Citizen's United II - the other foot

[kandrathe]

This kerfuffle is about two potential Hillary Clinton biopics. This is none of: unlimited third party funds, swiftboating, smearing, or libelling.

I was commenting on that which will be beyond the idyllic biopics.

However, political ads are, by their nature, combative. You are trying to convince people to vote for you rather than the other candidate. Sometimes, that means saying nasty things. I agree with you that lying is something no campaign should do, on basic ethical grounds. Nor should they support their proxies in lying. But that's an entirely different argument, which has nothing to do with unilateral disarmament in campaign finance. To make that clear: Parties can lie in any medium. Should they forsake them all, because they could conceivably be used badly?

It is the tension between successfully proving libel and slander in a court, versus the accelerated pace of the election cycle. It's much like the retraction in a newspaper, buried on page 7 that no ones sees. But, meanwhile, mission accomplished on the smear. I don't really have a good practical, constitutional solution. We either hold people to a higher standard of discourse, or we stifle speech.

His campaign staff included someone who toasts to John Wilkes Booth's birthday, right up until it became a major scandal. Is this really "ideologically sound"? Sounds like the same total inability to escape the lunatic, racist, sexist, homophobic fringe that has marked (or even defined) his father's career.

Campaign staff on both sides are frought with rabid insiders who come from legions of volunteers, and etc. But, a conservative shock jock like Jack Hunter or Hillary's aide Mark Penn, are people with pretty rabidly partisan histories. I mean, we've never even been allowed to read much of the President's written work either, which is strange for a someone attending Columbia who was pursuing writing. Then again, I burned my Comp 101 essay on "How to be a Good Cowboy" -- who was that 17 year old?

This is baffling. You hate coal. Presumably, that means there are good reasons to hate coal. And yet, when Obama goes after coal, you can't think of a possible reason for it, except to "score political points"? Maybe he hates it for some of the same reasons you do?

It could be and I'd hope it to be true. But, you don't change in 4 years what has been a mainstay industry over 150 years. You have industry, built upon industry and like a Jenga tower, it needs to be undone carefully, and thoughtfully. They need a publicly supported plan;

• Ensure the stability of generation costs
  
• Implement retraining programs for displaced workers
  
• Provide long term, low interest loans for conversion away from coal generation

Otherwise, the burden of these costs will fall onto those who can least afford it.

This pretty much sums up my position on coal, and clean coal technology. Coal is our tragedy of the commons. No society really consciously chooses to be showered with toxic poisons for a lifetime in exchange for a little energy today. I'm upset with many things our ancestors did to our environment, and there is little we can do to quickly repair it. But, I don't think it needs to be a knee jerk thing done to us quickly before the political winds shift. What we lack in the US, is any political discourse beyond the attention span of a 24/7 CNN news cycle. It's boring... We heard two sides argue... No easy answers... Move on.

On the practical side, gas seems to be coming online fast enough to make coal irrelevant in pretty short order.

With little organized government support for the transition from coal fired plants to NG. I think many in our government are opposed to replacing one CO2 emitter for another. But, these are the ecologically minded idealists who fail to understand the economic damage of a 30-50% reduction in power generation. Politically, its the modern day Marie Antoinette indifference to the suffering of the masses. And, with our global economy, the ripple effect extends to the desperately poor in the third world. Much like the morally bankrupt political support for ethanol, it drives up the costs of food for those who can least afford it. They suffer in order to de-facto prop up American farming subsidies and give feel good political cover for psuedo-environmental positions.

[Jester]

Campaign staff on both sides are frought with rabid insiders who come from legions of volunteers, and etc. But, a conservative shock jock like Jack Hunter or Hillary's aide Mark Penn, are people with pretty rabidly partisan histories. I mean, we've never even been allowed to read much of the President's written work either, which is strange for a someone attending Columbia who was pursuing writing.

The reaction to "Rand Paul's top aide thought the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was awesome" is "oh, well, Mark Penn! And what about all those things Obama might have written, if only we could read them?" This is false equivalence taken to a very high level indeed.

I mean, I *loathe* Mark Penn. But he's so far above neo-Confederate slavery apologists that they aren't even remotely comparable. Hunter's crime isn't that he's "partisan." It's that he is TOASTING the assassin of the man who ENDED SLAVERY. I'm all for historical nuance, but John Wilkes Booth? That's like toasting Osama Bin Laden, or Nicolas Ceaucescu - just perverse.

The innuendo about Obama is just strange, Glenn Beck-ish "question asking". Do you have any reason to suspect that this otherwise-reasonable individual has anything in his writings that even vaguely approach the kind of nuttery that goes on in the Rand Paul camp?

