Why McCain / Palin is OK with me

Our generation was born with the gift of the U.S. Constitution.
It benefits from the wealthiest, strongest economy the world has
ever seen. It has a free press and, thanks to the internet,
access to almost unlimited amounts of information. It has open
and free elections.

With all that, AND all the clear evidence of eight years of
criminally irresponsible mismanagement by Republicans, if enough
people still vote for McCain and Palin to elect them, then those
people (and the country, frankly) will get exactly what they deserve.

Yes, the lower and middle classes will continue to decline while
the rich get richer. Yes, the country's standing in the world
will continue to sink, and its security continue to erode. But
really, folks will have asked for it. They will practically have
begged for it, willingly, fervently..... more of the same,
cynically packaged as "hockey moms" & "reform" & "shaking up
Washington".

OK. It will be tragic, sure, but in no way unjust.

- JR

On Sep 6, 10:52*am, JR wrote:
Our generation was born with the gift of the U.S. Constitution.
It benefits from the wealthiest, strongest economy the world has
ever seen. It has a free press and, thanks to the internet,
access to almost unlimited amounts of information. It has open
and free elections.

With all that, AND all the clear evidence of eight years of
criminally irresponsible mismanagement by Republicans, if enough
people still vote for McCain and Palin to elect them, then those
people (and the country, frankly) will get exactly what they deserve.

Yes, the lower and middle classes will continue to decline while
the rich get richer. Yes, the country's standing in the world
will continue to sink, and its security continue to erode. But
really, folks will have asked for it. They will practically have
begged for it, willingly, fervently..... more of the same,
cynically packaged as "hockey moms" & "reform" & "shaking up
Washington".

OK. *It will be tragic, sure, but in no way unjust.

- JR

Not unjust. The Tyranny of the masses.

Or as someone else once , people get the government they deserve.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...
Or as someone else once , people get the government they deserve.

--riverman

.....beat me to the quote, Myron. But, it's not going to happen this time.
Tom

JR wrote:
Our generation was born with the gift of the U.S. Constitution.
It benefits from the wealthiest, strongest economy the world has
ever seen. It has a free press and, thanks to the internet,
access to almost unlimited amounts of information. It has open
and free elections.

With all that, AND all the clear evidence of eight years of
criminally irresponsible mismanagement by Republicans, if enough
people still vote for McCain and Palin to elect them, then those
people (and the country, frankly) will get exactly what they deserve.

Yes, the lower and middle classes will continue to decline while
the rich get richer. Yes, the country's standing in the world
will continue to sink, and its security continue to erode. But
really, folks will have asked for it. They will practically have
begged for it, willingly, fervently..... more of the same,
cynically packaged as "hockey moms" & "reform" & "shaking up
Washington".

OK. It will be tragic, sure, but in no way unjust.

- JR


it is so odd that so many won't recognize the political duping going on...

mccain says he wants to end partisan rancor just hours after his shrill
chosen running mate gives a partisan, rancorous speech. he was against
bush's tax cuts, but now says they should be made permanent. he was
against anwr and off-shore drilling, now he's for it. he attacked tv
preachers as agents of intolerance, now he is chummy with the religious
right and curries their support. he sponsored an immigration reform bill
that he now says he would vote against. he was against physical torture,
but refuses to vote to outlaw it. he spouts the need for energy reform
but repeatedly fails to participate in necessary actions to extend tax
credits or to support the green industry. he claims the desire for
running a high-minded, principled campaign but engages in the typical
mud-slinging. he has shown an ineptness in public statements that belie
his claims of experience.

he's not a bad guy, perhaps...but he's just more of the same...only worse.

jeff

On Sep 6, 9:21*am, jeff miller wrote:
it is so odd that so many won't recognize the political duping going on....


... and another side of that:

The Resentment Strategy
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Can the super-rich former governor of Massachusetts — the son of a
Fortune 500 C.E.O. who made a vast fortune in the leveraged-buyout
business — really keep a straight face while denouncing “Eastern
elites”?

Can the former mayor of New York City, a man who, as USA Today put it,
“marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived
temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu” — that was between
his second and third marriages — really get away with saying that
Barack Obama doesn’t think small towns are sufficiently
“cosmopolitan”?

Can the vice-presidential candidate of a party that has controlled the
White House, Congress or both for 26 of the past 28 years, a party
that, Borg-like, assimilated much of the D.C. lobbying industry into
itself — until Congress changed hands, high-paying lobbying jobs were
reserved for loyal Republicans — really portray herself as running
against the “Washington elite”?

