Inspiring

Because more of the same, only harder, is kind of like change too.

(Viia Mojoblog. If you haven't seen the original, see here. And remember, "Your favorite candidate sucks" (via).

Comments

[JessicaR]

And we've got nobody to blame but ourselves if it's more of the same come November. I'm very tired of all of this, but I can't relax because the Dem's have an uncanny knack for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[Drak Pope]

Why do people like this man so much? Yeah, he's a shade more charismatic than Mr. Bush, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of his oratory, and his politics look like a slightly more cowardly version of those espoused by his colleagues Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Romney. But for some reason the conservatives who support the latter two seem to despise Mr. McCain, but the moderates who you'd think would go for someone a little bit closer to the center seem to actually be his base. This does not make any sense.

[Anna]

Hee. Heeheehee. I like this video!

Now that McCain seems to have sewn up the Repub nomination, I actually hope Obama wins (I'm indifferent between Clinton and Obama's politics). He's already cast himself as the change candidate, and him against McCain will make it clear just how like Bush McCain can be. Seriously, I do not understand his appeal to Repubs. I know that fundies have Issues with him, and I'm not sure that economic conservatives should like him much either, since his economic policy is pretty much 'What Bush is doing... some more', and we see how well that's worked out for the first eight years. I'm sort of with Drak Pope in wondering what his base is, but whatever. It's not like I'll be voting for him, so I suppose it's okay that his popularity continues to mystify me.

[not_scottbot]

McCain appeals to a certain type of Republican - the type that knows exactly what the Keating Five were doing, and is looking forward to having such a fine, upstanding senator become the man running the show during times that will make the S&L crisis look as penny ante as Phoenix scrubland.

[Robb]

Aside from his views on the war, McCain is actually quite sensible - the fact that he's spit in the face of anti-immigrant Nazis and Jerry Falwell alike both make me look at the guy with a lot of respect (to say nothing of the POW thing). When I lived in AZ, I voted for him for senator, because above all, he's pragmatic. Yeah, he's old, and yeah, he's hopelessly out of touch with a lot of the country, but he's also hopelessly out of touch with "traditional conservatism" - because he knows it's broken. I don't think he has the right view of the war, but I respect his rationale: don't do it half assed, and accomplish something.

Let's not kid ourselves: as bad as he might be, if John McCain was elected back in 2000, we'd be much better off than we are with G. Dub.

BTW the original Obama video annoys me: it's just too frakkin' long. The parody above is great because it's got the same rhythm as the original, but stops before it gets repetitive. I'd much rather just hear Obama speak.

[Robb]

And before I'm accused of being a McCain supporter this round - this past saturday, I caucused for Obama - and got elected to be a delegate. I'm not going to think I'll make it to the national convention, but I really would like to hear him speak live. Y'know, to feel firsthand what anti-Christ mojo is like.

; )

[Boze]

heeheehee, Rob

[Dennis]

"Let's not kid ourselves: as bad as he might be, if John McCain was elected back in 2000, we'd be much better off than we are with G. Dub."

I don't want to accuse you of being a McCain supporter, but I feel like that comment warrants a response. First of all, that's setting the bar REALLY low. Second, the McCain in 2000 is a lot different than McCain in 2008. With the platform that he's running on now, I'm not convinced that I'd rather have McCain than four more years of Bush (implications of him having to break the law to do that and setting himself up to be dictator for life aside that is, if any of that makes sense).

[MikeJ]

McCain proves that there's only one way to make a republican be against torture.

When do we start?

[Toby]

I just about fell out of my chair at the ending of that video.

***

Robb: Aside from his views on the war, McCain is actually quite sensible - the fact that he's spit in the face of anti-immigrant Nazis and Jerry Falwell alike

Spit in Falwell's face, or march shoulder to shoulder with him (probably not goose-stepping, though one can never be sure).

[Noah Brand]

Look, it really is pretty simple. For most right-wingers, the best solution is that which involves killing the most Others. People from foreign countries are by definition Others, but you can fill in whatever Other works best at any given moment.

This is startlingly consistent across a lot of issues--it even explains the way they read history. Any course of action that involves killing few or no Others is inferior to any course of action that involves killing many Others. It's why anyone affiliated with the military is automatically better and wiser than anyone not so affiliated: the military's job (as they understand it) consists entirely of killing Others, so they're automatically more good in all ways. Of course, should any member of the military come out against any killing of Others, they automatically forfeit their status.