-Jester

Afterthought: In case we aren't clear about my larger argument here in the thread: The idea that "Oh, both sides are so bad, we must despair of all politics" is horsepuckey. It's intellectual laziness, freeing us from the obligations of evaluating politics and politicians on their own merits, and therefore, just maybe, supporting the better ones and eliminating the worse. You write: "It's boring... We heard two sides argue... No easy answers... Move on." and I can't agree more. But that's exactly what this thread seems like to me: For every Republican misdeed, we can find a Democratic one, and vice versa. Ergo, all politicians are slime, and we need some outside force (Rand Paul and the Libertarians?!?) to fix it.

[Hammerskjold]

I was commenting on that which will be beyond the idyllic biopics.

Do your intended point(s) a huge favor. Focus. Otherwise I'm more inclined to believe you're just playing the 'move the goal post' game, or otherwise 'baffle 'em with bovine droppings'.

Campaign staff on both sides are frought with rabid insiders who come from legions of volunteers, and etc. But, a conservative shock jock like Jack Hunter or Hillary's aide Mark Penn, are people with pretty rabidly partisan histories.

Let's drop the cutesy act. When someone gets caught stealing pudding, do they cry 'well Billy did it too!', more importantly, does anyone buy this kind of thing after kindergarten?

It's old and moldy at this point. 'I want to rant about team X, but to look fair-minded I'll throw in a small bone about team Y, then finish with a Team X -still- did such and such.'

It could be and I'd hope it to be true. But, you don't change in 4 years what has been a mainstay industry over 150 years. You have industry, built upon industry and like a Jenga tower, it needs to be undone carefully, and thoughtfully. They need a publicly supported plan;

• Ensure the stability of generation costs
  
• Implement retraining programs for displaced workers
  
• Provide long term, low interest loans for conversion away from coal generation

Otherwise, the burden of these costs will fall onto those who can least afford it.

Hmm, sounds like they need the help of -gasp-, government.

Though it sounds like govt interference and overreach if not outright social-ism. If using your own libertarian standards that is.

Really, at this point I'm wondering if Obama uses a fork to eat spaghetti, would his critics say that's a sign that he's a huge leftist socialist (fork on left hand side see!111) and he only does so for 'political points'?

I mean if you want to criticize Obama, there's legitimate cases. The drone war policy, electronic surveillance on your own and other countries citizens. Otherwise, this ' but if Obama\Leftist Liberazis does it...' tune starts to sound really churlish.

No society really consciously chooses to be showered with toxic poisons for a lifetime in exchange for a little energy today.

.....Yeah. You may need to check that idea(lism) vs what's reality on the ground. For all the talk and potshots of 'head in the clouds pseudo greenies'...well let's just say the granola munchers aren't the only ones who put on the occasional idealogue blinders on.

TL, DR:

I'll just steal Jester's afterthought.

The idea that "Oh, both sides are so bad, we must despair of all politics" is horsepuckey.

Though I'd tweak it as, but -their- side stole pudding as well!

edited for grammerz.

[kandrathe]

And, back to the biopic...

For certain people, extra scrutiny is bad. That is, until someone emerges as the "new media darling" that they all suddenly find can do no wrongs.

In the wake of CU, I remain suspicious of all political speech as propaganda, half truths, lies and or smear campaigns. I am not optimistic that the general public will invest the time to do their own homework.

To respond to your attempt to crawl into my head;

The reaction to "Rand Paul's top aide thought the assassination of Abraham Lincoln was awesome" is "oh, well, Mark Penn! And what about all those things Obama might have written, if only we could read them?" This is false equivalence taken to a very high level indeed.

I was not trying to make an equivelance. And... he was not "top aide". Former campaign social media aide in Kentucky... I intentionally refrain from both liberal and conservative media (radio and tv), because it's about entertainment and base rallying. I don't know all the context of Mr. Hunter's comments, his rationale and exactly how serious he was as opposed to titillating his audience. I've been sent to the South at times for work, which as a "yankee" is challenging to break the "good ol' boys network". I see less racism there than where I live, probably because here there are fewer and tend to be very economically segregated to an urban ghetto. In fact, if you pulled apart our average levels of economic and educational attainment disparity by race you'd see our gaps are probably among the worst in the nation AND we are a bastion of DFL politics. How can the DFL here be so racist? I see exactly how institutional racism works, because it is rampant in Minnesota. I know exactly why our justice system is biased, because I see it happen here every day.

