?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Ritvars [userpic]

Palingenesis

September 11th, 2008 (11:34 pm)


Supporters of Republican vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, hold up campaign signs, one of Palin as "Rosie the Riveter," as they wait in line to see Republican presidential candidate Sen., John McCain, R-Ariz., and Palin, Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2008, at a campaign rally at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa. Photo by The Associated Press When it became certain that John McCain will win the Republican nomination I sighed: my favourite was Fred Thompson, that man with a potato-like nose who has played the President of the US in some movies. McCain looked too much of RINO.
When a time was closing to choose the VP candidate, I browsed eventual names and stopped on Sarah Palin as would-be American Iron Lady. But thought that McCain will take Mitt Romney, a safe choice to beat Joe Biden.
When McCain announced Sarah Palin I sighed again - but with a relief this time. In a week, my relief turned into delight as Palin besides of having the right opinion turned out to be an ignitor for the Republican side in general. An anger, hysterics and incredible make-believes about her are the best evidence how desperate the Democrat camp is now. And it's not just wishful thinking of mine, look on markets - for the first time, Intrade prediction market rates McCain-Palin ticket higher than Obama-Biden.
Barring something extraordinary, the next campaign stop will be candidate debates in the late September and October. Previous showing suggests Republicans might win them too.

Comments

Posted by: sidewiththeseed (sidewiththeseed)
Posted at: September 11th, 2008 09:36 pm (UTC)

I'm curious, why would you willing vote for proven liars?

Posted by: Ritvars (ritvars)
Posted at: September 12th, 2008 10:22 am (UTC)

I'm not willing vote for liars who doctor even their hair. I support those who bring the right economic, moral and international policies. And in matters that concern Latvians (read Russia) McCain-Palin stance is more realistic and fruitful.

Posted by: garage_kubrick (garage_kubrick)
Posted at: September 13th, 2008 10:04 am (UTC)

ritvars snarked: "Phew. Steinem's anger at woman who dares to hold a different opinion is pathetic."

The instant you RWA's get a taste of genuine opposition you go all weak-sister on us. If you're not slinging some quaint colloquialism about lipstick & farm animals out one side of your pie holes, you're whining about Dems using the same phrase in a different context and then LYING about what they meant by it. One minute you're chortling amongst yourselves about how Dems are a bunch of candy-asses who won't stay in a fight, the next you're mewling for all to hear about how the mean, godless, gay-loving, treehugger liberals punched you in the face.

From what I can surmise you're a citizen of Latvia. I'm not sure what kind of crumbs you expect to drop your way from a McCain/Palin banquet table, but be advised that to the GOP, all Europe appears as one giant theme park, with its population as the effete, elitist minimum-wage ride operators and tour guides. Don't say I didn't warn you.

For the past seven years we Americans have watched as an installed President has stocked his administration with incompetent cronies, ignored repeated warnings of immanent attack by terrorists, used that attack to declare unlawful war against a sovereign nation (unrelated in any material way to 9/11), stood by ineffectually while a major American city drowned, illegally spied on American citizens, subverted the writ of Habeas Corpus, weakened laws protecting endangered species, undermined laws protecting the environment, and dismissed The U.S. Constitution as "a goddamn piece of paper".

He has presided over a sinking economy and an exploding cost of living, while borrowing money from China to finance a pathological exercise in 'Nation Building', a practice he opposed until taking office. He has done this under a self-proclaimed aegis of moral and religious rectitude. He has flagrantly tossed thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives into the abattoir of war, explaining by way of justification: "God told me to".

What he has actually done is this: he has wiped his ass on our Flag and our Constitution.

Now we behold the spectacle of McCain (or Rove, more likely) defibrillating his flat-lining campaign with the selection of yet another inexperienced, cronyist, fundamentalist Christianist as his running mate. Someone with a clear agenda of not only continuing Bush 43's insane policies but expanding upon them. Someone chosen not for her expertise, not for her knowledge, but for the simple fact that she might mobilize an army of evangelist foot soldiers that otherwise would have left McCain dead at the starting line.

So now we stare down the barrel of another four year re-enactment of the past eight years, because these '18 Million Crack' Moms suddenly see a fellow religious zealot with which they can identify, and their husbands see someone they can safely ogle. Unable to campaign on the issues, the GOP goes out and gets themselves a Personality; we are then informed that this election is no longer about issues, but about personality.

Just reflect on this for a moment: for a hideously large number of our citizenry, this highest office of our land, this crucial one-third of our governing body, this solemn post of public service... could possibly be decided NOT by what the candidates have or have not achieved during their political careers, NOT by what they intend to accomplish or how they intend to do so, but by their Personality.

This is the gutter into which our political process has been dumped.

Keep all of this in mind, ritvars, when you glibly toss the word 'anger' at our feet.

But one man's hope is another's worst-case scenario; my hope is that, by now, enough of my fellow countrymen are no longer as easily conned as the GOP is wagering.

My hope is that my first waking thought on November fifth is "thank God", and that yours is "oh God, why?".

P.S. I actually let you off easy here, because I had to edit this down to fit the 4300 character limit; feel free to read the unedited post on my page. Drop more comment turds if you like; contrary to popular perception, we lefties love a good fight.

