “What possible rationale can there be for a Darrell or scs or Stormy … or stickler … to post here?….Close the door to those four psychotics, and I’ll not post here again until they do…..I’m dead serious.”

    “Which version of the UN do you want to jerk us off about?”

    “Shut up, and answer the questions that have been put to you.”

    “Like I said, stick-up-your-ass, you are just making this stuff up.”

    “Fuck off, man. You’re a joke.”

    “Go away, seriously. You think you can just make shit up and peddle it here? STFU. Beat it. You aren’t even being funny any more.”

    “Seriously, go away. You’re embarrassing yourself now.”

    “What a frigging idiot.”

    “make some stupid arcane point on a stupid fat pig’s radio show,”

    “Aw, shove it your dirtpipe…..This is just boilerplate righty noise machine crap.”

    “That’s your entire stock in trade, asshole.”

    “John Cole is Darrell’s bitch.”

    ““Remember the lessons of 9-11” said the great George Fucking W. Bush”

    “You’re about due for a cockslap.”

    “if you don’t understand something I say, that’s your problem, pal! Fuck you!”

    “he is a big fat pompous asshole who doesn’t care about anything or anybody but himself”

    “I have always held iron workers in the highest regard.”

    “I’m too lazy”

    “religion and prayer is a crutch of the weak”

    And that’s just from one week from a couple of years ago.

  191. 191.

    Dug Jay

    January 1, 2008 at 12:06 am

    Oh, and the phrase from the post that so upset TZ was not even written by me, not that it really matters.

  192. 192.

    myiq2xu

    January 1, 2008 at 1:06 am

    Hey TZ! Keep kicking ‘im, you’re obviously on the right track or he wouldn’t be screaming and crying so much.

    Let me offer you the following words from Molly Ivins for support and inspiration:

    I have been attacked by Rush Limbaugh on the air, an experience somewhat akin to being gummed by a newt. It doesn’t actually hurt, but it leaves you with slimy stuff on your ankle.

    2007 was the year God saw fit to take Molly from us. You know she is in Heaven, cuz the Devil don’t want her down in Hell. RIP Molly

    Now go wash your ankle TZ

  193. 193.

    myiq2xu

    January 1, 2008 at 1:23 am

    I think I’m gonna start calling myself “The Notorious myiq2xu.”

    Thanks Jaybird!

    Now go “merge with the lord.”

  194. 194.

    Asti

    January 1, 2008 at 1:50 am

    Dug Jay, I’ll bet you were the kind of person who everyone didn’t want to play with because you ratted everyone out, right? Go ahead, admit it, it’s SO obvious!

    So, you compiled this information in 2006 because…?

    You were just doing surveillance on your enemies?

    How fucking lame!

  195. 195.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 1:57 am

    Well Dug, thank you. I’ve been meaning to collect an anthology, and you saved me a lot of work.

    Just a couple things:

    One, I never use language that the blogowners dont use. They set the tone, and I follow.

    Two, I never tell anyone to fuck off unless they deserve it. If you are offended, talk to them.

    Three, this whole flame war was started by you calling Wilfred an anti-semite. That’s at 10:42 on the Derbyshire thread. If your argument is that you can do that because I tell people to fuck themselves, then I would argue that you are quite wrong, and you should go fuck yourself. And, rest assured, nobody will call anyone an anti-semite around here for criticizing Israel or US policy towards Israel without starting another one of these flame wars, because I won’t stand for it. They’ll have to ban me, because I am always here and I will never put up with it.

    Four, you are a goddam spoof, and a poor one. You apparently are pimping the idea that Americans should just accept the press releases of their government that sucking the dick of Israel is always the best foreign policy and nobody should question it. My assertion is that they should always question and challenge it and never listen to the liars who tell them otherwise. If my choice is between believing that, or believing some second rate spoof like you and Bill Kristol, then I am going with the former, and I advise all to do the same.

    People then can read and question and draw their own conclusions.

    Lots of information out there. You don’t have to smoke the bone of the neocons to find out what’s going on.

  196. 196.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 2:10 am

    he wouldn’t be screaming and crying so much.

    Oh, I dunno, I think he just has a crush on me.

  197. 197.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 2:17 am

    You were just doing surveillance on your alter egos?

    Heh.

  198. 198.

    Robert Johnston

    January 1, 2008 at 2:37 am

    What scares me about Huckabee is he isn’t nearly as crazy as Robertson, and he’s far sharper on his feet. His attacks are softly spoken, but sharp as a knife.

    Unless that knife in a butter knife, made of plastic, that’s been through a trash compactor, and melted, I’m not sure what Huckabee you’re talking about. The man’s a moron, duller than a gray ball of putty.

  199. 199.