For the confederacy, the assassination of Lincoln was ultimately a retaliation for the attempted assassination of Jefferson Davis by Ulric Dahlgren, so the Union failed its attempt. Not every discussion of the merits of the Confederacy position is a vote for bringing back the days of slavery. We can objectively look at history without resorting to that kind of black and white thinking. The victors write the history -- so, it's worthwhile to step away from it to look at other possible points of view. For example, here.

Lincoln made some brutal decisions I would not have, and again, I'm far removed from understanding the standards of warfare that were acceptable at that time.

I don't believe the Northern rationale for the war was to stop slavery -- but rather to prevent the South from seceding creating economic havoc for the North. The Southern rationale for the Civil war was an economy built on cheap cotton, (made possible by Eli Whitney and slaves), States Rights, the "Missouri compromise", Kansas-Nebraska Act and the unbalance of pro-slave versus anti-slave states, religiously driven abolitionists (Dred Scott, John Brown, Fugitive Slave Act, etc.) and the election of Abraham Lincoln with only 40% of the very polarized popular vote (and split 4 ways). It's too simple to distill it to "slavery", which was the core divide. The cause of the civil war was horrible polarity in the politics, without acceptable compromises. In the end, all sides lost, the promises were broken and black southerners suffered almost 100 years under segregation and Jim Crow until the civil rights movement in the 1960's.

I mean, I *loathe* Mark Penn. But he's so far above neo-Confederate slavery apologists that they aren't even remotely comparable. Hunter's crime isn't that he's "partisan." It's that he is TOASTING the assassin of the man who ENDED SLAVERY. I'm all for historical nuance, but John Wilkes Booth? That's like toasting Osama Bin Laden, or Nicolas Ceaucescu - just perverse.

Hunter's "crime" is that he's a shock jock, and pandering wannabe journalist who glommed onto traditional conservative southern memes. I was raised in an era where in primary school we learned that all the US presidents were heroes. My higher education has tarnished their halos, and specifically that of Lincoln (who was as racist as Booth). Lincoln did not end the misery of southern former slaves, and in many, many ways made their suffering manifold.

How much time have you spent with southerners (east of the Mississippi)? If we want to pursue guilt by association, we could get into Chris Hightowers Myspace page too (who seems to have been more of a KKK thug). I could fathom why southerners who study the *real* facts of our civil war could find Booth more of a patriot and Lincoln a villain. Booth is reprehensible to me, but I'm not a son of the south either.

The bottom line is that you think Rand Paul is a racist. Because, of all the people who he's enlisted in his campaign, we've found some associates who are sullied by their past. Bill Clinton isn't a racist. I think we need to get past the scorched earth politics if we ever want to resolve racial issues.

The innuendo about Obama is just strange, Glenn Beck-ish "question asking". Do you have any reason to suspect that this otherwise-reasonable individual has anything in his writings that even vaguely approach the kind of nuttery that goes on in the Rand Paul camp?

Like "nuttery" is exclusive to the "Rand Paul Camp"? I was merely reflecting that we have all said / written things we'd probably have edited or redacted with some hind sight. It appears to me that Obama either has none, or is unwilling to share anything before he published his life story as a means to further his political aims. I've read exactly one anti-Reagan, anti-defense build up article Obama wrote in college. Surely there was more. It's just odd that you resort to analysis of the ancient writings of an ousted campaign aide for Rand Paul on the one hand, but are unwilling to wonder about the ancient writings of the ACTUAL politicians. I just find they are sanitized and packaged -- to do any level of investigative journalism on their past is touted as "an evil". Unless it's about your candidates opponent, then its good investigative journalism. I was against Obama from the beginning, due to his inexperience, which was what got Bill Clinton labeled as a racist, and now with his two term record of war mongering I'm even more against him. I believe we know very little about the real Barrak Obama.

Afterthought: In case we aren't clear about my larger argument here in the thread: The idea that "Oh, both sides are so bad, we must despair of all politics" is horsepuckey. It's intellectual laziness, freeing us from the obligations of evaluating politics and politicians on their own merits, and therefore, just maybe, supporting the better ones and eliminating the worse.

No. But, *I* do despair and feel "caught in the middle" of two dysfunctional camps who unfortunately wield the money machines that produce our political candidates. Both sides are bad, and have skeletons, or should I say inevitably, all sides are bad. When you bring out a lout like Mr. Hunter, I feel it is only fair to point out that all sides have issues. There is plenty of skeletons in Hillary's associates closet -- which was all I was implying. I'm not even really sure anymore how many former Clinton (or Bush, or Reagan for that matter) associates have done jail time. Is scapegoated a verb? You are free to despair or not as you choose. I just tend to look at the field of potential leader material and... despair.