And that's why McCain. Huckabee promises to force religion on the heathens, Romney promises to give the rich full access to your orifices, but McCain promises to kill Others and just keep killing them and killing them and killing them until there's nothing left but Us. And that's their core value.

[julia]

the fact that he's spit in the face of anti-immigrant Nazis and Jerry Falwell alike both make me look at the guy with a lot of respect

He not only went hat in hand to Falwell, he went hat in hand to Bob Jones University. Bob Jones University was behind the smears about his wife and daughter in SC. The smears about his record came from George Bush, and they're waltzing partners now.

[cjmr's husband]

"Let's not kid ourselves: as bad as he might be, if John McCain was elected back in 2000, we'd be much better off than we are with G. Dub."

See also: every other republican or democrat running in 2000 and 2004. This is NOT a strong recommendation.

But yes, I agree that almost all of the country's current problems can be blamed on the "McCain's Black Baby" mailing. (Wait till they find out that Obama has one too!)

[Vendor Xeno]

In general, I tend to agree that of the GOP candidates this year Republican voters have inexpicably decided to vote for the best of several absolutely terrible options. However, I have my doubts about McCain being notably better, as a president, than Bush simply because for the past eight years anytime one of the 'heads' of the GOP, such as a Rove or a Cheney, has snapped the whip, McCain has fallen right back into line. Ultimately, it seems that he does what he's told to do.

His stumbling attempts to appeal to the 'conservative' base have lead him to start saying and doing stupid things like this. As a result, Obama's looking better and better every day. The, "hey, I can avoid making a complete idiot of myself for weeks in a row!" candidate...

[Tonio]

I was sorely disappointed to see McCain suck up to the religious right back in 2006. Has he been continuing to do so? Although he himself seems much better than Huckabee, my concern is that he would be so desperate for support that he would promise the religious right free rein to tear down the church/state wall. Saying that McCain is preferable to Huckabee implies that a Democrat cannot win this November.

[Robb]

@ Toby & julia

I see what you're saying, but he's running for president as a Republican - do you really think he could continue his rhetoric against fundies & expect hardcore conservative support? It's shortsighted to ignore all the political factors involve - he's got to forget/ignore any slights against him and make nice about any comments he made in the past. You read the first line of that article you linked to, right Toby? I think he was speaking his mind back then, and if he was going to kow-tow to them, it's only because he knows he needs the support of the religious right. As I said, he's pragmatic, if not opportunistic (though he's still not quite the flip flopper Romney is/was).

And I still say McCain would have been far better to have than Bush: a Republican who A) doesn't think Global Warming is bullshit, B) doesn't think it's practical to do anything for immigrants but allow them to work here, and C) actually served & spent years participating in the military he'd be commanding/sacrificing?

McCain is facing problems with conservative support because he is not in lock step with the party and the right wing in general. That doesn't absolve him of the wrongs he is committed to (or of his compliance with Repubz on many issues), but I think he should be commended for making up his own mind in more instances than any other Repub.

[Jeff]

I see what you're saying, but he's running for president as a Republican - do you really think he could continue his rhetoric against fundies & expect hardcore conservative support?

He's got the wins he has by defying the hardcore conservatives and the "religious" right. He'd be an idiot to turn back to them now that he has the nomination pretty much sewn up. But he is a Republican, so....

[Tonio]

He's got the wins he has by defying the hardcore conservatives and the "religious" right. He'd be an idiot to turn back to them now that he has the nomination pretty much sewn up. But he is a Republican, so....

Whether he wins or loses, I expect some realignment of the GOP. A McCain victory may result in the party moving closer to the center, like Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 giving a boost to Democratic Leadership Council-type centrism. A McCain loss might be seen as a defeat of his type of conservatism, increasing the party's dominance by reactionaries and Real True Christians.

[Robb]

A McCain loss might be seen as a defeat of his type of conservatism, increasing the party's dominance by reactionaries and Real True Christians.

