OT The right man for a perilous moment

The Washington Post got it right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101603436.html

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:13:52 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

The Washington Post got it right.

They absolutely did.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101603436.html

Here's the condensed version:

"Obama has a very thin resume and no executive experience, but he is the
right man because he tells us what we want to hear and gives us feelings
up our leg. McCain is the wrong man mainly because he picked Palin, who
has a very thin resume and a mere hint of executive experience, and
while we (especially our female staff) wish Sarah would let us feel up
her leg, McCain doesn't give us guilty white whiny-assed "liberals" the
warm-n-fuzzies we hold so very dear..."

The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"

And no, McCain is not that man, either.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The Washington Post got it right.

They absolutely did.
snip
The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"

And the answer is, "Of course not." If a person like that were
electable Adlai Stevenson would have been President. And Al Gore.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

The Washington Post got it right.


They absolutely did.
snip
The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"


And the answer is, "Of course not." If a person like that were
electable Adlai Stevenson would have been President. And Al Gore.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against Gore
in 2000.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"

And the answer is, "Of course not." If a person like that were
electable Adlai Stevenson would have been President. And Al Gore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against Gore
in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

wrote:

The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or
she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The
only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"


And the answer is, "Of course not." If a person like that were
electable Adlai Stevenson would have been President. And Al Gore.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.


You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though you
voted for him?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though you
voted for him?

I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate. Not
only did I not expect Nader to win, I would have been appalled
had he done so. So yeah, I voted for his party but I didn't
support him.

This is all about ballot access and electoral math, feel free
to use a calculator if you're having trouble understanding the
concept.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:13:03 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The Washington Post got it right.

They absolutely did.
snip
The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"

And the answer is, "Of course not." If a person like that were
electable Adlai Stevenson would have been President. And Al Gore.

Al "Gulfstream V" Gore?! Al "Hey, my huge-assed house isn't THAT big
and besides, what with "green" technology, our daily consumption is only
a little more than an Obama speech at a stadium" Gore?! Al "Do as I
say, not as I do" Gore?! _That_ Al Gore?! South Park got it right.
"PIGBEARMAN! PIGBEARMAN!...where's my cape?" and of course "...thi tuk
mah ja-a-ab..."

IAC, I can put the lid on Go Madonna agrees with everything he
says...QED.

As to Adlai Stevenson, I'm pretty sure he won't be announcing his
campaign for anything in the foreseeable future...

HTH,
R

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:52:30 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though you
voted for him?

I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate. Not
only did I not expect Nader to win, I would have been appalled
had he done so. So yeah, I voted for his party but I didn't
support him.

Oh, now, go easy on him...I mean, Krugman wasn't far off...he's not only
like Nixon, he's like Rush Limpdick, too...he should be pitied, not
scorned...

This is all about ballot access and electoral math, feel free
to use a calculator if you're having trouble understanding the
concept.

Hmmm...I see what you're saying - it's about a fair system with free but
honest access, free of corruption and other things that would not only
cause objective damage but cause participants to lose faith in it...?

Glad I could help,
R

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

rw wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.


You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.


So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though
you voted for him?


I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate.

That would have been Ralph Nader; who, by the way, cost Gore the
election (with some help from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris).

Nader is running this year, too. Are you voting for him again?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.