You write: "It's boring... We heard two sides argue... No easy answers... Move on." and I can't agree more. But that's exactly what this thread seems like to me: For every Republican misdeed, we can find a Democratic one, and vice versa. Ergo, all politicians are slime, and we need some outside force (Rand Paul and the Libertarians?!?) to fix it.

I was reflecting on the CNN news cycle, not my view. We never get to dialog, only scorched earth tactics where both sides yell, but never find any common ground. That is not how I think society should work. I think we should start by listening to what other people are saying, even when it's people we don't like such as Jack Hunter, or Mark Penn. Then, we rebut them. I feel both sides err on racial reconciliation in the US. Those who had the unfair advantage need to acknowledge their decades of unfair advantage, and seek forgiveness -- and the other side needs to be willing to forgive the past. Yes, racism will still exist, but every well publicized incident is not further proof of the complacency of all.

In this too, we are being ruled by fear.

[kandrathe]

Do your intended point(s) a huge favor. Focus. Otherwise I'm more inclined to believe you're just playing the 'move the goal post' game, or otherwise 'baffle 'em with bovine droppings'.

I thought we WERE talking about CU, which just happened to involve the Hillary biopics. So... I think it is on topic to comment on our imminent explosion of corporate funded political infomercials.

Let's drop the cutesy act. When someone gets caught stealing pudding, do they cry 'well Billy did it too!', more importantly, does anyone buy this kind of thing after kindergarten?
It's old and moldy at this point. 'I want to rant about team X, but to look fair-minded I'll throw in a small bone about team Y, then finish with a Team X -still- did such and such.'

Or how about we stop trying to trash a people by digging up alleged dirt about their alleged associates, and then narrowly defining that as REPREHENSIBLE!!!

Hmm, sounds like they need the help of -gasp-, government. Though it sounds like govt interference and overreach if not outright social-ism. If using your own libertarian standards that is.

Yes, they do. If you outlaw fishing, it is only fair to allow the fishermen to get their boats to shore or give them a ride.

Really, at this point I'm wondering if Obama uses a fork to eat spaghetti, would his critics say that's a sign that he's a huge leftist socialist (fork on left hand side see!111) and he only does so for 'political points'?

Does he?

I mean if you want to criticize Obama, there's legitimate cases. The drone war policy, electronic surveillance on your own and other countries citizens. Otherwise, this ' but if Obama\Leftist Liberazis does it...' tune starts to sound really churlish.

Those are well publicized, yes. It's the use of executive branch, and executive orders and much of the stuff that doesn't make the news that may hurt us harder economically inside the US (and then ripple out from here).

.....Yeah. You may need to check that idea(lism) vs what's reality on the ground. For all the talk and potshots of 'head in the clouds pseudo greenies'...well let's just say the granola munchers aren't the only ones who put on the occasional idealogue blinders on.

It's hard for me to be the optimist I am at heart when I'm soooo cynical. Our trouble here is that we have silos, like the EPA, who think they are doing really epic good things, and they are, within the myopia of their mission. Now, let's go over to the Dept of Economic Development and ask them. Maybe our silos are working at odds? That's all I'm getting at. And... the psuedo greenie I had in mind when I wrote that was our former governor Pawlenty. Yep. Craven.

[Jester]

[EDITED]

Oof. That was too long and fragmented by about a million times. Shorter:

1) You've got to be kidding me about Barack Obama.

2) You've got to be kidding me about Jack Hunter.

3) You've got to be kidding me about Rand Paul.

3) You've got to be kidding me about John Wilkes Booth.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

[EDITED]

Oof. That was too long and fragmented by about a million times. Shorter:

Thanks... I was trying to figure out how to respond.

1) You've got to be kidding me about Barack Obama.

I assume you mean about me considering him still a bit of an enigma. I guess with most other politicians who've sought the presidency, they've come with a track record. I just haven't seen too much on Obama prior to his partial US Senate term.

2) You've got to be kidding me about Jack Hunter.

Look. What he wrote when he was "The Southern Avenger" is despicable and you may be right that deep down he's still a closet racist. The only part I was comparing to Mark Penn, was in Penn's failed "xenophobic / racist" lunatic strategy he advised for Hillary against Obama. The rejected and failed primary strategy that was then employed by Fox news during the election portraying Obama as a non-American outsider who attends an outrageous church, with dubious connections to shady people in his past. If I'm equivocating, it is just that all candidates make bad decisions in associations, and some are worse than others. Should Rezko's stink fall on Obama, no. But, even Obama called association with Rezko "boneheaded".