I don't think so - only the blowhards on the order of Limbaugh, may his girth increase to his own doom, are going to be so stupidly unaware of how America has changed. Sure, Dobson, Robertson, and their ilk will protest & bemoan the change, but they're McCain's age. By the time Obama is running for reelection, they'll be mostly dead, if not all dead. And if Obama is half the president he promises to be, the new leaders of the Right will have to change their tactics big time.

Yeah, that's right, I'm declaring Obama the presumptive Dem nominee - whaddya gonna do 'bout it?

At the risk of repeating what others have said (and more eloquently): I used to like McCain, or at least admire him; he seemed critical of Bush's policies and wasn't afraid to voice them. (It could be I didn't pay enough attention.)

Hell, wasn't he the same fellow who called Robertson and Falwell "agents of intolerance"? And then he basically took back his words when he spoke at Falwell University -- can't think of the actual campus name.

And then, of course, I kept seeing that same image of him nuzzling Bush's breast as if to say: "Don't hurt me, daddy; I'm a good little boy." And that's my ha'penny.

[Abelardus]

The above comment at 12:16 was mine.

[Tonio]

Sure, Dobson, Robertson, and their ilk will protest & bemoan the change, but they're McCain's age. By the time Obama is running for reelection, they'll be mostly dead, if not all dead.

I'm suggesting that the younger RTCs will take over the GOP and drive the MODs to the DEMs or to a 3RD party. (Stop me before I acronym again!)

[Robb]

Stop me before I acronym again!

Um. . . STFU?

(Naw, that's too rude)

How 'bout (in continuance with the McCain theme): STOP - Straight Talk Only, Please

: P

[Geds]

MODs to the DEMs or to a 3RD party. (Stop me before I acronym again!)

Those aren't technically acronyms...

[Spalanzani]

Geds: "Those aren't technically acronyms..."

DBSAGDNP

[Geds]

QZHGTYAPID

See? I can make up letter combinations, too...

[Eric B.]

Well, I voted for McCain in my caucus. Part of it is that the Republican choices haven't been particulary inspiring (I mean, Guiliani, Huckabee, Romeny??) So, in some ways, it's the "lesser of 5 or 6 evils. But, I also think that if he were elected, he would be the least prone to the "go it alone" strategy that's hurt us over the past few years, which I really like about him. All that said, if the general election were held today, I would most likely elect Obama over him, and I'm 50/50 between he and Clinton right now.

[Keith]

Yeah, that's right, I'm declaring Obama the presumptive Dem nominee - whaddya gonna do 'bout it?

Clap my hands like a little girl who got the pony.

***
But, I also think that if he were elected, he would be the least prone to the "go it alone" strategy that's hurt us over the past few years, which I really like about him.

And you say this with a presumably straight face after his little "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" ditty?

I understand the predicament Republicans are in this time around but really, after supporting Bush twice, my general response to anyone still supporting the GOP (not that you are, Eric B; this is towards the GOP True Believers out there) is to say, "Suck it up and deal."

You could have had McCain eight years ago when he was still principled and sane. Now your choices are crazy McCain or Mike Huckabee.

Somewhere, there's a bed you made. Perhaps you'd like to lie in it now?

[Jeff]

I'm 50/50 between he and Clinton right now

So you want to attack Iran? You want to continue the same stupid policies of the last 8 years?

Clinton is beholden to the Party machinery, and to Wall Street, but Mr "Straight Talk" sold his soul to defeat the return of habeus corpus. He talks a good game on torture, but he has yet to do a damn thing about it.

I'll be sad and disappointed if Obama loses to Clinton, but you can bet I'll vote for her over any of the scum running on the R ticket.

[Spalanzani]

DBSAGDNP=Don't Be Such A God Damn Nit Picker

[Spalanzani]

Geds: "QZHGTYAPID"

Let's see...Questions Zarathrustra Had God Tell Yahweh After Paradise Instantly Disappeared...?

[Geds]

Let's see...Questions Zarathrustra Had God Tell Yahweh After Paradise Instantly Disappeared...?

I feel a Wikipedia entry coming on...

[Eric B.]

No, I don't want to attack Iran. That's part of the reason I'm not sold on McCain at this point (but again, during the primaries, he looks much better than Huckabee, Romney, et al). As for Clinton, 50/50 against McCain is a far cry from "No way in hell I would vote for her" that I was at 3 months ago. I gotta admit, she's growing on me. But, I'm not yet sold on her either.