    Beej

    January 1, 2008 at 3:03 am

    Grumpy Code Monkey,

    Nixon was a fascinating personality. Deeply flawed, but fascinating. Best book on Watergate and the Nixon presidency? Theodore H. White’s Breach of Faith. Hard to believe, but journalists actually believed in things like honor and adherence to the Constitution back then.

  200. 200.

    myiq2xu

    January 1, 2008 at 4:32 am

    Nixon was a fascinating personality. Deeply flawed, but fascinating. Best book on Watergate and the Nixon presidency? Theodore H. White’s Breach of Faith. Hard to believe, but journalists actually believed in things like honor and adherence to the Constitution back then.

    Nixon was corrupt in several ways, and paranoid too, but he was intelligent and worked very hard as president. Now we have Incurious George – like a rock, only dumber.

    Back then, GOP members in Congress were patriots first, party members second. IOW – Their first loyalty was to the country, not to their president.

    When Nixon’s crimes were exposed, leaders of the GOP went to the White House and told Nixon to resign or they would join with the Democrats to impeach him.

    If Barry Goldwater were alive today the wingnuts would call him a “librulfascist.”

  201. 201.

    merlallen

    January 1, 2008 at 5:51 am

    John Wayne was born in England.

  202. 202.

    merlallen

    January 1, 2008 at 5:53 am

    John Wayne was born in England. Real name, Marion. hahaha Marion.

  203. 203.

    myiq2xu

    January 1, 2008 at 6:21 am

    Marion Michael Morrison I believe. No wonder he was a tough guy. That’s like being named “Sue.”

  204. 204.

    conumbdrum

    January 1, 2008 at 6:34 am

    Dug Jay posits:

    …it is even more odd that the first order of neocon business has not been an attack on Iran, as Israeli hawks have been urging.

    I think it’s been fairly well established by now that the Bush administration’s modus operandi was to force regime change in Iran after the glorious victory in Iraq, using the latter as the staging ground to subdue the former. Hard to imagine anyone with better than a double-digit IQ seeing the merit in such a patently idiotic scheme… but that’s the Bush Bunch for you.

    Sure, the neocons had more of a hard-on for stomping Iran… but hell, as long as you’re wasting Muslims somewhere, those evil fucks won’t complain too much.

  205. 205.

    The Other Steve

    January 1, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Why? Because otherwise it would hurt your argument? You have to assume that the way you want things to turn out will be true so you can make your point? Is this a reasonable debate tactic? Because to me it looks more like a ruse.

    Are you guys just purposefully obtuse, or stupid?

    In 2008 several states said “NO! WE ARE GOING TO BE FIRST!” and moved their dates up.

    Iowa and New Hampshire responded by moving their dates forward as well. I don’t know about Iowa, but New Hampshire waited until like a month ago to announce their date, just to make certain nobody else changed theirs.

    Thus far all this ranting and raving about Iowa we’ve had for the past 4 years has resulted in a even more fucked up system.

    Don’t you think maybe it’s time to drop the OCD and look at something else?

  206. 206.

    The Other Steve

    January 1, 2008 at 11:15 am

    TZ, I have concluded that are not worthy of responding to in any rational form. You are LIKELY a very real anti-Semite of the old-fashioned Hitler/Goebbels kind, as well as a great big obnoxious shithead.

    TZ has a hard-on for the Palestinians. That’s why he never wants to talk about their responsibility in the whole mess.

  207. 207.

    The Other Steve

    January 1, 2008 at 11:21 am

    I think it’s been fairly well established by now that the Bush administration’s modus operandi was to force regime change in Iran after the glorious victory in Iraq, using the latter as the staging ground to subdue the former. Hard to imagine anyone with better than a double-digit IQ seeing the merit in such a patently idiotic scheme… but that’s the Bush Bunch for you.

    The Bush Bunch was actually focused on Syria next, after Iraq.

  208. 208.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

    TZ has a hard-on for the Palestinians

    C’mon, Steve, call me an anti-semite. You know you want to.

    For those of you who don’t want to review the thread, I called the Palestinians “crazy people” in my 8:58 pm post, and have always decried their insane “God gave us this land” bullshit. My longest seige here on this subject back in 2006 began with that very notion, IIRC. Steve is full of crap, and knows it.

    The problem is, the Israelis say the same crazy, stupid thing, and there you have the basis for half a century of useless war.

    We decry religious nuttitude here in the US. At least, so far, we haven’t given into completely, unless we manage to elect Hucksterbee.

    Maybe that will happen, and the Huck will appoint Bill Kristol his secretary of state. Then will you be happy, Steve?

  209. 209.

    Dug Jay

    January 1, 2008 at 11:27 am

    ThymeZone – The great nihilistic writer and philosopher Nietzsche obviously had someone like you in mind when he wrote – and I believe my translation is near perfect – “Blow it out you ass!”

    In other news, the world is still basically round and the Dallas Cowboys stink.