3) You've got to be kidding me about Rand Paul.

Ok, here I'm not sure to what you are referring. Perhaps its just that it seems obvious you think Rand Paul is a racist. I just reject the notion that some constitutionalist ideas, like "states rights" are always code for KKK, white supremacy, bringing back slavery. This is what I originally meant by saying that sometimes his ideological pondering gets in the way of realistic legislation, and political coalition building. It's his way of putting his foot in his mouth.

4) You've got to be kidding me about John Wilkes Booth.

Most of my life I've been led to think of JWB as a horrible, horrible assassin. Not much time is given in American History to attempt to understand what motivated Booth, or other southern "patriots"*. Yes, slavery was a core issue. Economically, it is similar to our current issue attempting to ban coal use. And, I will note here that people are not like inanimate things -- the inhumanity of slavery (including what is happening now) can never compare to the inanimate machinery and fuels of production. Abolitionists (and I would say green energy advocates) ARE morally correct, but I would disagree on the drastic and rushed actions they employed at that time. The political process is one of negotiating, debating, and compromising to reach as broad a consensus as is possible. From my studies I would say that the South declared secession from the union which they felt was their prerogative as a member of a republic of confederates. The North began the war with an attack at Fort Sumter. I believe it would have been a better course to ignore the southern secession, and continue to negotiate rather than go to war (with 620,000 killed). Lincoln, and the Republicans needed to better sell a path forward that eventually eliminated slavery, and lifted everyone to equality. Most importantly, it would have been the best course for black southerners to not destroy the south and figure out a better way to integrate them equally into American society. That was not Lincoln's plan.

* Using the term "patriot" here will be off putting for those who think JWB is a horrible, horrible assassin. For me, in analyzing historical people and their behaviors, historical context matters (i.e. the execution of Phoebe Harris). You mentioned OBL. This is apt, for he has a large number of people across the Islamic world who find he was more "patriot" than horrible, horrible terrorist mastermind. So, we may see JWB as a horrible, horrible assassin, but maybe also rightly, many southerners saw Lincoln as the guy who commanded the armies who burned their cities and towns, plundered their houses and fields, raped their women, killed thousands of civilians, vilified them, and made them suffer for generations paying for reconstruction and providing pensions for northern soldiers. There was plenty of horror for both sides of that war. Often it is our inhumanity that makes people like JWB and OBL.

[shoju]

Here, let's put this all to bed. It doesn't matter who or what does or says about ms. Clinton.

Why? Because the next election is mine.

I will be of Presidential age
I am of citizenship qualifications
I have the best platform of all of them.
I plan to make sure that my lies are completely obvious right up front.
I plan to use a LOT of sarcasm
I'll put my dirty laundry out there in the open right off the bat.

I'm sure to win.

[kandrathe]

I'm sure to win.

Here is your plan;

1) Write an inspiring book of your lifelong hardships.
2) Invest book proceeds into Presidential Campaign
3) Become President
...
N) Profits!!!

[eppie]

Here, let's put this all to bed. It doesn't matter who or what does or says about ms. Clinton.

Why? Because the next election is mine.

I will be of Presidential age
I am of citizenship qualifications
I have the best platform of all of them.
I plan to make sure that my lies are completely obvious right up front.
I plan to use a LOT of sarcasm
I'll put my dirty laundry out there in the open right off the bat.

I'm sure to win.

And here you have some campaigning tips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg

(this was actually copied 1 on 1 of a real mayoral debate in Kansas)

Q: *what are you planning to do about crime*
A: 'A lot! because that's what Jesus wants.'

[Jester]

I guess with most other politicians who've sought the presidency, they've come with a track record. I just haven't seen too much on Obama prior to his partial US Senate term.

Well, there are those five years as president of the United States. We don't need to guess anymore. It's not 2008.

Look. What he wrote when he was "The Southern Avenger" is despicable and you may be right that deep down he's still a closet racist.

Deep down? He was, quite literally, cosplaying the confederacy. And that was in the last few years, not in some distant, misguided youth.

Mark Penn...

I can only reiterate that I hate Mark Penn. But there's shady strategy, and there's the belief that the wrong side won the Civil War. This gap appears enormous to me.

Perhaps its just that it seems obvious you think Rand Paul is a racist.

I suspect he's exactly like his father - not a racist per se, but someone whose support base, and even some close advisors, contain racists, sexists, homophobes, neo-confederates, and yes, even white supremacists. And who downplays or ignores, rather than actively confronts, this rather substantial fact.