[Tonio]

What do you think of this column?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/02/a_very_undead_christian_right.html

[Tonio]

I'll try it again - A Very Undead Christian Right

[Jeff]

OT:

2 great columns by Marc Porter Zasada:
My Old Friend Marcus Martialis on "Are We Rome?" from the viewpoint of an interesting poet of the day; and Little Paper masks about the hidden costs of replacing a hardwood floor.

Zasada writes great little essays, even when I don't agree with his assessments of LA (mostly because he hangs with a different crowd that I EVER would).

[Lauren]

I'll try it again - A Very Undead Christian Right --Tonio

I was expecting more zombies.

[hapax]

What, Dick Nixon, Billy Graham, and their unholy legions in the Campus Crusade for Cthulhu aren't enough of a zombie army for you?

They're coming to eat our BRRRAAAIIIINNNNNSSSS!!!!!!

[Doctor Science]

OT:

I just heard about "anti-contemplative" Christians. They are exposing the dangers of contemplative spirituality and how it can lead to New Age-ism and other mushy-minded practices. Jesus was no mystic! No listening to a still, small voice for Him, no sir!

Yeah, I couldn't believe it either.

[Anna]

Tonio: the article you linked was interesting to me, because it seemed to have ideas similar to what I've long been convinced of: the Dems underestimate the link between the politics taking place in the church, and the politics of the people who attend the church. When the Southern Baptist Convention's leadership took a turn towards the batshit fundamental in the late 1990s, the effect was a consolidation of ultra-conservative political power unlike anything the country had seen before. Why? Because all of a sudden, every graduate of SBC seminaries was an ultra-conservative, who preached ultra-conservative messages every week to parishioners. I think that we'll see the religious right as a voting block break down only when the SBC's leadership gets recycled back towards real moderation. Repubs have figured out this link, and have financed candidates for President of the Convention through donations from big-money political conservatives for several years. Dems haven't grasped the link yet, and therefore aren't being effective in combating one of the main sources of Republican rhetoric. The Convention is *slowly* turning back towards the moderate side on its own, but that process will take years (especially when it's hampered by Republicn tinkering). The Dems would be wise to pay closer attention to what's going on in the politics of the church, because that's the best way to affect the church's ability to game elections.

[Eric B.]

I found the article to be fairly interesting. I work in college campus ministry (not with campus crusade, but with a group that would be conservative theologically). I'm finding a trend, at least with young evangelicals (freshman to sophomore) is that they aren't as likely to be right wing politcally. In fact, I'm finding them to be about 50-50 between Obama and Huckabee, so what that means in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure, because while it seems to indicate a shift, I don't know to what extent it will play out in November (since the only "empirical" study I did was a glance of my student's facebook profiles).

[Tonio]

The Convention is *slowly* turning back towards the moderate side on its own, but that process will take years (especially when it's hampered by Republicn tinkering). The Dems would be wise to pay closer attention to what's going on in the politics of the church, because that's the best way to affect the church's ability to game elections.

I hope the process happens soon, because the SBC's apparent agenda for the last two decades has been inherently hostile to political and intellectual freedom.

[Geds]

I work in college campus ministry (not with campus crusade, but with a group that would be conservative theologically).

InterVarsity?

[Lee Ratner]

Noah, I'm not a fan of right-wing politics either but what you wrote was
simply hyperbolic. Yes, militarism and xenophobia are certain attractions to
many groups on the right but you can level the same complaint against groups
on the left. You can say that many leftists are attracted to communism because
it gives them an opportunity to kill the other of the left, the middle and upper
classes. Hyperbole is not the best way to make an argument.

[Noah Brand]

With respect, Lee, apart from my last sentences and their snarky implication of genocide, I'm not being hyperbolic. I don't for a second believe that right-wingers consciously think "Who will kill the most human beings that I do not identify with?" but I do think that's their subconscious decision-making principle. For example, ALL of the Republican candidates, when asked to name their favorite Democratic president from the 20th century, named Truman. That's Marshall Plan Truman, New Deal-continuing Truman, Truman who took down war profiteers and thought Joe McCarthy was crazy. They all picked a guy who opposed every single political viewpoint they claim to hold. Why? Because Truman also dropped two atomic bombs on foreigners, and that trumps everything else.