Posted by: Ritvars (ritvars)
Posted at: September 15th, 2008 07:09 pm (UTC)

Thank You for a response. Who'd think my few words would generate such a vehement reply.
As for your harsh criticism of the present US administration I strongly suspect the most of your compatriots are of a different opinion - Bush got elected for the 2nd term furthermore with an increased support.
As for me, there is room for improvement of your mind-reading abilities. If "Right-wing authoritarianism" is defined by agreement to statement "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us" I respectfully disagree on at least three counts (no need for a mighty leader, new ways shouldn't be destroyed, disowning a notion of sinfulness). A further reading shows that supposedly "right-wing" authoritarianism more rather fits Soviet Union and other Socialist regimes not evil Bush and his bloodhounds. Anyway sticking political labels to scientific terms is an indication of junk science.

Posted by: garage_kubrick (garage_kubrick)
Posted at: September 16th, 2008 08:19 pm (UTC)

Thank You for a response. Who'd think my few words would generate such a vehement reply.

I gladly accept your characterization of my reply. I’ll take vehemence over apathy any day.

As for your harsh criticism of the present US administration I strongly suspect the most of your compatriots are of a different opinion -

Your suspicion might prove correct, but only if you are able to somehow quantify 31% of my compatriots as “most” of my compatriots.

Bush got elected for the 2nd term furthermore with an increased support.

By a +2.5% margin in 2004, up from a -0.5% in 2000. Yep. That’s a whole lot of 'increased support'.

If "Right-wing authoritarianism" is defined by agreement to statement "Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us"-

It isn’t defined by any such agreement. It’s the measurement and description of a correlating set of attitudes and behaviors. What you are parroting above is one of the sampling questions used to establish a given personality on the RWA scale. Nice effort at redefining the conversation, though; Schopenhauer would be proud.

I respectfully disagree on at least three counts (no need for a mighty leader, new ways shouldn't be destroyed, disowning a notion of sinfulness).

So:


  • you support McCain-Palin (or rather, Palin-McCain)
  • you support Bush-Cheney
  • you seek to discredit not only the concept of climate change but also that of environmentalism itself
  • you denigrate “homophiles” and “sodomites” (you know, those ‘putrid’ Americans, not the good ones like Sarah Palin)
  • you malign feminists like Gloria Steinem


…but:

  • you don’t see a need for an authority figure
  • you feel that ‘new ways’ (environmentalism? feminism?) “shouldn’t be destroyed”
  • you disown the notion of sinfulness (you slander gays as being ‘putrid’ for reasons other than religious)


Okay, okay… if you say so. Sounds like a fit of cognitive dissonance just waiting to happen.

A further reading shows that supposedly "right-wing" authoritarianism more rather fits Soviet Union and other Socialist regimes not evil Bush and his bloodhounds.

Authoritarianism scales all the way to the Left, as well. Stalin would’ve rated as a high LWA. So would Castro. So would Pol Pot. Guess what? The American Left had no use for them either. By the way, Bush is apparently very popular in today’s Russian Federation.

Anyway sticking political labels to scientific terms is an indication of junk science.

By all means, feel free to mistake decades of research by peer-reviewed sociologists and behavioral psychologists for junk science. While you’re at it, don’t forget to endorse Creationism, of which your favored candidate is a major proponent.

Posted by: Ritvars (ritvars)
Posted at: September 18th, 2008 09:40 pm (UTC)

May I remind, after four years of doing all the evil things You mention, Bush got almost 12mio more votes and was elected with a percentage no Democrat has seen since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. If You try to counter it with some polls, first, make an effort to find some fresh data and, second, compare Bush rating to that of Democrat-controlled Congress.

By the way, Bush is apparently very popular in today’s Russian Federation.

As popular as arch-enemy can be, perhaps lagging behind Saakashvili now.

Posted by: garage_kubrick (garage_kubrick)
Posted at: September 19th, 2008 04:31 pm (UTC)

"...after four years of doing all the evil things You mention-"

In other words:
'What he did up during his first term couldn't have been all that bad because he got re-elected.'

It's interesting to note that you don't actually defend his actions. You just try to brush them off as "evil things" that I "mention";
at no point do you recognize them as the truly destructive actions that he did, in fact, take.

"Bush got almost 12mio more votes and was elected with a percentage no Democrat has seen since Lyndon Johnson in 1964."

Please explain how 3,012,166 votes can become "almost 12,000,000 more votes".

Please explain how Bush's paper-thin 2.4% lead can be compared with Johnson's landslide of 22.6%.

ritvars, you're not even trying. It's you who needs to "make an effort to find data" that is not merely "fresh", but factual.

"...compare Bush rating to that of Democrat-controlled Congress".

Okay, you asked:

Bush disapproval rating: 28%
Congressional disapproval rating: 51%.

Posted by: Ritvars (ritvars)
Posted at: September 19th, 2008 07:48 pm (UTC)

Perhaps my poor English was misleading. By almost 12mio more votes I meant comparing Bush re-election to his result in 2000. And by LBJ I meant he was the last Democrat to outperform Bush in elections.

8 Read Comments