The North began the war with an attack at Fort Sumter.

*blink*

You mean... the SOUTH began the war with an attack at Fort Sumter, right? Fort Sumter was held by Union troops, not Confederates.

I believe it would have been a better course to ignore the southern secession, and continue to negotiate rather than go to war (with 620,000 killed). Lincoln, and the Republicans needed to better sell a path forward that eventually eliminated slavery, and lifted everyone to equality. Most importantly, it would have been the best course for black southerners to not destroy the south and figure out a better way to integrate them equally into American society.

I don't believe any of this is historically plausible. It was abundantly clear that the South was not interested in any political path that led to the abolition of slavery, and had fought tooth and nail for a half-century to ensure that pro-slave states at least maintained the ability to filibuster. When it finally looked like there was a candidate who might actually accomplish abolition by political bargain, they went to war.

Now, tell me, in what universe are these slave states, who were willing to tear apart the United States and start the bloodiest war in the Americas, going to compromise, and just accept modest compensation and gradual abolition? This is nothing more than a story that neo-Confederates tell themselves to somehow allay the obvious: that the slaveowners were not going to accept abolition, and were willing to fight to preserve slavery, not sovereignty.

Often it is our inhumanity that makes people like JWB and OBL.

Every tyrant and terrorist has a sob story of how they and theirs were mistreated, and therefore, why it's perfectly okay, even necessary, to [shoot lincoln, crash planes into buildings, invade poland]. A victim myth is always part of the appeal.

-Jester

[eppie]

Often it is our inhumanity that makes people like JWB and OBL.

Even I think you should not compare GWB with OBL.

[shoju]

Here, let's put this all to bed. It doesn't matter who or what does or says about ms. Clinton.

Why? Because the next election is mine.

I will be of Presidential age
I am of citizenship qualifications
I have the best platform of all of them.
I plan to make sure that my lies are completely obvious right up front.
I plan to use a LOT of sarcasm
I'll put my dirty laundry out there in the open right off the bat.

I'm sure to win.

And here you have some campaigning tips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg

(this was actually copied 1 on 1 of a real mayoral debate in Kansas)

Q: *what are you planning to do about crime*
A: 'A lot! because that's what Jesus wants.'

Yeah... that would be my downfall. My goal would be to make sure that the presidency, and as much government as I could ran sans religious influence, no matter what the religion.

My platform would be equality for all. No special treatment because of religion, or lack there of. No special treatment for religions. I'd solely be running on the idea that the federal government is not in the religious business.

I'd lose, and hard, because I have a rather isolationist approach to foreign policy, and a heavy handed ideology about what corporations should, and shouldn't be allowed to do with their "charitable" contributions. I'd piss off both sides of the aisle right proper for sure.

[Taem]

So you can lie your way into office and rub everyone's back on the way there for their vote, then when in office, do whatever the hell you actually intend, like all our president's do !

[kandrathe]

Well, there are those five years as president of the United States. We don't need to guess anymore. It's not 2008.

Yes, you are right. Ostensibly, Obama was an author before he went into politics. "Dreams of My Father" is a pretty well written book. I'd like to know what he wrote before it.

Deep down? He was, quite literally, cosplaying the confederacy. And that was in the last few years, not in some distant, misguided youth.

Is that unusual? It's pretty well known that this happens. Nor, would he be unusual as a Southern White person to support Confederate Leaders. Is it worthwhile to attempt understand those 52% of Southern White people, even when our beliefs are different? However, that history will never be undone. I can see where there would be fear in even revisiting this history in giving the racists new ammo for their cause.

I can only reiterate that I hate Mark Penn. But there's shady strategy, and there's the belief that the wrong side won the Civil War. This gap appears enormous to me.

You know how I stand on ANY war. It would not have been glorious for Lee to have marched through New York either. I just would ask, "How long could slavery have lasted in the South without the war?" and "What would a political reconciliation without a war have looked like?"

I suspect he's exactly like his father - not a racist per se, but someone whose support base, and even some close advisors, contain racists, sexists, homophobes, neo-confederates, and yes, even white supremacists. And who downplays or ignores, rather than actively confronts, this rather substantial fact.

