Cartoon link*UPDATE 1:57pm MST: Schadenfreude Watch: Remember our post last week about the coming Clinton-Obama storm? Drudge has a taste of things to come: War Over Words: Clinton Team Accuses Obama of 'Plagiarism''
**UPDATE 2:45pm MST: Like us, Mark Steyn doesn't like Che Guevara. Jeff Jacoby doesn't either. You Say You Want A Revolution by Mark Steyn (worth reading in its entirety):
Do Obama’s volunteers even know who Che is? Apart from being a really cool guy on posters and T-shirts, like James Dean or Bart Simpson, I doubt it. They’re pseudo-revolutionaries. Very few people in America want a real revolution: Life is great, this is a terrific country, with unparalleled economic opportunities. To be sure, it’s a tougher break if you have the misfortune to be the victim of one of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs or a decrepit inner-city grade school with a higher per-student budget than the wealthiest parts of Switzerland. But even so, to be born a U.S. citizen is, as Cecil Rhodes once said of England, to win first prize in the lottery of life. Not even Obama supporters want real revolution: They’re messy, your cities get torched, the economy collapses, much of your talent flees. Ask the many peoples around the world for whom revolution means not a lame-o Sixties poster above your desk but the carnage and horror of the day before yesterday.Ah, but revolutionaries are so romantic.
***UPDATE 4:14pm MST: Michael Barone on the electoral implications of upcoming Democratic primaries and caucuses. Interesting stuff, this:
The Democrats, in contrast, have been split on demographic lines, between blacks and Latinos, old and young, upscale and downscale. The delegate selection rules, based on their notion of fairness, are heading the party not to a clear outcome but to a conflict in which the losing side is likely to feel profoundly aggrieved.Where/how will it end? Regarding Michigan and Florida, should the rules change now the vote is done? Voters in those states knew the election rules--they'd been well-publicized. Wouldn't it have changed the outcome if they knew their votes would count (remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan)? It isn't as cut and dry (Spikers) as simple disenfranchisement of the Michigan and Florida voters (count 'em!); there's a lot more to it. Do you want the courts to resolve this?
****UPDATE 5:14pm MST: This blog--obamamessiah.blogspot.com--does a better job of tracking the religious nature of Obama's campaign than we do.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
17 comments:
This political cartoon is unoriginal and non-clever. The Kool-aid generic criticism can be leveled at any followers of an idea. It is non-clever because the basic premise can work for any of the candidates with a few minor tweaks. Unless of course there's something I'm missing... Hmmmmm, well I guess it is interesting that the cartoonist chose to show only white males in the crowd, and before I task the Administrator for an explanation of his decision to post this crap, I open the comments section to his readers and ask them to explain why this criticism would be leveled only at white males. After all, aren't there women and non-whites supporting Obama, and consuming the Kool-aid?
Anyone?
Anyone?
And regarding the Shadenfreude, another commenter recently noted that the Obama "cult" garbage possibly originated from the Hillary camp. If that's true, Administrator, you're aiding and abetting. If not, please let us know where that clever little narrative came from. Some of the readers among us would be inclined to guess you took that from somewhere else, based on the ratio of quoted material to original material.
Regarding the Che t-shirts- Wow, let's characterize a candidate by a few supporters- seems rational.
Agree that a true revolution in this country would be a disaster, that's why nobody uses that word- and because it's not the goal. Thanks for trying to characterize Obama as the party for minority revolutionists. We're getting mixed signals from your posts here Administrator. (See "Whites Only" cartoon.)
Justin, IMHO, your first analysis was correct. It's a generic cartoon. I think the fact everyone is white is more a product of the cartoonist's laziness than anything else.
FWIW, I like grape kool-aid.
I must be flighty today. The political correctness of the crowd of beaming white faces took second seat to the more obvious message of the danger of crowds and movement without knowledge when I was looking the cartoon over.
I'm reminded of a candidate in 1980 who critics claimed didn't have any real substance and relied solely on speaking ability and charisma.
Ring any bells?
The Lybberts and the rest of the GOP are so irate that it is the democratic party that has the first charisma candidate since the Gipper. Boo hoo.
Irate. Are you projecting Ben? I recall a constant criticism of Gov. Romney since he declared his candidacy, with no protest by myself. Yet (and I'm repeating myself here) you and your Dems seem to think your candidate is beyond criticism. WHy does it bother you SO MUCH that he is under scrutiny?
Mr. Treasure you mean the 4 years Reagan spent 76-80 writing position papers hosting a talk radio show and giving speeches wasn't substantive or his years spent as governor of California? Do you want lybberty to give you another historical beat down? Get your facts straight dude.
I never claimed the problems posed by DNC rules in Michigan and Florida were simple. I expressly acknowledged that there are complex legal questions surrounding, what I consider, the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida and Michigan. I even went so far as to post most of opinion upholding the DNC's rules. That decision may be appealed, or the voters may have a cause of action against those who chose to set an early date for their primary election. And yes, I want the courts to decide this issue. They have already begun to do so.
I love being called out by someone too afraid to write their real name. "DMZ," I'm referring to you. Apparently sharp words can't buy backbone.
I never argued that Reagan didn't have credibility. What I did argue was that critics claimed he didn't have substance during his 1980 run for the presidency. Critics who, on the left that year, were struggling with the fact that the other side's candidate had popular support based largely on his charismatic campaign. And to reiterate my argument (again), what the Lybberts and the right-wing pundits et al are doing is just as desperate as what the left tried (and failed, for good reason) to do to Reagan in 1980. To put it in plain English for our friend here who only yells from the sidelines, hiding behind bigger people (is this a habit for you, btw?), this is a cynical argument being made against Obama and will probably not hold. And if history is a strong suit for the Lybberts, I would hope they can come up with more substantive reasons why Obama is the less preferable candidate to the likely Repub nom, Sen. Mccain.
So, "dude," I suggest you re-read my post and get your facts straight. Perhaps a pair of bi-focals would help. Also, get a dictionary so you can figure out how to address people professionally - dude doesn't really cut it, unless you're in Mesa or something. And lastly, again, find a way to grow a spine and let's talk like adults. It's hard to see where you're hiding.
I raise a glass of grape Kool-aid with Ben, Mike_D, and Jen as a toast to Wisconsin and Hawaii. Mmmmm. Delicious.
Ben, the fact that you have to resort to ad hominem attacks proves that dmz has a pretty good point.
That said, I am for using real names on here.
"Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship." New York Times.
The Administrator should provide a blogger and commenter's bill of rights and define what appropriate comments are. The definition of "threatening or libelous" would be difficult to construct. The Administrator has a right to control the comments on his blog to a certain extent, but he ought to define the limits of free speech and also anonymous speech in his realm. It would be interesting to see what rules he would see fit to enact, and I might be willing to accept a code of conduct and not scream censorship if I had accepted it.
Also Administrator, we're still waiting on something regarding your position on health care reform. Please don't just post an article, but also write your own thoughts and feelings. This is a campaign issue and it would be nice to get your take on it, given our mutual appreciation for private enterprise.
Thank you, Jody.
Matt: You are wrong.
justification?
Post a Comment