Yes, they can.

On Tuesday, He Who Must Not Be Named — Mitt Romney mentioned him just
once, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin not at all — gave a video address
to the Republican National Convention. John McCain, promised President
Bush, would stand up to the “angry left.” That’s no doubt true. But
don’t be fooled either by Mr. McCain’s long-ago reputation as a
maverick or by Ms. Palin’s appealing persona: the Republican Party,
now more than ever, is firmly in the hands of the angry right, which
has always been much bigger, much more influential and much angrier
than its counterpart on the other side.

What’s the source of all that anger?

Some of it, of course, is driven by cultural and religious conflict:
fundamentalist Christians are sincerely dismayed by Roe v. Wade and
evolution in the curriculum. What struck me as I watched the
convention speeches, however, is how much of the anger on the right is
based not on the claim that Democrats have done bad things, but on the
perception — generally based on no evidence whatsoever — that
Democrats look down their noses at regular people.

Thus Mr. Giuliani asserted that Wasilla, Alaska, isn’t “flashy enough”
for Mr. Obama, who never said any such thing. And Ms. Palin asserted
that Democrats “look down” on small-town mayors — again, without any
evidence.

What the G.O.P. is selling, in other words, is the pure politics of
resentment; you’re supposed to vote Republican to stick it to an elite
that thinks it’s better than you. Or to put it another way, the G.O.P.
is still the party of Nixon.

One of the key insights in “Nixonland,” the new book by the historian
Rick Perlstein, is that Nixon’s political strategy throughout his
career was inspired by his college experience, in which he got himself
elected student body president by exploiting his classmates’
resentment against the Franklins, the school’s elite social club.
There’s a direct line from that student election to Spiro Agnew’s
attacks on the “nattering nabobs of negativism” as “an effete corps of
impudent snobs,” and from there to the peculiar cult of personality
that not long ago surrounded George W. Bush — a cult that celebrated
his anti-intellectualism and made much of the supposed fact that the
“misunderestimated” C-average student had proved himself smarter than
all the fancy-pants experts.

And when Mr. Bush turned out not to be that smart after all, and his
presidency crashed and burned, the angry right — the raging rajas of
resentment? — became, if anything, even angrier. Humiliation will do
that.

Can Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin really ride Nixonian resentment into an
upset election victory in what should be an overwhelmingly Democratic
year? The answer is a definite maybe.

By selecting Barack Obama as their nominee, the Democrats may have
given Republicans an opening: the very qualities that inspire many
fervent Obama supporters — the candidate’s high-flown eloquence, his
coolness factor — have also laid him open to a Nixonian backlash.
Unlike many observers, I wasn’t surprised at the effectiveness of the
McCain “celebrity” ad. It didn’t make much sense intellectually, but
it skillfully exploited the resentment some voters feel toward Mr.
Obama’s star quality.

That said, the experience of the years since 2000 — the memory of what
happened to working Americans when faux-populist Republicans
controlled the government — is still fairly fresh in voters’ minds.
Furthermore, while Democrats’ supposed contempt for ordinary people is
mainly a figment of Republican imagination, the G.O.P. really is the
Gramm Old Party — it really does believe that the economy is just
fine, and the fact that most Americans disagree just shows that we’re
a nation of whiners.

But the Democrats can’t afford to be complacent. Resentment, no matter
how contrived, is a powerful force, and it’s one that Republicans are
very, very good at exploiting.

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:58:17 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:

On Sep 6, 10:52*am, JR wrote:
Our generation was born with the gift of the U.S. Constitution.
It benefits from the wealthiest, strongest economy the world has
ever seen. It has a free press and, thanks to the internet,
access to almost unlimited amounts of information. It has open
and free elections.

With all that, AND all the clear evidence of eight years of
criminally irresponsible mismanagement by Republicans, if enough
people still vote for McCain and Palin to elect them, then those
people (and the country, frankly) will get exactly what they deserve.

Yes, the lower and middle classes will continue to decline while
the rich get richer. Yes, the country's standing in the world
will continue to sink, and its security continue to erode. But
really, folks will have asked for it. They will practically have
begged for it, willingly, fervently..... more of the same,
cynically packaged as "hockey moms" & "reform" & "shaking up
Washington".

OK. *It will be tragic, sure, but in no way unjust.

- JR

Not unjust. The Tyranny of the masses.