I'm not sure how we'd stamp out the David Dukes of this world. In that they've chosen the lesser of evils from their perspective, I can't fault a candidate who has otherwise sound principles for the support of some scoundrels, and racists. There are many reasons why LP positions are attractive to that extreme element; 1) individual liberty 2) against foreign aid 3) less powerful federal government 4) military only for defense of the US -- And probably see it as a way to lock in the status quo which favors the current power structures. My position is more that the status quo is wrong, and federal legislation is needed to right some wrongs. That it is European power in the US was ultimately based upon the discovery doctrine (papal Bull 1452, Dum Diversas), and locked into US case law Johnson v. M'Intosh 1823 - it has dis-proportionally favored the conquerors and sanctioned abuses, like slavery.

The North began the war with an attack at Fort Sumter.

You mean... the SOUTH began the war with an attack at Fort Sumter, right? Fort Sumter was held by Union troops, not Confederates.

It was held by Union troops. It was in South Carolina. Maj. Anderson could have moved from Fort Moultrie north, but instead chose to occupy Fort Sumter. After four months of attempts to get the Union troops to leave peacfully, then South Carolina militia under Beauregard having exhausted negotiations with Maj. Anderson took the fort.

I don't believe any of this is historically plausible. It was abundantly clear that the South was not interested in any political path that led to the abolition of slavery, and had fought tooth and nail for a half-century to ensure that pro-slave states at least maintained the ability to filibuster. When it finally looked like there was a candidate who might actually accomplish abolition by political bargain, they went to war.

Went to war? Or chose to secede?

Now, tell me, in what universe are these slave states, who were willing to tear apart the United States and start the bloodiest war in the Americas, going to compromise, and just accept modest compensation and gradual abolition?

Why did every other European power eventually emancipate their slave colonies, and work to stop slave trading?

This is nothing more than a story that neo-Confederates tell themselves to somehow allay the obvious: that the slaveowners were not going to accept abolition, and were willing to fight to preserve slavery, not sovereignty.

Do they tell that story?

Every tyrant and terrorist has a sob story of how they and theirs were mistreated, and therefore, why it's perfectly okay, even necessary, to [shoot lincoln, crash planes into buildings, invade poland]. A victim myth is always part of the appeal.

In order for a squabble between individuals to escalate into a war, both sides need a reasonable cause to attract the opposing warriors. There are many "stories" between adversaries, and only the victors often gets written. I'm not a revisionist, only a seeker of truth. It requires a level of dispassion toward either sides cause. It was not as simple as Union vs Confederates, Confederates lost, the Union was right, and the Confederates were wrong.

[shoju]

So you can lie your way into office and rub everyone's back on the way there for their vote, then when in office, do whatever the hell you actually intend, like all our president's do !

But I'm thinking I'm going to take the lying to all new heights. I'm going for the most sarcastic, hyperbolic, insanity.

It's the only way that a poor guy like me has a chance.

Why should you vote for me? Because I don't KILL KITTENS! Every time you vote for (whoever my opponents are) their unpaid intern sacrifices a kitten in the name of all things unholy and infernal!

Me? I'm just over here, hanging with my friends. What? Why yes, I do have an eclectic group of friends. Yes. That really is the Old Spice Guy. And the Dos Equis Guy. And Joe Montana. And Nolan Ryan.

If you don't vote for me though, I'm going to tell Nolan you thought that Robin Ventura won that fight way back when. And.... Well... I don't know. He may be older, but I bet he could put you in a headlock and drops some uppercuts on your chin.

Yeah... I have no chance of winning. Ever.

[Jester]

You know how I stand on ANY war. It would not have been glorious for Lee to have marched through New York either. I just would ask, "How long could slavery have lasted in the South without the war?" and "What would a political reconciliation without a war have looked like?"

My best guess is that slavery would have endured about another 50 years without the civil war, and that the political bargains necessary to keep the South appeased politically, as their economic base drifted further and further from the productive frontier, would have been increasingly awful. There would likely have been no "reconciliation," just more of the same bitter free/slave state infighting that marked the early 19th century.

We don't have the benefit of clear counterfactuals. What we do know, is that the South bitterly and increasingly feared and opposed abolition, and went to war over it, despite being in a weaker position.

It was held by Union troops. It was in South Carolina.Maj. Anderson could have moved from Fort Moultrie north, but instead chose to occupy Fort Sumter. After four months of attempts to get the Union troops to leave peacfully, then South Carolina militia under Beauregard having exhausted negotiations with Maj. Anderson took the fort.

Until the South seceded, South Carolina was in the United States of America. Secesion was a choice of the South, and so was opening fire on Fort Sumter. They could have left it as a Gitmo-style enclave, if they really wanted to avoid war. But they didn't. The South seceded, then started the civil war, full stop.

Why did every other European power eventually emancipate their slave colonies, and work to stop slave trading?