  210. 210.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 11:31 am

    You are LIKELY a very real anti-Semite of the old-fashioned Hitler/Goebbels kind, as well as a great big obnoxious shithead.

    Ah, the obligatory anti-semite wolf whistle.

    Also, I am not really that big. 160 lbs with all my religious jewelry on. Hell, I had a 27 inch waist when I was 30 years old. Had to buy my pants in the boys’ department. Embarrassing, really.

    Bill Bennett is a big fat lying stupid piece of shit

    And thank you for bringing back that line of mine. I think it might be the best thing I ever wrote here. Unfortunately, THAT “great big obnoxious shithead” is still on tv. Oh well.

  211. 211.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 11:33 am

    My question is, how many of you are writing Dug Jay?

    The writing styles are all over the map.

  212. 212.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 11:35 am

    “Blow it out you (sic) ass!”

    So, Nietzsche was black? Or he just picked up the colloquialisms of his Harlem upbringing?

    Actually, I think the expression originated in the development of the fart lighting contest. It’s similar to “Gentlemen, start your engines!”

  213. 213.

    myiq2xu

    January 1, 2008 at 11:38 am

    Let Molly settle this:

    “The Israelis and the Palestinians are not condemned to some eternal hell where they have to kill each other forever.”

    s/The Infamous myiq2xu

  214. 214.

    The Other Steve

    January 1, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Lates Des Moines Register poll shows Obama surging.

    Apparently the internals on the poll are different then previous years. There are way more independents than ever before.

    This may mean the poll is questionable, or it might mean that Obama has attracted a large number of independents who show up to vote.

    Won’t know until thursday. Anyway, party at my house. BYOB.

  215. 215.

    Asti

    January 1, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    In 2008 several states said “NO! WE ARE GOING TO BE FIRST!” and moved their dates up.

    Iowa and New Hampshire responded by moving their dates forward as well. I don’t know about Iowa, but New Hampshire waited until like a month ago to announce their date, just to make certain nobody else changed theirs.

    Thus far all this ranting and raving about Iowa we’ve had for the past 4 years has resulted in a even more fucked up system.

    Don’t you think maybe it’s time to drop the OCD and look at something else?

    Because one change was made and it failed means all change fails? Really TOS, is that all you have?

    OCD? What OCD? Care to explain how you think you know so much about me?

  216. 216.

    Asti

    January 1, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    For those of you who don’t want to review the thread, I called the Palestinians “crazy people” in my 8:58 pm post, and have always decried their insane “God gave us this land” bullshit. My longest seige here on this subject back in 2006 began with that very notion, IIRC. Steve is full of crap, and knows it.

    Actually TZ, the Palestinians don’t say “God gave us this land” they say “we were here first”. The Israelis are the only ones saying “God gave us this land”.

  217. 217.

    ThymeZone

    January 1, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Despite a bad cold, I continue to labor in the vineyards to bring you the latest and most important information:

    Americans think present primary system sucks.

    Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.

    “I think they should take turns, maybe take it to a small state like Rhode Island that doesn’t have a whole lot of voting power,” Thomas said.

    Both states have been criticized as unrepresentative of the country given their size and lack of racial diversity. Iowa — population 3 million — is 95 percent white; New Hampshire — population 1.3 million — is 96 percent white. Democrats tried to inject more diversity into the process by adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina, but Iowa and New Hampshire moved even earlier.

    As usual, TOS is completely, utterly and absolutely full of shit. I move that he be banned from this blog, he is just totally out of step with America. If you come here and express mainstream American opinion, The Other Shithead will say you are “harping and whining.”

    Why do we need this fool here?

    Oh, I know: demi needs a lawyer, he is too verklempt to defend himself.

  218. 218.

    Dug Jay

    January 1, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    ThymeZone – It is fairly obvious that an unsophisticated Philistine (such as you) is incapable of grasping the concept of “irony.” But then I guess that’s often a problem for those living in second class trailer parks in one of the poorer sections of Phoenix. On the other hand, I gather that in those circumstances you can have more success with your bullying tactics on the elder residents.

  219. 219.

    myiq2xu

    January 1, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    Dug Jay Says:

    ThymeZone – It is fairly obvious that an unsophisticated Philistine (such as you) is incapable of grasping the concept of “irony.” But then I guess that’s often a problem for those living in second class trailer parks in one of the poorer sections of Phoenix. On the other hand, I gather that in those circumstances you can have more success with your bullying tactics on the elder residents.

    C’mon Jaybird, is that your best shot? Are you trying to make TZ laugh himself to death? Why not say “Your mother’s an astronaut” or something really clever?

    s/ The Notorious myiq2xu

  220. 220.

    The Other Steve

    January 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Democrats tried to inject more diversity into the process by adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina, but Iowa and New Hampshire moved even earlier.