Or as someone else once , people get the government they deserve.

--riverman
Yeah yeah yeah... so they say. But is it the government my two sons
deserve?
I deserve it because I didn't walk into the Swedish immigration
office in Stockholm and ask for asylum when I was there when I was 18.
But my kids are innocent (for kids) and don't deserve to be potential
neo-con cannon fodder.

Geo. C.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:56:37 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:58:17 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:



OK. *It will be tragic, sure, but in no way unjust.

- JR

Not unjust. The Tyranny of the masses.

Or as someone else once , people get the government they deserve.

--riverman
Yeah yeah yeah... so they say. But is it the government my two sons
deserve?
I deserve it because I didn't walk into the Swedish immigration
office in Stockholm and ask for asylum when I was there when I was 18.

Typical "liberal" position - "I deserve a reward because I _didn't_ do
whatever..." Did you offer your sons a cookie if they didn't throw a
tantrum? Do you/will you give them money if the don't rob liquor
stores? You don't "deserve" **** because of what you didn't do.

But OK, what has Obama done to deserve being POTUS? I've asked every
Obama supporter or even mere fan on ROFF and not gotten a single
objective explanation of _anything_ the man has _ever_ done that
qualifies him to POTUS. Oh, I've gotten "he has a PLAN!!" and "Obama
will quote myriad promises..." and "he isn't Bush...," but thus far,
not so much as a "After doing some comparison shopping, he initiated the
switch in the Obama household from brand name to store brand chicken
noodle soup, thereby saving his family of big chicken noodle soup
consumers an estimated $23.00USD per annum."

But my kids are innocent (for kids) and don't deserve to be potential
neo-con cannon fodder.

What kind of cannon fodder do you prefer them to be...?

Geo. C.

And there you are,
R

wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:56:37 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:58:17 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:


OK. It will be tragic, sure, but in no way unjust.

- JR
Not unjust. The Tyranny of the masses.

Or as someone else once , people get the government they deserve.

--riverman
Yeah yeah yeah... so they say. But is it the government my two sons
deserve?
I deserve it because I didn't walk into the Swedish immigration
office in Stockholm and ask for asylum when I was there when I was 18.

Typical "liberal" position - "I deserve a reward because I _didn't_ do
whatever..." ...

Huh ? Did you deliberately misread George's post are where you
taught creationism in science class ? ;-)

So tell us Rick, what have you ever done to deserve the many
advantages you have other than be born to the right parents ?

And there you are,

Well, there *you* are, most of the rest of us had to work for it.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 07:04:57 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:56:37 -0500, George Cleveland
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:58:17 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:


OK. It will be tragic, sure, but in no way unjust.

- JR
Not unjust. The Tyranny of the masses.

Or as someone else once , people get the government they deserve.

--riverman
Yeah yeah yeah... so they say. But is it the government my two sons
deserve?
I deserve it because I didn't walk into the Swedish immigration
office in Stockholm and ask for asylum when I was there when I was 18.

Typical "liberal" position - "I deserve a reward because I _didn't_ do
whatever..." ...

Huh ? Did you deliberately misread George's post are where you
taught creationism in science class ? ;-)

Huh, right back at ya? If I understand the first part, no, I didn't
misread anything. He said:

" I deserve it because I didn't..."

So tell us Rick, what have you ever done to deserve the many
advantages you have other than be born to the right parents ?

I have no obligation to explain, much less justify, anything to anyone
here for a number of reasons, and chief among them in this case is
because I'm not running for POTUS, nor asking anyone to vote or
otherwise support me in such an endeavor, nor have I claimed that I
deserve anything.

And there you are,

Well, there *you* are, most of the rest of us had to work for it.

I suspect that I work at least as much, if not more, on things at least
as mentally and physically difficult, if not more so, and do so for a
longer period of time, on most days than many of "the rest of 'us'" and
have for many years. But I know that such stuff has no instant
relevance because, again, I'm not running for POTUS nor am I claiming to
deserve anything.

And there we are,
R

wrote in message
...
I suspect that I work at least as much, if not more, on things at least
as mentally and physically difficult, if not more so, and do so for a
longer period of time, on most days than many of "the rest of 'us'" and
have for many years.

speaking of mentally difficult, reading this sentence required that I spike
my morning coffee(hell, I'm allowed, it's my birthday.....)! And, to think,
I figured that I'd mastered the 'run-on sentence'!!vbseg
Tom