An interesting question, and one which takes a great deal of time and history to answer. I think the majority case goes like this: Slavery was always a contentious and difficult system to maintain. Revolts were common enough, and the costs of slavery were often higher than the benefits, in most places in the world. Britain won the Napoleonic Wars, and afterwards, ruled the waves. Britain had colonies that did not profit much from slavery (too cold, too big, too far away, too populated), and a political culture that was slowly turning towards industry over slave trading. And so, using their navy, they began shutting down the international slave trade. Once the trade was abolished, slavery stopped being the international norm, and instead only persisted in the places where it was immensely profitable, and supported an entrenched ruling elite: Brazil, Cuba, and the Southern US.

The waves of immigration of the 1880s and 1900s would have also eroded the benefits of maintaining a slave class, relative to increasingly cheap free workers. But only slowly.

Brazil and Cuba abolished slavery in the 1880s. I can't say for sure, but I suspect it would have persisted in both countries until 1914, had the US maintained its own system. The fall of the Confederacy was an enormous blow against slavery, not just in the US.

Optimistically, then, 20-30 more years of slavery, to go by our existing models. Pessimistically, 50 or 60. Or, to make a realistic political economy story out of it: Whenever free states outvoted slave states in congress.

I'm not a revisionist, only a seeker of truth. It requires a level of dispassion toward either sides cause. It was not as simple as Union vs Confederates, Confederates lost, the Union was right, and the Confederates were wrong.

History is not a morality play. The North was not "right," nor the South "wrong." What is true, however, is that the South fought the war predominantly to preserve a racist system of slavery. To understand the South, in all its nuance, is a matter of truth, and in that, we are agreed.

But we are not talking about someone seeking understanding. We are talking about Jack "Southern Avenger" Hunter. That's a pretty dark period of history to be invoking. He is not a re-enactor, he is not an antiquarian or a history buff. He is pushing an ideology of racism in the present, not just trying to understand the past, as you keep suggesting. Anyone who accepts that kind of support, has lost mine, and I think, should have lost everyone's.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But we are not talking about someone seeking understanding. We are talking about Jack "Southern Avenger" Hunter. That's a pretty dark period of history to be invoking. He is not a re-enactor, he is not an antiquarian or a history buff. He is pushing an ideology of racism in the present, not just trying to understand the past, as you keep suggesting. Anyone who accepts that kind of support, has lost mine, and I think, should have lost everyone's.

We can agree on that too. His guilt is evident in his attempts to go back and expunge what he felt were shameful op-eds. I view him much like a college student activist who gets involved in the communist / world socialists -- protests, gets arrested fighting what they see as injustice. It is just that in this case, the world view is southern secession from the union, white dominance and once again flying the confederate flag. Once you espouse that type of viewpoint, it is hard to distance yourself from it without repudiating your former associates severely. I hope he does that.

[Jester]

We can agree on that too. His guilt is evident in his attempts to go back and expunge what he felt were shameful op-eds. I view him much like a college student activist who gets involved in the communist / world socialists -- protests, gets arrested fighting what they see as injustice. It is just that in this case, the world view is southern secession from the union, white dominance and once again flying the confederate flag. Once you espouse that type of viewpoint, it is hard to distance yourself from it without repudiating your former associates severely. I hope he does that.

Doesn't seem likely. What with him saying in 2011 that he was "still the southern avenger" and that it'll "always be okay to use that [to refer to him]." Again, this is not a youthful indiscretion. This is his current and constant ideology.

What responsibility does Rand Paul have? He certainly hasn't "severely repudiated" Hunter. He stood by him, then made mealymouthed "oh, I didn't really know" explanations, then finally switched to "can we change the question already, I don't want to look backwards".

Not exactly what you'd call a sharp denunciation. This sounds remarkably like his father's half-hearted responses to his own racist associations. I don't think that's a coincidence on either count. It's what happens when you actually rely on such allies for much of your support. There are racists, both self-aware and not, who are clamouring for a political voice and a champion. If you let yourself be that voice, you win a loyal, easily-organized following. But you also lose my support, probably forever.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

ranty rant about Obama, additional side blather that's only on topic if going by Beckian Board logic, ranty rant some more

I believe that you believe you're just talking about one, focused topic. But I have quite the trouble actually believing that when you end the first post with ' Or, my right to even reveal my thoughts here on this forum.'

Kinda reminds me of someone I saw on TV once...



Also, eppie unless you were trying to be humourous. JWB in this context, I'm guessing refers to John Wilkes Booth. Not GWB. Unless you meant his more obscure half Mexican Polish half brother, Gorge' Willikers Bukowski.