    Notice how reality strikes a stinky blow against the pigheadedness of the TZ.

    As usual, TOS is completely, utterly and absolutely full of shit.

    Ok, let me ask. Let’s say two other states were first. Which two states? Who decides? Why do we have to change them every cycle?

    I surely don’t want California and Arizona being first. We’ll end up with some nutjob being favored. The evil love child of Richard Nixon and Kerri Strug.

    But again, how does any of this matter, if Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t treated by the media as the golden states one must win to win it all? Why do you continue to ignore this point?

  221. 221.

    The Other Steve

    January 1, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Because one change was made and it failed means all change fails? Really TOS, is that all you have?

    OCD? What OCD? Care to explain how you think you know so much about me?

    The obesssion with which state goes first.

  222. 222.

    Asti

    January 1, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    The obesssion with which state goes first.

    I don’t have an obsession with which state goes first. Apparently you have an obsession with holding onto the status quo though, even though it doesn’t work very well.

  223. 223.

    LiberalTarian

    January 1, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Hm. Guess I was missing out on the flame wars.

    Re anti-Semitism, I was listening to a debate of sorts on NPR recently (re The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt) where Mearsheimer was defending his theory against a crusty old Zionist (and boy was he crusty). Unfortunately, I can’t find the name of old crusty (in the short time I am willing to look) because the debate was on an affiliate station. But, old crusty’s argument was basically that the premise of the book was completely wrong because *all* Jewish people in the US do not lobby DC on the behalf of Israel, and so, all Jews are maligned and therefore Mearsheimer is anti-Semitic. The fallacies were flying thick and furious, and when a fallacious argument was not enough to carry the day shear volume and hatefulness were introduced to destroy any semblance of discussion. Old crusty’s vitriol did not win the debate for him, but I don’t think he was trying to win on his arguments intellectual merits; he was trying to win based on prejudice. In that regard, he probably succeeded with his intended audience, but I left off feeling that the like of old crusty having undue influence in DC is a Bad Thing.

    I much preferred to spend a week doing fumigation research in strawberry fields with an Israeli post-doc and a Palestinian PI, listening to them argue about who suffered most from the war-torn culture there. “I was 19 when I first held a machine gun,” countered by “Oh? I was 13 when I first started throwing rocks at tanks.” It was an odd and strained friendship, yet it was still a friendship. I didn’t get a better sense of who was more correct, but clearly the underlying problems run deep. Ag research is interesting that way, because we still try to grow crops even when the culture is thick with the threat of war and war itself.

    So, do y’all grow crops during y’all’s flame war??

  224. 224.

    The Other Steve

    January 1, 2008 at 9:35 pm

    I don’t have an obsession with which state goes first. Apparently you have an obsession with holding onto the status quo though, even though it doesn’t work very well.

    Changing the order of the states won’t make any difference there. As long as the nomination is determined through a caucus or primary system, it will favor serial panderers.

  225. 225.

    Tim F.

    January 2, 2008 at 9:43 am

    I much preferred to spend a week doing fumigation research in strawberry fields with an Israeli post-doc and a Palestinian PI, listening to them argue about who suffered most from the war-torn culture there. “I was 19 when I first held a machine gun,” countered by “Oh? I was 13 when I first started throwing rocks at tanks.” It was an odd and strained friendship, yet it was still a friendship.

    Reminds me of the old black-Jewish arguments we used to have over whose people had it worse.

  226. 226.

    Grumpy Code Monkey

    January 2, 2008 at 10:43 am

    But since McCain seems like the only candidate with[out] some glaring disqualification hanging over his head

    I know it’s old news to people, but I still can’t get past his role in the Lincoln S&L fiasco (being one of the Keating Five). Granted, we’re grading on a curve here, and old-fashioned corruption and greed is pretty far down in the noise this time around.

    I seriously believe that the GOP is deliberately taking a dive this year because they don’t want to clean up Commander Decider Guy’s shit.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Edwards is lookin’ good in New Hampshire « The sayings of Uncle Vinny says:
    December 31, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    […] Edwards is lookin’ good in New Hampshire Published December 31, 2007 Uncategorized Tags: iowa caucus Tim F. at Balloon Juice wonders something I’ve been wondering: Shouldn’t we be talking a lot about Iowan’s 2nd choices for the upcoming caucuses? The polls out of Iowa usually report who voters intend to caucus for, with Hillary or Obama in the lead, and Edwards coming semi-close behind. But in a caucus, if your candidate doesn’t make the first round, you have to fall back to your 2nd choice, and put your votes there. […]

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Soprano2 on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:34pm)
  • Brachiator on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:34pm)
  • Chief Oshkosh on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:33pm)
  • Soprano2 on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:33pm)
  • UncleEbeneezer on Campaigns, cash and poorly attached voters (Apr 15, 2024 @ 2:31pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!