Capital punishment is openly acknowledged to be more expensive and wasteful than life imprisonment, and likewise acknowledged to provide no deterrent to crime. Why do they still advocate it? Killing Others. The Vietnam War is known to be a colossal folly based on a lie that accomplished nothing, but they still defend it. Why? Killed a million or so Others. We've known for decades that "getting tough on crime" has no effect on crime, but it's still a winning slogan. Why? Killing Others.

For rank-and-file right-wingers, there is a moral comfort in the thought of ending the lives of people-who-are-not-us, and that moral comfort drives their decisions on a level they are not aware of. The opinions they hold and the decisions they make bear this theory out.

[Tonio]

For rank-and-file right-wingers, there is a moral comfort in the thought of ending the lives of people-who-are-not-us, and that moral comfort drives their decisions on a level they are not aware of.

That is certainly the appearance and effect of their beliefs. But dig deeper, and we find that it's not just about being "tough on crime" but about being "tough" in general. This is most obvious when one listens to right-wingers in casual conversation, as opposed to the talking heads and columnists. It's really about machismo, about having "balls." A lot of them really believe that Democrats and left-wingers are wimps who advocate addressing terrorism by having the terrorists talk about their feelings like a segment of "Oprah." But I don't know the source of this desire to prove their manhood.

[Lee Ratner]

I think Tonio's machismo explanation makes more sense than the killing explanation.
Many right-wingers, especially right-wing men, do not seem to value gentleness but
they relish in conflict and harshness. Right-wing women seem to only value gentleness
and sensitivity in women. The hatred of the welfare state and anything else associated
with liberal and leftist politics is because they hate gentleness and sensitivity. It explains
why so many of them like making fun of so-called political correctness and why so many
of them advocate policies that just seem zany and stupid. Its why so many reject universal
health care and public education.

[Geds]

The Vietnam War is known to be a colossal folly based on a lie that accomplished nothing, but they still defend it. Why? Killed a million or so Others. We've known for decades that "getting tough on crime" has no effect on crime, but it's still a winning slogan. Why? Killing Others.

Actually, there's a perfectly good and logical explanation of these things that doesn't have anything to do with killing anybody. It's a notion in gambling known as "throwing good money after bad." Psychologically speaking, people are programmed to keep buying in to things that they've already invested in, even if it's long past the point where it makes sense. So the person who's still in favor of the Vietnam War or Iraq has to keep believing in it or risk acknowledging that they did something stupid/made a mistake/aren't perfect.

The best example is from those horrid Freedom's Watch commercials that were on TV about six months to a year ago. They'd trot out some Iraq veteran who'd lost his legs and his mother and they'd offer a tearful explanation about how important it was to stay the course. It was entirely based on, "I lost my legs, but I'd go back again if I could because it was really important." What they're actually saying is, "I want it to be important because otherwise I lost my legs for no damn good reason."

Unfortunately, the only way to assuage someone in that position is to agree with them. They don't realize that they could have a much more lasting impact and really make the loss of their legs worthwhile if they said, "I lost my legs. We need to get out of Iraq and not make that mistake again so that no one else has to go through what I went through." Because otherwise the person who's trying to perpetuate something to give his or her own suffering only adds to the suffering of someone else.

Of course, if we learned anything from how John Kerry was treated in 2004 for protesting the Vietnam War after he got home, it's that it's much better for your career to perpetuate stupidity than to stop it.

[Keith]

Yes, militarism and xenophobia are certain attractions to many groups on the right but you can level the same complaint against groups on the left.

Cite your sources, please. I'd really like to meet these militant, xenophobic lefties.

Bonus points if they say somethign to the effect of, "Fascist! You will eat organically grown, fare trade tofu!"

[Robb]

I don't for a second believe that right-wingers consciously think "Who will kill the most human beings that I do not identify with?" but I do think that's their subconscious decision-making principle.

Wow, generalize much? Seriously, how do you know that? It is unquestionably true that there are people that think this way, but that's true of any ideology. Have you thought about killing Republicans and just assumed that they thought about killing whatever other people as well?

That kind of harsh assumption about the motivations of others is very dangerous, because that is exactly the kind of shit that leads to preemptive action. "Let's kill all the Republicans now, before they start another genocide". . . that's the next logical step from what you're saying.